What is the difference between "The Bush Regime" &, "The Bush Administration"? What should it be called?

Answer 1

I believe that "regimes" are generally not elected and "administrations" are. Just a guess, though!

Answer 2

These phrases may denote the same thing, be it the presidency of George W. Bush, of his father, or the periods during which they ruled. The difference is in what the phrases connote: "Administration" is a more neutral term; "regime" connotes a bad or excessive government. If someone uses the phrase "The Bush Regime," they are not a fan of Mr. Bush.

What the presidency *should* be called is a matter of opinion and context. A newspaper, striving for objectivity, will call the presidency an "Administration". A political polemic might use the loaded word "Regime".

Examples of "Bush Regime":
http://www.worldcantwait.org/
http://www.failureisimpossible.com/agenda/index.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/30/wusuk230.xml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vlQ-RtKn9k

Answer 3

"The ___ Administration" is the neutral term. This form of reference has been used to refer to most US governments over at least the last 50 years.


"The Bush Regime" is a politically charged slam that implies a similarity between George W. Bush and Iraq's government (based on Bush's call for "Regime change" in Iraq.

If you intend a slam, use the second. If you're being neutral use the first.

Answer 4

the Bush administration (one of the worst in history) is the group of people who make the decisions in the US. they are the one's who are sometimes just called Bush. so you can't just blame Bush all the time, it's those 20-30 people. They are his cabinet. All these secretaries and officers. the Bush regime is more of a time period and collective term of noting or referring to the administration. you could use both. they mean practically the same thing.

Answer 5

The Bush Empire.

Answer 6

One thinks of a "regime" in terms of dictatorships, or oligarchies wherein one person rules.
An administration is led by one person, but has a cabinet that leads each Department of Government,

Administrations can be undermined. Attempting to do so in a regime gets you dead.

Answer 7

You know, sometimes I almost feel sorry for Dubya. He obviously is a dolt who is just a figure-head for the real "powers-that-be"--that 5% of the people who own 95% of the wealth in the world. I mean, that man is STUPID!!!! So, I don't even think he knows what he is doing or has done in the world. His "ad visors" tell him what to say and when to say it, and then cringe when he speaks off-the-cuff because they never know when the idiot will put his foot in his mouth.

So to call it an "administration" or a "regime", preceded by his name, would probably be giving him more credit than is due. Just "THE REGIME" might be better.

Answer 8

The Bush Regency

Answer 9

Joey 12074...I completely agree with you! I don't know what else to say, except that it gratifies me whenever someone mentions the so called elite...powers that be, because everyone really needs to understand who is really running things in this world. We the so called common people outnumber these people by millions, and they can only win, if we continue to let them. Lets wake up, and put a stop to these people and their crimes against humanity.

Answer 10

The legacy is a regime, a very sick one..GW BUSH NEEDS TO KNOW.......The so-called "war on terror" fought as the war on Iraq is taking place in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. Iraq posed no threat to the United States except in the minds of those requiring and/or fabricating the reasons for war. Yes, , let us talk of the sickness then. A first strike, preventive war of choice is sick. Bombing a country through "Shock and Awe" because it was expedient to have access to our desperately needing its oil is sick. Adopting and using a policy of extreme rendition where the U.S. government sanctions and fosters the disappearance of people to nations where gross torture is allowed so that surrogates can do the dirty work for it is sick. Lying to Congress, the US people and the world in order to justify going to war is sick. Murdering complete Iraqi families by dropping 1,000 pound bombs on them is sick. Breaking the standard by which human decency is maintained, at least in part, during war, i.e., the Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the Nuremberg Conventions adopted by the United Nations December 11, 1945, is sick. Unloading hundreds of tons of depleted uranium is sick. Dropping cluster bombs is sick. Unexploded cluster bomb bomblets becoming land mines taking off children's limbs is sick. Killing as you would call them precious unborn fetuses by poisoning them with radioactive dust is sick. Our youth dying for the ruling elite and rich man's war for profit is sick. Let us reiterate once again, that going to war with Iraq had nothing to do with any threat from Iraq and it had nothing to do with 9-11. It had everything to do with lying about weapons of mass destruction, lying about aluminum tubes, lying about yellow-cake uranium, lying about mobile biological and chemical weapons labs, lying to the United Nations, lying to the world. That, , is sick. And, it is this sickness that you would project onto those who criticize you and the sickness of this regime. The fact that anyone else, or faction, or nation, may be sicker is not justification for excusing this regime's sickness.

The excessive inability of the Bush regime to face the reality of their behavior and solve the problems they created in their sick war of choice contributes to their psychosis. While Rumsfeld suppresses and rationalizes, intellectualizing the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and over thousands (a more likely death toll) of US troops, you find scapegoats within those who want to stop the insanity. You, are the pot calling the kettle black. Just who is the sick one ? For, if you and this administration are not, you are far worse. You are evil.