|
Softpanorama
(slightly skeptical)
Open Source Software Educational Society |
May the
source be with you,
but remember the KISS principle ;-)
|
Softpanorama Classic Series
Some have observed that individuals perform worse after being
promoted. The Peter Principle, which states that people are promoted
to their level of incompetence, suggests that something is
fundamentally misaligned in the promotion process. This view is
unnecessary and inconsistent with the data. Below, it is argued that
ability appears lower after promotion purely as a statistical
matter. Being promoted is evidence that a standard has been met.
Regression to the mean implies that future ability will be lower, on
average. Firms optimally account for the regression bias in making
promotion decisions, but the effect is never eliminated. Rather than
evidence of a mistake, the Peter Principle is a necessary
consequence of any promotion rule. Furthermore, firms that take it
into account appropriately adopt an optimal strategy. Usually, firms
inflate the promotion criterion to offset the Peter Principle
effect, and the more important is the transitory component relative
to total variation in ability, the larger the amount that the
standard is inflated. The same logic applies to other situations.
For example, it explains why movie sequels are worse than the
original film on which they are based and why second visits to
restaurants are less rewarding than the first.
Edward Lazear, Stanford University
in
The
Peter Principle: A Theory of Decline
|
The Peter Principle
by
Laurence J. Peter,
Raymond Hull (Contributor)
Library Binding (October 1996)
Buccaneer Books; ISBN: 1568491611
Along with
Parkinson's Law by C. Northcote Parkinson this is a "satirical
sociology" masterpiece. And despite being written before programmers became
a mass profession it is perfectly applicable to programming. It's a rather short and easy-to-read book that
consists of fictional stories about results of promotions in a typical
administrative and business hierarchies. Must read for any programmer or system
administrator with more than two year experience :-). Originally published in
1969 it coined the famous "The Peter Principle"
In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends
to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.
The concept is pretty universal and is related to the regression to the mean.
As authors aptly states "Competence, like truth, beauty and contact
lenses, is in the eye of the beholder. " In reality the performace
always has a transitional (random) component.
The end result is that stable companies are more likely to have incompetent
managers at many levels of the organizational structure whereas fast growing
companies may avert some implication of this principle at least temporary.
"Employees", as the author points out, "do not want to be incompetent", but when
management offers promotions that put the employees closer to their level of
incompetence, the employees have no way of knowing that ahead of time. After
all, if the offer is made it is because management "knows" the employee can do
the job competently on his/her present level. But the interesting side effect
observable in large and old organizations is
that such decision might be made by managers who are already at their
level of incompetence (Dilbert's PHB).
Another related phenomenon is called
Negative selection -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In
politics, negative selection is a process that
occurs in rigid
hierarchies, most notably
dictatorships.
The person on the top of the hierarchy, wishing to remain
in power forever, chooses his associates with the prime
criterion of incompetence - they must not be competent
enough to remove him from power. The associates do the same
with those below them in the hierarchy, and the hierarchy is
progressively filled with more and more incompetent people.
If the dictator sees that he is threathened nonetheless,
he will remove those that threaten him from their positions
- "purge" the hierarchy. Emptied positions in the hierarchy
are normally filled with people from below - those who were
less competent than their previous masters. So, over the
course of time, the hierarchy becomes less and less
effective. As this happens relatively often, once the
dictator dies, or is removed by some external influence,
what remains is a grossly ineffective hierarchy.
The Politburo of CPSU of the USSR was the impressive example of negative
selection. If Khrushchev was just marginally incompetent, inaptness of
Gorbachyov was legendary and his inability to master Russian language rivaled
Bush II. Like Bushisms, "Gorbachvisms" make his a laughing stock for most
of the population.
Some of the short stories are not only funny, they might well be based on
true events. Actually the message of some stories is dead serious: pyramid
climbing is a dangerous sport and that's is exactly true in computer
programming. Incompetent IS managers is too serious problem to ignore. This book
also served as a cornerstone for Dilbert series which is a cartoon classic.
The book helps you to withstand the pressure and the absurd of the
software development and IS in general.
Finally understand the roots of incompetence in higher ranks, February
10, 2000
Reviewer: A reader from USA
The author hit the nail on the head when he discovered this principle! After
years of pondering whether it's just me or if there really is such a thing as
companies with huge percentages of incompetent managers, I finally feel
relieved to know that I was not 'just imagining' things. The book made me
take a hard look at myself and question whether I had reached my own level of
incompetence, and based on the case studies in the book I started analyzing
what WOULD make me reach my level. One thing I would have like to read more
about is how those of us who have not yet reached their level of
incompetence, can better manage the struggle with those who have reached
their level and make our work days miserable.
Understanding why we as a nation fail so much, January 22, 2000
Reviewer:
Jimmy P Ledbetter (see more about me) from Ridgecrest USA
I read the Peter Principle years ago and have read through it frequently ever
since. My first time was while still in the military and it explained to me,
a great deal of the things I saw go wrong. It left an impression upon me that
lasted throughout my career and which still helps me today. It explained
clearly why I was so frustrated with the way things had begun to deteriorate
so badly once I was into the second half of my career. And it helped me to
make certain career choices that I still believe to day were the most
beneficial decision I could have made at the time, and I was glad I had that
knowledge to consider.
Dr. Laurence and his associates hit the nail right on the
head in describing the failing principles, due to the Peter Principle of our
Political system, our Judicial System, and much more. On the whole we do
promote to incompetence and it is our number one failing.
From the military point of view there are quite a few
additional contributing factors, all Peter Principle related, which resulted
in a decline in the American Military. Which include the radical feminist
movement, promoting for gender rather than merit, the radical quota
promotions, promoting by race, rather than merit, and our leader's failure to
stand firm for core values.
The up or out policy is the epitome of the Peter Principle,
as is the guaranteed promotion policy, and the reenlistment bonus program
which has been a great failure. Of course this book applies to all walks of
life and even applies to our Present White House occupant and many of our
congressional members. And will apply to many of those running for political
office today.
The Peter Principle is a must read for the student of our
American social, political and judicial decline and what horror is in store
for us in the twenty first century if we do not recognize the beast and kill
it before it becomes unstoppable, which it may already be. A great read.
[May 19, 2003]
Talking Shop
What the management-level job requires in skills
In his
bestseller, The Peter Principle, Dr. Lawrence J. Peter theorized
that in a hierarchy, employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence.
His view is that you will advance to your highest level of competence and
consequently get promoted to a position where you will be hopelessly inept.
If you're a proficient and effective tech support pro, you're most likely
demonstrating peak competence in your job right now. Very soon, your boss
may commend you for your excellence and valuable contribution to your
organization, and, to reward you for your efforts, favorably endorse your
promotion to an executive position. But is the managerial level right for
you? Or are you getting set up to be a statistic supporting the Peter
Principle?
Before you deliberate on which company car will go well with your new upper
management title, consider the career shift tips and insights we gathered
from three former-techs-turned-managers. Here are the realities you need to
consider, along with steps you need to take, to ensure that your promotion
from tech to manager doesn't raise you to your level of incompetence.
The Peter
Principle Proven
In case you've ever wondered why ignorance rises to the executive level,
here is a simple explanation that is also a mathematical proof:
Knowledge is Power.
Time is Money.
And, as every actuary (with some physics training) knows:
Work
---------- = Power
Time
So, if
Knowledge = Power
and
Time = Money
then through simple substitutions,
Work
---------- = Knowledge
Money
Solving for Money, we get:
Work
-------------- = Money
Knowledge
Thus, If Work is held constant as a positive number (no matter how
small!) Money approaches infinity as Knowledge approaches zero.
What this means is:
All else being equal, the less you know, the more you make
Magellan's Log The Dick Principle by Harold J. Dick, Ph.D.No. 22 in
The
Idea Man Series.
In 1969, Laurence Peter set the world of management
on its ear by announcing a revelation:
"In a hierarchically structured
administration, people tend to be promoted up to their level
of incompetence. Thus, every position will eventually be
occupied by someone who is not quite capable of doing the
job."
The Peter Principle quickly entered the
curricula of all with-it MBA programs, but also turned out
to have such widespread applicability that it became part of
corporate folk knowledge. Everybody immediately grasped the
principle because everybody recognized that their own boss
was an example of the principle in action.
Careers were made and careers were shattered
as people reacted, and overreacted, to Dr. Peter's great
insight.
Having acknowledged my debt to the past, I
now suggest it is time we update the Peter Principle.
The world that Larry Peter occupied and
analyzed so cleverly is one that has come to be labeled the
"Old
Economy," the world of stable companies creating value
the old-fashioned way: they worked for it. Such was the
stability in that world that employees could actually expect
to spend their careers with one company. It is a world that
is still studied as the norm in the degree programs of
economics departments and business schools.
That old working world still has
applicability, but the time has come to question its
pertinence in the brave new world of dot-coms.
For, the Old Economy continues to exist
side-by-side with the New Economy, just as various cottage
industries hummed along in their quaint medieval ways
through much of the 19th century as the Industrial
Revolution was rapidly rendering the old ways useless.
Brick-and-mortar we shall not always have
with us, but probably for a while yet they will continue,
including their legions of careers capped off by the
unpleasant reality reflected in the Peter Principle.
The New Economy of the cyberworld requires
a new theory of mismanagement, a new
statement of the dizzying reality behind the glitzy career
life in the dot-coms, the awfulness of careers spent surfing
wave after tumultuous wave of IPO's. The New Economy is a
world not of slow accretion, of gradual promotions, but of
incessant and rapid job-jumping.
I give you, then, the Dick Principle:
In a cyber-economy,
people tend to be RE-hired
at their level of incompetence.
I hasten to explain:
Example No. 1 of the Dick
Principle in Action:
Joe makes a software breakthrough at Company A, cashes in as
the stock skyrockets. Joe is hot. Company B headhunts and
hires Joe to oversee their software development team. Joe is
brilliant at writing code but has no talent at nurturing
others to write brilliant code. In other words, Joe is a
lousy manager. Joe has been hired at the level of his
incompetence. Joe has been dicked by the Dick
Principle.
Example No. 2 of the Dick
Principle in Action:
Jack has a conceptual brainstorm for Company C. The
resultant dot-com becomes the overnight darling of NASDAQ.
Jack cashes in and is hot. Company D lures Jack to be its
CEO. Jack is a solitary, maverick thinker and has no talent
at management. Jack has been dicked by the Dick
Principle.
Example No. 3 of the Dick
Principle in Action:
Mary is a brilliant manager with Company E. She is excellent
at nurturing people and rises quickly to V-P for personnel
and human resources. Company F makes her a huge offer: Come
be our CEO and do for our talented team what you did with
Company E. Mary quickly discovers that at Company F she has
no time to nurture. The company is under tremendous investor
pressure and can think only about what the price of the
stock will be five minutes from now. Mary has been
dicked by the Dick Principle.
Of course, the difference today is that Joe,
Jack, and Mary have no financial worries. By the time they
are hired at their level of incompetence, they all come
equipped with golden parachutes. Thus, they have no personal
need to maintain the pretense of competence in their new
jobs any longer than they want to.
They have gained a world of wealth and
financial security. All they've lost is meaning in their
lives. They're no longer doing what they're good at and what
they really enjoy.
The more things change, the more they stay
the same. In its effect on people, the New Economy then
turns out to be only the Old Economy in dot-com clothing. In
moving from the Peter Principle to the Dick Principle, we
have exchanged one career dead-end for another, one
management foundering in incompetence for another also
foundering in incompetence.
On the macro side, the Dick
Principle means this: We already know that one
price of cyber-technology is instability and rapid change
(Moore's Law, etc.). Through the Dick Principle, we can see
that the instability and rapid change also include the very
people who are supposedly guiding and shaping the brave new
world. Structurally, we have traded mid-level,
stagnant incompetence for top-level, volatile incompetence.
Steve Jobs, with his successful return to
Apple, is the exception that proves the principle. For every
Steve Jobs, you have a thousand... Well, I don't want to get
into naming names. If you are involved in, employed by, or
invested in the cyber-world, you can easily supply your own
examples of the Dick Principle at work.
Peter's Principle and Education
In 1994 I applied for and obtained an Excellence in Teaching award.
Looking back I don't know how I even had the cheek to apply. In fact I no
longer believe in the concept of a Excellence in Teaching award - perhaps a
"Facilitator of Learning" award - or a "He was Lucky to have Good Students"
award are worth consideration. (No one teaches people, what happens is that
under some circumstances people learn - do you believe that you could write
a book that "teaches" someone how to ride a bike?)
The education process is a formal application of the Peter's Principle -
"People are promoted to the level of their incompetence". In the worst mode
the education system just keeps moving a student up the ladder until he
fails. There are a number of possible exits from the education system. A
good exit occurs when a student achieves a level and chooses not to proceed
to the next level. A poor exit occurs when a student fails between levels,
at the second year of a four year course, for example. It does not follow
that a student who can achieve a pass in first year subjects will be able to
achieve a pass in higher year subjects. I know a bloke who with moderate
training ran a marathon in 3 hours 18 minutes. The following year with more
intensive training he ran it in 2 hours 56 minutes. Had he trained intensely
in an attempt to achieve 2 hours 45 minutes on his third run, he would, most
likely, have failed and done himself an injury in the process. It does not
follow that a person's capabilities are indefinitely extendible with
training. Coping with Pascal in first year does not imply the capacity to
cope with C++ and Object Oriented Programming in year 3.
Now that students are encouraged to do double degrees, the failure exit
is more likely, the hurdles have been raised, there are more of them and
they are of greater diversity. This really is Peter's Principle land!
In case of broken links
please try to use Google search. If you find the page please notify
us about new location
Peter Principle -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Peter Pyramid -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laurence J. Peter -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Parkinson's law -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The generalized Peter
Principle in evolution systems
tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive
competence
The Peter Principle was first introduced by L. Peter in
a humoristic book (of the same title) describing the pitfalls of
bureaucratic organization. The original principle states that
in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend
to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence". The
principle is based on the observation that in such an
organization new employees typically start in the lower ranks,
but when they prove to be competent in the task to which they
are assigned, they get promoted to a higher rank. This process
of climbing up the hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely,
until the employee reaches a position where he or she is no
longer competent. At that moment the process typically stops,
since the established rules of bureacracies make that it is very
difficult to "demote" someone to a lower rank, even if that
person would be much better fitted and more happy in that lower
position. The net result is that most of the higher levels of a
bureaucracy will be filled by incompetent people, who got there
because they were quite good at doing a different (and usually,
but not always, easier) task than the one they are expected to
do.
[PDF]
The Peter Principle: A Theory of Decline
File Format:
PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
View as HTMLLazear, Edward P & Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "Rank-Order
Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 841-64, October. [Downloadable!]
Other versions:
Fairburn, J.A. & Malcomson, J.M., 2000. "Performance,
Promotion, and the Peter Principle,"
Economics Series Working
Papers 9926, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
Other versions:
- James Malcomson & James Fairburn, 2000. "Performance,
Promotion, and the Peter Principle,"
Economics Series Working
Papers 026, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Fairburn, J.A. & Malcomson, J.M., 1995. "Performance,
Promotion, and the Peter Principle,"
UFAE and IAE Working
Papers 304.95, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and
Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Fairburn, James A & Malcomson, James M, 2001. "Performance,
Promotion, and the Peter Principle,"
Review of Economic
Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 68(1), pages 45-66, January.
Baker, George & Gibbs, Michael & Holmstrom, Bengt, 1994. "The
Internal Economics of the Firm: Evidence from Personnel Data,"
The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, MIT Press, vol. 109(4), pages 881-919, November. [Downloadable!]
Joao Ricardo Faria, 2000. "An
Economic Analysis of the Peter and Dilbert Principles,"
Working Paper Series 101,
School of Finance and Economics, University of Technology, Sydney.
[Downloadable!]
Anderson, Ralph E. & Dubinsky, Alan J. & Mehta, Rajiv, 1999. "Sales
managers: Marketing's best example of the peter principle?,"
Business Horizons,
Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 19-26. [Downloadable!]
Book
Review - Peter Principle
Peter Principle
- Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.
- America is a country that doesn't know where it is going but is determined to set a speed record getting there.
- An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today.
- An intelligence test sometimes shows a man how smart he would have been not to have taken it.
- Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.
- Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame.
- Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices.
- Equal opportunity means everyone will have a fair chance at being incompetent.
- Every man serves a useful purpose: A miser, for example, makes a wonderful ancestor.
- If a cluttered desk is the sign of a cluttered mind, what is the significance of a clean desk?
- If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up somewhere else.
- In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.
- It is wise to remember that you are one of those who can be fooled some of the time.
- Originality is the fine art of remembering what you hear but forgetting where you heard it.
- Psychiatry enables us to correct our faults by confessing our parents' shortcomings.
- Real, constructive mental power lies in the creative thought that shapes your destiny, and your hour-by-hour mental conduct produces power for change in your life. Develop a train of thought on which to ride. The nobility of your life as well as your happiness depends upon the direction in which that train of thought is going.
- Speak when you are angry--and you will make the best speech you'll ever regret.
- The incompetent with nothing to do can still make a mess of it.
- The man who says he is willing to meet you halfway is usually a poor judge of distance.
- There is no stigma attached to recognizing a bad decision in time to install a better one.
- Everyone rises to their level of incompetence.
- Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to believe.
- Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder.
Just a Bump in the
Beltway The Peter Principle
Big Bonuses Still Flow, Even if Bosses Miss Goals
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
It was the kind of mistake that wage slaves can only dream
of. Because of what the company called an "improper
interpretation" of his employment contract, Sheldon G.
Adelson, chairman, chief executive and treasurer of the Las
Vegas Sands Corporation, received $3.6 million in salary and
bonus last year, almost $1 million more than prescribed
under the company's performance plan.
Four more top executives of the Las Vegas Sands, which
owns the Venetian Resort Hotel and Casino, received more
than they should have. The total in excess bonus payments
for the five men was $2.8 million.
The compensation committee of the board conceded that it
had made an error. But it said that "the outstanding
performance of the company in 2005" justified the extra
money, and it allowed the executives to keep it.
Shareholders of Las Vegas Sands did not fare as well. The
value of their holdings fell 18 percent last year.
As executive pay packages have rocketed in recent years,
their defenders have contended that because most are tied to
company performance, they are both earned and deserved. But
as the Las Vegas Sands example shows, investors who plow
through company filings often find that executive
compensation exceeds the amounts allowed under the
performance targets set by the directors.
Executives of companies as varied as Halliburton, the
military contractor and oil services concern; Assurant, an
insurance company; and Big Lots, a discount retailer, all
received bonuses and other pay outside the performance
parameters set by the boards of those companies.
It is the equivalent of moving the goalposts to shorten
the field, compensation experts say.
"Lowering the hurdles is especially disconcerting because
very often the goals are not set all that high to begin
with," said Lucian Bebchuk, professor at Harvard Law School
and author with Jesse Fried of "Pay Without Performance."
Mr. Bebchuk said shareholders should be especially alert to
increases in bonuses because more companies were shifting
away from stock options and into cash incentives.
Some employment agreements actually stipulate that they
will provide bonuses even if company performance declines.
The agreement struck in 2004 by Peter Chernin, president and
chief operating officer of the News Corporation, entitles
him to a bonus even if earnings per share fall at the
company. If earnings rise by 15 percent in any given year,
Mr. Chernin's bonus is $12.5 million. But if they fall 6.25
percent, Mr. Chernin's bonus is $4.5 million, and an
earnings decline of 14 percent translates to a $3.52 million
bonus.
Last year, Mr. Chernin received $8.3 million in salary
and $18.9 million in bonus pay. A company spokesman declined
to comment on the bonus structure. He confirmed that the
company's chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, has a similar
bonus arrangement. Company filings show that Mr. Murdoch
received a bonus of $18.9 million last year.
The rich really are different than you and me. The culture of
the extremely affluent has no accountability. This sort of flies
in the face of the American myth that you do well by working
hard and doing a good job. Above a certain level, that's a
crock. The very wealthy protect each other and create a culture
of incompetence that's insulated by money. Our very own W is the
product of this culture.
The Peter Principle
and the Neocon Coup by
Robert Scheer
I'm not referring to the latest attempt to reconquer Iraq, but
rather the wholesale political revenge campaign being waged by the
hard-liners in the Bush administration against anybody and everybody
inside the government who challenged the way the second Persian Gulf
war in a decade was marketed and run.
Out: Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose political epitaph
should now read, "You break it, you own it" for his prescient but
unwanted warning to the president on the danger of imperial
overreach in Iraq.
Out: Top CIA officials who dared challenge, behind the scenes,
the White House's unprecedented exploitation of raw intelligence
data in order to sell a war to a Congress and a public hungry for
revenge after 9/11.
Out: Veteran CIA counterterrorism expert and Osama bin Laden
hunter Michael Scheuer, better known as the best-selling author
"Anonymous," whose balanced and devastating critiques of the Iraq
war, the CIA and the way President Bush is handling the war on
terror have been a welcome counterpoint to the "it's true if we say
it's true" idiocy of the White House PR machine.
Meanwhile, incompetence begat by ideological blindness has been
rewarded. The neoconservatives who created the ongoing Iraq mess
have more than survived the failure of their impossibly rosy
scenarios for a peaceful and democratic Iraq under U.S. rule. In
fact, despite calls for their resignations — from the former head of
the U.S. Central Command, Gen. Anthony Zinni, among others — the
neocon gang is thriving. They have not been held responsible for the
"16 words" about yellowcake, the rise and fall of Ahmad Chalabi, the
Abu Ghraib scandal, the post-invasion looting of Iraq's munitions
stores and the disastrous elimination of the Iraqi armed forces.
BELLACIAO -
The Peter Principle and the Bush Administration - villy - Collective Bellaciao
Last night on Frontline they broadcast a biting
documentary entitled "The Dark Side", which
revealed the truth about how the CIA and the
Pentagon were at odds about evidence for going
to war in Iraq,etc. These guys emerged as the
"Gang that couldn’t shoot staight", and reminded
me of Lawrence Peters, who created the
"principle" IN ANY HEIRARCHY, PEOPLE RISE TO THE
LEVELY OF THEIR INCOMPETENCY AND REMAIN THERE.
Nowhere can I find better
examples of this rule than in the Bush
administration. To wit:
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: She was a
talented pianist, an Oil Executive, a Russian
studies expert,etc....but when she was made
National Security Chief, she was suddenly
clueless. Ditto when she "sidestepped" into her
current position as Sec. of State.
COLIN POWELL: Despite having
committed criminal acts (Iran-Contra Pentagon
arms arrangements), Powell was highly respected
worldwide until he buckled under and agreed to
make the preposterous UN presentation of
"evidence" of WMDs. Now he’s in disgrace and
tyring to find someone to blame for HIS
inadequacy.
DONALD RUMSFELD: A highly
successful businessman and experienced
government "servant" in past administrations,
when he joined the Bush gang he suddenly "lost
it", and made a series of absurd errors which
fouled things up in Iraq beyond belief.....and
he’s still at it. He refuses to resign.
DICK CHENEY: A long time
politician and businessman, he was successful
(if not popular) in most undertakings until he
became VP (at his own request). He then got
caught rigging energy contracts, feeding
Halliburton good deals, and making endless false
statements about WMDs and Husseins’
"connections" to al Qaeda..despite loads of
evidence to the contrary. Now he’s among the
most despised people in the entire world!
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: The neocon with
offices in the Pentagon, Asst. Sec. of Defense,
and professional liar once in the
administration. He "knew" that Iraq’s prodigious
oil output would "pay for the war", and
predicted that we’d be welcomed in Iraq "with
flowers and chocolate", and that the war would
be a "cakewalk"...NOT!
GEORGE W. BUSH: I must say that
Dubya just doesn’t fit here, but had to be
mentioned, of course.
Bush was never really successful in his own
right, having failed with a sports team
(although bailed out), an oil company (bailed
out) and as governor of Texas (popular, but what
did he actully accomplish?). No, he was just a
clown who was a part time drunk and alleged drug
user who saw the light and straightened up
enough to get "selected" as President...twice.
Lawrence Peter would be lost when trying to
figure out how one of the dumbest and most
ignorant of all candidates could ever have
achieved what he did.
What does HE know, anyway?
Bushisms "We are ready for any unforseen event
which may or may not happen." ...
Last modified:
June 02, 2008
