If you do not think that the ability to act expeditiously on matters like wire- tapping is an important element in preventing terrorist outrages, and that the effects on society of mass terror attacks would be more paralyzing than a few hypothetical abuses, then I have am not sure what to say to you, except that paranoia about Ashcroft has addled you.
GB is not an intellectual. That is not necessary for a chief magistrate. He actually seems to know what he needs to know (that is what all of those people who work for him do), and he is, in fact, bright enough. He has done a fine job in the aftermath of the September attacks, and, before muttering banalities about his "handlers", remember that it is his team, he put it together, and he, ultimately, has to decide who to listen to.
The business of the team is merely to say that though he may have failed in the oil business (not, incidentally, unusual), he did not fail running a sports franchise, and he was very hands on, so he was not just a slacker.
The Revolutionary War was, quite noticeably, NOT a social revolution, by the way. The main thing is that we do not assume someone is bad because of birth, even if it happens to be favorable. I think you are very wrong about what Bush is about. That is why it is hard for me to believe that you are not in the left wing of Labour. Your views seem very "a priori". Of course you are on SI, all that means is that you have to look out for yourself in the present system.
I doubt that Condy Rice and Colin Powell are on the team for electoral reasons, merely. Some people mistake cynicism for insight....... |
