8 Years vs. 7 Mos. : A Useful Analogy

[laughing_dog]

When someone offers you the 8 years vs. 7 mos. to catch Osama argument:

Do you see us like a crab that molts its shell every four years and is defenseless until the new shell hardens? Presuming we're not completely defenseless for this period (because really...leaving us defenseless would be a major dereliction of duty, would it not?), what do you think it is that keeps us safe until the shell hardens?

Might the thing that keeps us safe be departmental bureaucratic continuity, by which I mean to say the retention of those who've been there for a while and know what's going on about all sorts of things? I think even the hardest-hearted Brownshirt would agree this is surely the case.

It begs the question, though: when the people you're replacing say "You've got to jiggle the handle on the toilet else it'll run all night" and you ignore them, are the people you replaced responsible for the water bill? When the bureaucrats who've been there a long time and constitute the nation's best defense against water wasting say time and again "The toilet is running. We suggest jiggling the handle" and the new folks -the ones who don't know better- just ignore them, are the bureaucrats responsible for the water bill?



Government and governance have to be civil and cooperative to work. Bush and his team had no intention of being either civil or cooperative. They ignored the people they were replacing. They ignored the people that had the experience. They thought they knew better. 3000 dead Americans later and it's pretty clear they didn't. To dodge responsibility for it now is beyond childish...absurd...criminal, even.

[Postman]

1. great analogy...

I'm passing this on to others. Thanks

[laughing_dog]

2. Glad...

...to be of service!

[newyawker99]

5. Hi laughing_dog!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LynzM]

3. Welcome to DU!

Nice analogy!

[Oilwellian]

4. Excellent

A government doesn't start from scratch when a new administration enters office. You would think that would particularly be the case when it comes to our national security.

Welcome to DU. I look forward to your future posts. :hi:

[laughing_dog]

6. Entirely reasonable

You're entirely right.

I believe this is in no small part due to the hatred of 'all things Clinton' which the Neocons and their media mouthpieces have (regrettably very effectively) used to give Joe Lunchbox an 'issue.' It would be unseemly for them to heed the advice of the very administration they so loathed (but which, history is showing, did a pretty competent job all things considered).

The 'Joe Lunchbox' issue, if it isn't clear to readers here, is IMHO the creation and selling of a sense of 'victimhood' to that segment of America who for a long time believed Affirmative Action and the social rights' movements were letting black folks and other minorities "get away with something."

Of course, it's to an extent the left's fault for having been smug and overconfident after the gains of the 70s. That said, final culpability still remains with those who invented and marketed this sense of opression...this Wal-Mart sense of tragedy.