A Question From My Blog:
A. First, don't be snide about our 'blessed' leaders. We, here at my blog, genuinely DO bless them, you know. (And the 'just askin's at the end aren't necessary either--I see enough of THAT at DU...)
About what you were 'just a-wonderin'... All leaders can believe something is 'right' that turns out to be 'wrong'; so many of the end results of human interaction are based on the behaviors and reactions of others.
Let's say I find a thousand dollars... A man approaches me and says he has a great need for $500 of it--so I give it to him. If he then takes that money and buys gasoline and burns down a neighborhood, who would think I had necessarily done the right thing? Wouldn't there be those who'd cry:
--"Why were you mixing in his business that way? Let him work for his money!"
--"Why didn't you get to know him better before you gave the money to him?"
--"Why didn't you ask others about him and check him out more?"
--"Why didn't you give the money to ME; I had a greater need..."
--"Why didn't you supervise him better yourself and force him to do good with it?"
--"Why didn't you make him sign a contract saying the money could only be used for certain things after we all talked about it?"
--"Why didn't you listen to Joe--he told everyone the man was angry about something..."
--"Why weren't you nicer to him when you gave him the money? Maybe then he would've confided in you..."
--"Why didn't you wait longer to see if he had a real need for it?"
--"Why didn't you ask us first if you should've given him the money?"
All of these various excuses--in one form or another--have been used to vilify the decisions the President has made regarding 9/11, Saddam, going into Iraq, trying to solve the mid-east conflicts, immigration--and nearly everything else in his entire Presidency. Which one of them is more imperative than the others? Would you still pick that one BEFORE the man burned up the neighborhood--or only in hindsight, after you knew the terrible result of his actions? Who would know the perfect action to take IN ADVANCE?
Giving away the money would, in all probability, only be judged a bad thing AFTER the terrible end-result had been achieved. Thus, that judgement would be based upon the actions of the man to whom the money was given, NOT the one who gave it away. So who is truly in the wrong?
The Dems--in a purely political move--have chosen to see President Bush as the 'wrong' one in all available scenarios. They deliberately turn from prior acts, available facts, matters outside of the President's control, and the responsibility of others when evaluating the President's decisions. They have very neatly--and quite deliberately--put the President into a trap. Read the excuses offered in the money situation I posed. Many of them touted as a preventative are pretty invasive, controlling, restrictive. Every time the President uses any of them, the Dems scream he is 'destroying the Constitution!'. Use them and Bush is deemed a Fascist, don't use them and he is branded as incompetent, stupid, and deserving of impeachment.
Do you think that we don't see this? You think this moral sleight-of-hand has gone unnoticed? Do you think that we don't know that the Dems are doing this on purpose?
There is a huge, enormous, and over whelming difference between being good, thinking good thoughts, having genuine good in your heart, and making a mistake--and doing things out of sheer self-interest, personal aggrandizement, and political intrigue. You Dems insist on thinking that President Bush consists of all of the latter and none of the former--and you do it with the very rationale for which you blame him: Your own self-righteousness, political power, and partisanship.
In a nutshell, you want to win elections--and you think branding President Bush as evil is the surest way to do that. All of the ordinary, humane forbearance in understanding that we are fallible, that we are capable of making mistakes, you put aside with him (though you lavish it on your own). You demand that President Bush be better than that. You insist that he be more perfect than humans are humanly made.
You construct silly arguments ('why is ChimpyMcFlightsuit relaxing at his ranch today when 'our boys' are dying in Iraq so Darth Cheney can spend more money from Halliburton?"), blame him for nonsensicals ("our Constitution is now a butt-rag", "there'll be no elections in '08--Chucklenuts is going to crown himself king", "we liberals will be sent to concentration camps", "we're all gonna be drafted!"), and bandy-about the most pernicious lies ("didja see how drunk Bushitler was when he laid the wreath at Arlington?", "Laura Bush murdered a fellow classmate!", "Bush is getting ready to take over the world!")
So much hyperbole--and plain damned nonsense--has been spread that getting to a sensible argument is virtually impossible. (How can we even reasonably discuss the War On Terror when 1/3 of those registered as Democrat party members think Bush designed 9/11, and that the 7 minutes he sat organizing his thoughts when first hearing the news about it (and, no doubt waiting for Air Force One to be getting geared up) was akin to being MIA, at best--and part of a plot to ensure maximum damage, at worst?
Thus, the proper question is not 'what if what he believes is the right thing to do is actually the wrong thing to do?" but, "why do you Demmies insist on painting ALL his decisions as not just wrong, but evil--and what part of your political processes are you trying to serve by doing that?"
I think I already know the answer.