Friday, June 02, 2006
Asking the wrong questions
Extending yesterday's entry....
In all of these current situations, both political sides are asking and answering the wrong questions.
The left always asks "What did Bush [or the relevant leader] know and when did he know it?" This is a totally weird question in any case; it only allows enemy agents to play Woodward and Bernstein. It never leads to a solution or an improvement.
Generally, the administration and its defenders ask "Are we obeying the law? If so, everything's OK."
This question is not insane or weird; it's thoroughly understandable. But it is equally useless toward finding real improvements or solutions.
The question we need to ask is: "What action will help win the war?" Or on a lower level, "What action will help to restore the lives of these people toward normalcy?" If this action happens to disagree with current laws, or if it will likely lead to litigation, then change the laws or forbid the litigation. If it will give enemy agents new propaganda, counter them with truth. Loud and clear.
The executive branch has the power to do those things, and previous executives have succeeded in war and disaster by doing those things. Bush refuses to do those things, and thus ends up in a position of failure where the Left's idiotic question is the only thing publicly visible.
If the Katrina refugees need housing, give them housing. Trailers, Cusato Cottages, whatever it takes. If we need to kill civilians who threaten our soldiers, kill civilians. By the millions if needed. Make their deaths anonymous, mechanical and meaningless. Whatever it takes to harsh Jihad's mellow. If New York City is running a competent terrorist intelligence agency, bulldoze the treasonous CIA and the Christian-hating, Hoffa-obsessed FBI. Let NYC take their money (and their competent personnel if any) to expand its competent agency.
Officials take an oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution. Those are two separate verbs. Upholding is fine when we're not under attack. Defending means, above all, insuring that the nation and its people continue to exist. Once that goal is secured, we can return to Upholding. ¶ 11:06 AM
In all of these current situations, both political sides are asking and answering the wrong questions.
The left always asks "What did Bush [or the relevant leader] know and when did he know it?" This is a totally weird question in any case; it only allows enemy agents to play Woodward and Bernstein. It never leads to a solution or an improvement.
Generally, the administration and its defenders ask "Are we obeying the law? If so, everything's OK."
This question is not insane or weird; it's thoroughly understandable. But it is equally useless toward finding real improvements or solutions.
The question we need to ask is: "What action will help win the war?" Or on a lower level, "What action will help to restore the lives of these people toward normalcy?" If this action happens to disagree with current laws, or if it will likely lead to litigation, then change the laws or forbid the litigation. If it will give enemy agents new propaganda, counter them with truth. Loud and clear.
The executive branch has the power to do those things, and previous executives have succeeded in war and disaster by doing those things. Bush refuses to do those things, and thus ends up in a position of failure where the Left's idiotic question is the only thing publicly visible.
If the Katrina refugees need housing, give them housing. Trailers, Cusato Cottages, whatever it takes. If we need to kill civilians who threaten our soldiers, kill civilians. By the millions if needed. Make their deaths anonymous, mechanical and meaningless. Whatever it takes to harsh Jihad's mellow. If New York City is running a competent terrorist intelligence agency, bulldoze the treasonous CIA and the Christian-hating, Hoffa-obsessed FBI. Let NYC take their money (and their competent personnel if any) to expand its competent agency.
Officials take an oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution. Those are two separate verbs. Upholding is fine when we're not under attack. Defending means, above all, insuring that the nation and its people continue to exist. Once that goal is secured, we can return to Upholding. ¶ 11:06 AM
