The Washington Post is trying to figure out what's inside Bush's head. ..aside from the cavernous void in which bats, demons, and Deputy Dawg reside. As usual, Dan Froomkin puts it perfectly.
Our president: A dry drunk with no insight, no judgment, no perspective, no reasoning powers, no taste, no couth, no morals, no regrets, and an abundance of failures. Quite a legacy.But to me, it sounds like Bush is looking not for answers -- but for rationalizations for his behavior. There is no sign of genuine introspection, no sign of acknowledgment of mistakes, no sign of any significant change of course. In a pattern familiar to anyone who has ever had a drinking problem, Bush appears to be engaged in a furious effort to persuade onlookers that he's fine -- even if he isn't.
In fact, one could even argue that Bush's search for "answers" from a parade of easily cowed visitors allows him to avoid a hard look at the one place he is most likely to find an explanation for his predicament: Within himself.
8 Comments:
Fundraiser! Read Cliffy's post below. And then respond accordingly, please?
He is not a dry drunk. It is so obvious that he has resumed drinking.
Bush is a paragon of all Eight Principles of Incompetence ...
I agree with anonymous. No way is he dry. He's been boozing for quite awhile - and he looks like it.
Froomkin did hit some of it right though - he's very much a black and white guy - a denial system used by alcoholics to keep from seeing the shades of grey that inhabit our world.
His brain is so friend from booze and pills he can't even leave the house these days.
And if not a drunk or a dry drunk then seriously personality deficient.
There has been, I believe, a question of what's going up his nose????
The "choking on the pretzel" story was the first indication he has addiction problems. It has descended into idiocy at this point.
He is certifiable.
Personally I think he should be declared an enemy combatant and held in Gitmo until he rots. After all, why is he entitled to habeas corpus if none of us are?
That was a fascinating article--not Froomkin's, which I'm sure was good as well, but the original story about Bush looking for answers.
You might have noticed a little story at the end of the piece about Bush touching the wound of a soldier. I'm not kidding. You have to read it...
I know, OhDave! Blech! At first I thought it was because of his delight in destruction and pain, like his blowing things up, executions, etc.
But the article said it was possibly due to a need to confront it. I doubt that. Too human.
Whatever the reason, I'm sure it was a sick one.
Post a Comment
<< Home