I therefore want a president who makes very good appointments.
I will submit to you, Gene, that you want nothing of the sort. . . . If he had appointed very, very competent people, I am thinking that instead
of just invading Afghanistan and Iraq, he could have managed to also invade
Iran and perhaps half a dozen other countries .... Venezuela, perhaps.
Again, my definition of competent people is of those who would have done all that has been done with far less waste.
Instead of acquiring a few trillion dollars war debt and prescription drug
debt, a competent president with very sharp appoitees might have been able to
make it several scores of trillions of debt.
So ... would you rather have had Bush's appointees to be much more capable of
doing his bidding that the ones we've had?
No, you can't go back and change the premise by saying if they were *really*
competent, they would have talked him out of the war altogether.
This is like
the answers you used to get from the Oracle at Delphi. If you really think
competence in appointees is the thing,
you get the screwed world with war
fronts in eleven countries all at the same time.
Still wan Bush's appointees to have been competent?
Like that, Obama's goal isn't for smaller government, spending less. His
definition of 'spending efficiently' isn't likely to be the same as yours. Do
you want his appointees to be very good at deploying Liberation Theology and
Marxism? </HTML>
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.