Expanding gov't for defense = good
Expanding gov't for sucking up to liberal causes = bad.
It is one of the tasks given to the fed in the constitution. I generally prepare to skoff any time somebody uses the phrase "expanding government". That's such a bizaare term. If they spend more money but don't hire anymore people is that expanding? What about vice versa? What about idjit laws?
Expanding gov't for sucking up to liberal causes = bad.
Unfortunately, many Bush bashers fail to see the difference and bash the President no matter what he does. So I'll have to just ignore them.
I know that our President is not perfect, but he's a honorable man, and I am very proud of him as our Commander in Chief.
Sometimes it seem like Bush bashers fail to recognize the difference between Clinton and Bush. It can be quite amusing at times, and annoying most of the time.
Creating new agency--stripping away good personnel, authority, and funding from large ineffective bureaucracies (for example--taking cargo inspection dollars and responsibility away from the Dept. of Transportation and moving it over to Homeland Security)--equals good business sense.
GW is doing a classic deal--a merger of sorts--reallocating personnel and assets so that they can be used more effectively--structuring a new chain of command to facillitate decision making (Tom Ridge said it took 4 months to get some troops on our Canadian border because so may steps/ agencies were involved.)--bringing together all the relevant threads necessary to develop an efficient reactive capability--it is a brilliant business proposal presented at exactly the right time--the Democrats can hardly refuse to relinquish some of their power over agency departments after squealing so long and hard about the need for GW to create a cabinet position...he is the fox...Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, and even Tom Ridge have earned my admiration tonight.
The above may illustrate the furthest reaches of your intelligence, but, thankfully, some of us are more sophisticated.
You could have made your formula more elegant with the following:
Bush = Good
Bush = Good