In the words of a Presidency

But a survey of transcripts from Bush8217;s public remarks over the past seven years shows the president8217;s worsening political predicament has actually stoked, rather than diminished, his desire to proclaim what he cannot abide. Some presidential scholars and psychologists describe the trend as a signpost of Bush8217;s rising frustration with his declining influence.

In the first nine months of this year, Bush declared more than twice as many events or outcomes 8220;unacceptable8221; or 8220;not acceptable8221; as he did in all of 2005, and nearly four times as many as he did in 2004. He is, in fact, at a presidential career-high in denouncing events he considers intolerable. They number 37 so far this year, against five in 2003, 18 in 2002 and 14 in 2001.

Through a spokesman and then in a televised statement, he declared North Korea8217;s claimed nuclear test 8220;unacceptable8221; before and after it occurred on October 9. But he could also be heard on January 9 lecturing students at an elementary school in Glen Burnie, Maryland, that their recent scores on math and reading proficiency tests were 8220;unacceptable8221;.

Having a president call something 8220;unacceptable8221; is not the same as having him order US troops into action. But foreign policy experts say the word is one of the strongest any leader can deploy, since it both broadcasts a national position and conveys an implicit threat to take action if his warnings are disregarded.

Bush8217;s use of the term 8220;reflects in some ways his frustration with a world that doesn8217;t seem as amenable to his policies as he would like them to be8221;, said Stanley Renshon, a political scientist at the City University of New York. Bush 8220;has strong views; he believes in doing what is right. All of those things give an emotional force to his response8221; to events he sees without nuance.

Renshon, who wrote a favorable book in 2004 about Bush8217;s psychology, said the president8217;s declarations are in keeping with his self-image as a Jeremiah, 8220;railing against the tides8221; and saying what 8220;people ought to be doing something about8221;.

As such, charting the ebbs and flows of Bush8217;s proclamations of 8220;unacceptability8221; provides clues to trends in presidential irritations. It also demonstrates that Bush8217;s most intense grievances have moved offshore, as evidenced this year by his eight declarations about 8220;unacceptable8221; events in Iraq, and his 11 declarations about unacceptable behaviour by Iran.

As a presidential candidate and in his early presidency, Bush was more apt to denounce domestic events. His targets expanded from 2003 to 2005 to include nine condemnations of 8220;unacceptable8221; actions by Iraq and Iran, as well as the Social Security system and the administration8217;s own response to the Katrina hurricane. This year, he has hurled the term 8220;unacceptable8221; at actions by Iraqi insurgents and police, at supporters of a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, and at a US law making the degrading treatment of detainees a war crime.

North Korea8217;s planned firing of a missile was unacceptable, Bush said on June 29. After Pyongyang fired several missiles on July 4, Bush again labelled the action unacceptable on July 7 and July 10. He also deemed unacceptable the country8217;s starving of its people, its use of concentration camps and its claimed nuclear test.

Using such a categorical term is not that surprising after a policy setback, according to Steven Kull, a political psychologist who directs the University of Maryland8217;s Programme on International Policy Attitudes. Some people deal with failures, Kull said, 8220;by intensifying an authoritarian posture and insisting that their preferences are equivalent to a moral imperative.8221;

Asked at a news conference on Wednesday whether Washington risks looking feckless in making such categorical statements without taking decisive action, Bush said: 8220;It8217;s very important for the American people and North Korea to understand that that statement still stands8230; I know this sounds like just saying it over and over again, but its rhetoric and actions are all aimed at convincing others8221; to join Washington8217;s effort to impede that country8217;s weapons ambitions.

Bush8217;s predecessor, Bill Clinton 8212; often pilloried by Republicans as irresolute 8212; also labelled many events 8220;unacceptable8221; or 8220;not acceptable8221;, particularly after the political tables turned against him. But Clinton8217;s peeves were different from Bush8217;s, and a quarter of his uses of the 8220;unacceptable8221; label after 2004 were aimed at providing leverage in his Budget battles with the Republican-led Congress.

Moises Namm, the editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine, said there is a relationship between 8220;how strident and extreme8221; the language of many leaders is and how limited their options are. For Bush, Namm said, 8220;This comes at a time when the world is convinced he is weaker than ever.8221;

8212;R Jeffrey Smith