OK, OK... Back to school, back to work, back to back, back to the future, back off, bud, I've got a loaded question and I know how to use it...
Now what, please, are we to make of an Inaugural Speech so obviously devoid of critical thought that anyone with even the most cursory acquaintance with history is puzzled by it -- so peabrained, in fact, that the speechgiver's dad has to issue a hurried clarification to quell the buzz of loathing that now spreads through the camps of both our allies and our enemies?
Surely Our Distinguished President's henchmen know how closely these things are read?
Can it possibly be that they just threw together some blithe crap that sounded nice, without the slightest thought to the apparent major policy shifts they appeared to be announcing? That in pretending to adhere to what most of us agree are laudable values ('cos that's what Inaugural Speeches do, duh!), they accidentally trapped themselves into pronouncing a doctrine that obliged them to, you know, actually inculcate them?
'Cos that's sure how it looks from here.
I'd like to think more thought went into it than that, but this is the bunch that gave us the Iraq Aftermath. That speech looks very much like a C student's idea of what an inaugural speech might look like -- dashed together at three in the morning after a bender down at the Deke House.