| When the next terrorist attack takes place (most experts say it is not if but when and how) I wonder what the excuse will be for not preventing the attack. |
You're the ex-soldier, Gene, you tell us. When you're in-theater, and the next enemy attack takes place (your own S2, your higher command, and your academy training tell you it's not if but when and how), what excuse would you give for not preventing it?
People win wars all the time, even though they often lose many battles along the way. It's not a question of "excuses", it's a question of priorities, limited resources, and human weakness.
You have identified real problems, and I know many Bush supporters who take him to task regularly for his failures in these areas. I just don't see these failures as failures to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities. Rather, I see them as failures of the world to be a perfect place full of perfect people with perfect information and perfect resources.
And it's pretty clear that all of Congress agrees with me, since none of them are jumping on your "impeach Bush for not enforcing the tax and immigration laws" bandwagon.
I suspect there's two reasons for this: One, because you don't complain about the lack of enforcement unless you want more enforcement. No politician wants more enforcement these days, for complex and very signficant political and economic reasons.
And two, because enforcement places responsibility on the
entire[ chain of command. The president isn't the only one with responsibilities in these areas. A crackdown would end up assigning blame and punishment to everybody involved: presidents, governors, agency heads, field agents, law enforcement officers, etc. It would be a massive witch hunt and blame game. It would cost huge amounts of money, and require huge amounts of resources, and cause huge amounts of upheaval. All this from a country you yourself argue is short on all these things.
So if you feel that the government's limited resources and limited skills should be re-prioritized in this way, fine. But you're going to have to build a stronger case than "OMG teh Constititututiotion!!!111WTFBBQ!!eleven!"
Ideally, your case would include an analysis of the drawbacks of your plan, and would try to convince us that you've forseen these problems and come up with solutions.
The fact is, the president is doing everything he can to discharge his constitutional responsibilities. It's just that "everything he can" is actually not much, both by design of our governmental system, by the nature of our citizenry, and by the nature of the world we live in. The fact is, these laws can't really be enforced much more than they are already, except at great cost and great distress. Which is why most administrations have done little or nothing to improve these issues, as you yourself admit. It's also why this adminstration is struggling to find other ways to solve the problem--ways that are less costly, or less disruptive, or both. Who knows? It may even be the case that the laws themselves are bad, and the solution isn't to enforce them, but to abandon them for other solutions.
Why do all your essays start by identifying a problem and stop, one simplistic and underdeveloped paragraph later, by blaming it on Bush?
Bonus question: when Bush leaves office in a couple years, will you move on to blaming the new administration for everything? Or will you change tactics, and blame this adminstration for the next one's problems? And if it's the latter, how will you explain why you didn't blame the Clinton administration's for Bush's problems?
