Shaping the Future With The Big Dick - Sub Title: Does This Country Really Need Bigger Government in the Form of a "Dynamic Analysis Division?"

Excuse me Mr. Vice President, but does your intent to shape our future involve mauling the constitution, doctoring evidence to justify illegitimate invasions of foreign countries, and leaking top secret information to the press and then complaining about a breach of American security?

If Ronald Reagan were with us now, he would be proud of this country, and I believe he'd also be proud of the man who lives in the White House. (Applause.) With George Bush as our leader, the United States is moving forward with confidence and with hope. We have no fear of the future, because we intend to shape it.

Okay, how the bleep would the Big Dick know what Ronald Reagan would say if he were alive? Obviously the Veep is audacious and outrageous, but still does not address things that matter.

Oh, incidentally, when Scooter suggests his "superiors" ordered the outing of Valarie Plame, who could that be? Just wondering:

They also hint that Vice President Cheney’s former Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby may have outed Plame on the orders of his “superiors.”

By the way, if you haven't seen a copy of the President's budget proposal - thick enough to hide a Hummer H2 and enough gasoline to power the thing for seven years - we see the true ambition of this administration is to not only "shape the future," but manufacture the evidence that supports their spurious agenda.

Recognizing this, the President's recently submitted budget would create a new Dynamic Analysis Division within the Treasury Department to analyze major tax proposals. The evidence is in, it's time for everyone to admit that sensible tax cuts increase economic growth, and add to the federal treasury. (Applause.)

So, the Dynamic Analysis Division is going to be what? Another propaganda mill? If "the evidence is in," then why do we need a new arm of the government (By the way, doesn't this smack of "bigger," not "smaller" government?) to retrospectively justify a policy shift?

I say; if you can't generate enough real, hard, and truthful evidence to support your policy decisions, then don't execute them. Building in a way to justify a program retroactively is like conducting an experiment with the American people's lively hood and not having any control group. Sound like intelligent design to you? Not me.

By the way, in case you are wondering what kind of "challenging" audience the Big Dick put himself in front of yesterday, you have to ask, what is CPAC? Well, have a gander at this link and see if you think he was risking it all to be challenged by the American people. These folks are a part of the American Conservative Union, that stipulates outright:

The American Conservative Union is the nation's oldest and largest conservative lobbying organization. ACU's purpose is to effectively communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism through one multi-issue, umbrella organization. The Statement of Principles expresses ACU's support of capitalism, belief in the doctrine of original intent of the framers of the Constitution, confidence in traditional moral values, and commitment to a strong national defense.

Sounds like a fun bunch for the Veep to talk in front of, no? Who paid for that? Abramoff or the American Taxpayers?