Hi,
I do kind of wonder how much blame or praise lays with *any* president for the actions of his administration.
This is true of any national leader at any time. Ultimately they have to get their information from somewhere. Usually, they have advisers who interpreted the information and aided in making decisions. And always they had subordinates who executed and enforced those decisions. No single man can single handedly run a country.
On the other hand, "The buck stops here" is a great motto for a national leader. What happens on his watch is his responsibility. Ultimately, that is what the job is all about. He is either strong enough to be the actual leader or he is a puppet. If he's a puppet, then he is responsible for letting others do things in his name. If he is a real leader, then he is responsible for those he chooses to aid him, including being responsible for those those aides choose and so forth. While not (quite) responsible for natural disasters, even there his government's plans and preparation and response *is* his responsibility. For man made disasters, the situation is even more within his responsibility.
So, yeah, if one is looking to dodge the responsibility, there are some arguments that permit it. I find them fallacious. It's not fair, but it is the consequence of command.
--Pete
I do kind of wonder how much blame or praise lays with *any* president for the actions of his administration.
This is true of any national leader at any time. Ultimately they have to get their information from somewhere. Usually, they have advisers who interpreted the information and aided in making decisions. And always they had subordinates who executed and enforced those decisions. No single man can single handedly run a country.
On the other hand, "The buck stops here" is a great motto for a national leader. What happens on his watch is his responsibility. Ultimately, that is what the job is all about. He is either strong enough to be the actual leader or he is a puppet. If he's a puppet, then he is responsible for letting others do things in his name. If he is a real leader, then he is responsible for those he chooses to aid him, including being responsible for those those aides choose and so forth. While not (quite) responsible for natural disasters, even there his government's plans and preparation and response *is* his responsibility. For man made disasters, the situation is even more within his responsibility.
So, yeah, if one is looking to dodge the responsibility, there are some arguments that permit it. I find them fallacious. It's not fair, but it is the consequence of command.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?