Ipecac for the Mind

I didn't want, to; but I made myself. I read the entire transcript of Preznit aWol's interview on Meet the Press. While I was reading, I kept wanting to skim over just about everything Bush said. Reading his remarks is nearly as bad as listening to them. Has there ever been a more illiterate sounding president?

Lots of folks have done a great job dissecting this whole thing, especially I have to recommend the folks over at Corente, and NTodd over at Dohiyi Mir. But go visit most any of your favorite bloggers - there is plenty of really great reaction and analysis out there.

I just want to list a few of my reactions:

1. I didn't bother to count, but there had to be a dozen references to 9/11 in various guises regardless of whether there was reason to link the topic being discussed with the terrorist attacks of 2001. This has been a staple in every public utterance by aWol.

2. I know I mentioned it in my remarks above, but reading his remarks is like reading the ramblings of a 10 year old. His noun-verb agreement problems make me cringe. His remarks bounce erratically from point to point and topic to topic all within what should be a short, easy answer.

3. Bush's verbal "placeholders" and acknowledgments of statements would have gotten me - and most likely him - slapped as a kid. They consisted of "Yeah" and "Uh-huh" and other figurative verbal tics that are impolite at best and uneducated at worst in "polite conversation." Coming from a supposedly well educated man occupying the most powerful seat in the world, they are atrocious. They are not the sign of a common man, aWol is anything but common in his patrician and very privileged rearing and education.

4. He outright lied in several places. This point is well covered in lots of analysis of the interview, and I won't lay out the specifics here, it's been done better on other blogs (see above).

That's more than enough. I could go on, but, really, what's the point. The interview is done, there are some rumblings on the Right that this was a disaster for aWol, but the press has not really shown an interest in holding Shrubby to the same standards as they've held other presidents and the current crop of Democratic candidates. So what's the point?

This is really starting to get me down.