So NBC News says "here's some terrorists, Bush didn't pull the trigger" and you're disappointed; Bush says "here's some terrorists" and pulls the trigger and you're disappointed.
Swell.
========
Yes, it does have the ring of contradiction, like a soup sandwich or overhearing someone say how "good" Madonna's last album was.
But mark ye Starbuck, the little lower layer...
The Bush admin's metaphysical sales team is a creature with three heads; each head says something slightly different but related --
* trust us, we are competent
* trust us, everything we do is a reflection of our competence and, therefore, necessary
* trust us, we're not narrowing your rights or abusing our power, we are, as we said in line item two, taking only those actions which are necessary -- needless to say, our competence gives us the ability to determine what's necessary
Competence -- Trust -- Synergy -- Bush
But what if evidence were to come to light they're not competent? If they're not competent then the argument for trust falls apart like a 1972 Chevy Citation.
This is the angle of attack (so to speak) I've taken in my discussions with Bush true believers.
'They're protecting us' my co-workers and neighbors say. 'They're clumsy and dangerous and can't protect us' I say. Information such as what was reported by NBC helps move this argument along.
DRM