I was reading this editorial last night and I was startled by some of the language in it. It was late, and I was tired, so I resolved to look at it again today. Here is the editorial, entitled "Bush's Walkabout":
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Take a look and see if there is anything implied in there that should be very disturbing to all Americans, republican or democrat.
My thoughts below:
After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long.
In Argentina, Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his ability to relate to world leaders face to face, could barely summon the energy to chat with the 33 other leaders there, almost all of whom would be considered friendly to the United States under normal circumstances. He and his delegation failed to get even a minimally face-saving outcome at the collapsed trade talks and allowed a loudmouthed opportunist like the president of Venezuela to steal the show.
I did think that Bush looked like he was there only in body, and not an enthused body at that. The NY Times seems to be implying, however, that Bush, the marathon bike rider, could barely summon the energy to chat. What is this about?? What are they telling us, without coming out and saying it?? Or am I imagining this??
I think they are implying that Bush is very depressed - clinically depressed. To say he could not get the energy to talk, for chrissakes, is saying something serious.
Has anyone in the know or with some contacts heard anything about this?? Was he exhausted, depressed, or just pissed that he, the petulant child, had to be there instead of playing with brush at Crawford?
I'm getting more and more nervous about three more years with this administration.