George W. Bush, the Incompetent-In-Chief of the U.S.A. to the bitter end of his disastrous, criminal Presidency (via C&L; emphasis added):
And then some.
Now, I wonder whether Bush's BFF, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper was among those who "looked on in shock" or whether he was too busy restraining himself from actually cheering on his idol approvingly.
For some reason (cynicism here), I keep thinking of the First, Fourth and Fifth Principles of Incompetence here ... especially the Fifth Principle.
What do you think?
In any case, where Bush is concerned: looks like it is going to be a loooong goodbye tour to irrelevance indeed.
One more case in point:
Or this other one.
(It just never stops, does it?)
Incompetence to the bitter end indeed.
Once again - I told you so.
Yet, how I wish I'd be proven wrong ...
(Cross-posted from APOV)
The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private (G8) meeting with the words: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”Q.E.D.
He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.
And then some.
Now, I wonder whether Bush's BFF, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper was among those who "looked on in shock" or whether he was too busy restraining himself from actually cheering on his idol approvingly.
For some reason (cynicism here), I keep thinking of the First, Fourth and Fifth Principles of Incompetence here ... especially the Fifth Principle.
What do you think?
In any case, where Bush is concerned: looks like it is going to be a loooong goodbye tour to irrelevance indeed.
One more case in point:
The Bush administration, dismissing the recommendations of its top experts, rejected regulating the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming Friday, saying it would cripple the U.S. economy.Meanwhile:
Today, the EPA published its response to the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA — which mandated that the agency determine whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health — listing various ways to control emissions. In letters attached to the document, however, administration officials “disavow[ed] the document’s conclusions.” The Wall Street Journal reports:See also this gem and this one.In a letter accompanying the EPA document…Susan Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, bluntly disavowed the analysis, saying it relied on “untested legal theories” and “cannot be considered Administration policy or representative of the views of the Administration.”
Or this other one.
(It just never stops, does it?)
Incompetence to the bitter end indeed.
Once again - I told you so.
Yet, how I wish I'd be proven wrong ...
(Cross-posted from APOV)
