So apparently this is how it works:
1) At a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, the United States Secret Service failed to protect presidential candidate Donald Trump.
2) More could have been done towards avoiding this failure.
3) If more could have been done it should have been done. Therefore
4) The United States Secret Service should have done what could have been done towards avoiding this failure.
5) The buck stops at the Director. Therefore
6) she should resign, which in fact she did.
The problems here are premises (3) and (6). Not everything that could be done should be done. Why not? Because some things that could be done – in fact most of the things that could be done – are too invasive, either for the protectee, and/or for the attendees, and/or for the taxpayer. So the question is, What could have been done but wasn’t that would not have been too invasive for the protectee, and/or for the attendees, and/or for the taxpayer?
That’s a question that was never put to the Director. Why not? Because when you’re looking for a fall guy – or in this case a fall gal – the one thing no one wants to hear is an answer to that question.
And the second problem is that whenever there’s a failure, the person at the top should resign. Imagine if we held medical doctors to that standard. What are grounds for resignation? Incompetence. Does failure to save the patient imply medical incompetence? One should hope not.
So what can we learn from this? When you’re offered a position involving culpability for a failure to provide resources that would be, in your professional judgment, invasive beyond the pale, either turn the position down or, since someone’s got to do it, make sure you’re well paid.
Categories: Everything You Wanted to Know About What's Going On in the World But Were Afraid to Ask
Paulosophical Vimplications 
The question of what could have been done was asked. Cheatle responded “That building, in particular, has a sloped roof at its highest point and so there will be a safety factor that will be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof. And so you know the decision was made to secure the building from the inside.”
So, the roof was too dangerous for an elite counter sniper team (who instead were positioned on a different slopy roof), but the roof wasn’t too slopy for a 20 year old shooter .
LikeLike