It didn't go over my head. I agree with it. But I don't agree that the article says "Bush's policies are wrong, therefore he's ill." It doesn't even say that Bush is wrong on any issue. That you think it implies that is less a function of the article's content than of your own perception. Nobody used that tactic. Not in the article, and not here.EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:To me there is a clear implication that Bush is sick, therefor he makes decisions that I think are bad/don't agree with. With chiking on a pretzel and lack of glibness listed as key symptons. How about, he choked on something, which happens every day to millions, and he isn't so glib when not well prepared for the occasion?
And the pressure he is under now, with the aggregate effect of insufficient/interupted sleap since day one of the job?
Worry and stress wear people out, and then they make mistakes.
What symptoms has he exhibited that are NOT explainable to fatigue. and worry? (Dissagreeing with you isn't a symptom of anything but disagreeing with you, whatever anyone wants to make it.)
Whether the article is symathetic, or acusatory is besides the point.
His decision making is being used to question his health, which is affecting his ability to make decisions.
That's the way I read the article.
I can't tell if it is from a disenchanted faithful, or perpetual opposite, my point, which seems to have gone over your head,(Metrion) is that is doesn't MATTER which end of the spectrum it came from, as they are both using the same tactic. They are BOTH wrong for using it, whichever side this mudball came from.
Familiar with the term "strawman fallacy?"