If Calvin Coolidge was the "Quiet President" and Millard Fillmore the "Wool-Carder President" (look it up!), what will GWB be remembered as?
(three suggestions and poll below)
I've got some ideas based on today's hideously self-serving speech. My first idea was the "Straw Man President." George (and Field Marshal Donald) love to mischaracterize any criticism in order to discredit it. Like today:
Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme.
And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.
Another favorite is the "Projection President". Check out these self-descriptions that he lobs at all manner of folk from other countries:
Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision.
In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.
Yet today, even in a speech that no doubt several other people wrote for him, his petulant persona reveals itself. Petulance is defined as "Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish. Contemptuous in speech or behavior." I think that whoever wrote the speech realized that they had to tap into the CIC's inner peevishness in order to sell his anger. Look at these diatribes (from the NYT transcription):
I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq, and that is their right, and I respect it. As president and commander in chief, I (accept ?) the responsibilities and the criticisms and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
[Aside: The "liberation" of Iraq? Talk about trying to rewrite history.]
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will.
[Aside: Politicians? What about Department of Justice Special Counsels, editorial boards of centrist and right-leaning newspapers, growing majorities of randomly polled citizens? Are you accusing all of these groups of aiding the enemy? Sure sounds like it!]
Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough.
[Aside: The going is already tough, and it has been that way for the troops for a long time. The question is what kind of support they want, hollow rhetoric as in your speech, or an honest account of why they are there and a clear set of objectives?]
In the end, I'm going to vote for petulance, simply because "contemptuous in speech or behavior" is just so close to a perfect description. But not to be undemocratic, I'll leave it up to the community: