By John Kanelis / firstname.lastname@example.org
Those who seek to “defend” the attack of 1/6 on the U.S. Capitol do so in the form of a diversionary tactic designed to take our minds off the issue at hand.
Which is that a mob of terrorists assembled on the Ellipse that day and were incited to storm Capitol Hill to overturn the result of the 2020 election that delivered the presidency to Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Now comes the so-called “defense” of those actions by suggesting that law enforcement knew days ahead of time that an insurrection would occur but did nothing about it. The cops didn’t take any measures to defend the seat of our government, the argument goes.
And that is supposed to excuse what happened that day?
Good grief! The cause of the riot and its impact on our system of government is at issue. Whether the cops knew ahead of time that a monstrous riot was about to occur, in my mind, is beside what I believe is the fundamental point of the House select committee examination of the events of 1/6.
House committee members want to know what happened to produce the riot, what the 45th POTUS was doing as the riot was occurring, to whom did he speak and what he did tell them. The panel also wants to find solutions to prevent future attacks from occurring in the manner of the one that unfolded that day.
We all witnessed a history-shattering event. It was the first time in our nation’s history that a transition of power from one presidential administration to another erupted in violence. The attack was brutal, it was horrifying and it stained our national reputation indelibly. There surely can be some remedies found to prevent future eruptions if we can determine ways to make the police more responsive to terrorist threats.
However, I would prefer to spend far less time arguing over whether the cops did enough to stop an event that well might have been unpreventable and devote the bulk of the committee’s time to examining what did, in fact, take place.
We need answers to a lot of questions.