Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Apparently I am. You have been arguing that action is preferable to inaction, not that appropriate action is preferable to inappropriate inaction. Who could argue with the latter? Might as well assert that appropriate inaction is preferable to inappropriate action. Hell, an appropriate carrot is preferable to an inappropriate turnip.
My apologies for the apparent confusion. As I thought was fairly evident from my remarks, I asserted my belief that action, in that particular instance,
was appropriate. My usage, therefore, of "appropriate" and "inappropriate" as labels to describe "action" and "inaction" in this context was, admittedly, redundant. I'll assume that is what caused you to jump to the erroneous conclusion that I had been inconsistent.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Once again you offer a specious argument. In each of the examples given it is quite easy to conjecture as to what these individuals would specifically do (you overestimate your ignorance), and each of these situations clearly demand action and not simply the appearence of action. Each of these situations require an immediate response from the person cited.
And you know this because...?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:What is the immediate response required of a president when a terrorist flies a plane into the WTC? Take the nation to Defcon 2? Declare martial law? Call the fire department?
Well, since I have already admitted that I don't know what a president should do in that situation, I'm puzzled as to why you continue to press the point. What I have argued, in contrast, is that Bush should have done
something in preference to doing
nothing. What that "something" is, however, I leave up to the good judgment of the president. I will only add that Bush eventually
did act, which leaves open the question: if it was appropriate to take action at minute seven, why was it
not appropriate to take that same action at minute one? And if it was appropriate to act at minute one, was the delay in acting until minute seven appropriate?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:joe wrote:In any event, after seven minutes elapsed it is evident that the president did finally do something. The question then, is: if acting after the lapse of seven minutes was appropriate, was the seven minutes of inaction appropriate?
A reasonable question, but not rhetorical as you would have it.
I did not mean it to be a rhetorical question.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:I've not seen the film yet, but apparently it can't answer your question anymore than can you.
And yet
you seem to be able to answer that question -- or, at least, you seem to suggest that there is a good answer for it. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize others for their lack of specific recommendations. Given my admitted limitations in this regard (I have no more been the president than I have been a nuclear plant technician or an airplane pilot), I'm curious as to
your qualifications to provide specific recommendations for presidential action in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. Do you speak from some experience, or are you merely displaying an unthinking reflexive response to criticism of the president?
