If Bush is the commander in chief isn't he responsible for his soldiers actions?

Question

After the friendly fire incident and what happened in Abu Gres and Guantunamo Bay should he take more responsibility and not pass the buck.

You dont think Saddam actually killed with his own hands do you no he got his soldiers to do it and he suffered the appropriate penalty
Or Mugabe just beat his opposition leader with his own hands no his police did it so who is responsible
Nobsallo ;The future of your country are getting killed over in Iraq.

You dont think Saddam actually killed with his own hands do you no he got his soldiers to do it and he suffered the appropriate penalty
Or Mugabe just beat his opposition leader with his own hands no his police did it so who is responsible
Nobsallo ;The future of your country are getting killed over in Iraq.

Answer 1

G.W.Bush take responsibility for anything? Are you new to the planet? The man is the front line "goon" for the neocons, which includes his Daddy, Cheney and the rest of the war mongers.

Answer 2

No, Saddam did actually kill with his own hands. He tortured, too. It is documented. Look it up. He took his boys to observe people being tortured when they were little to 'toughen' them up. He didn't personally kill the hundreds of thousands who died under his rule (he did nothing to prevent it), but he isn't totally innocent of murder, either.

The President is responsible for the military as a whole. Responsibility for individual actions remains with the individual. Unless politics in involved. Then you'd think the president was in constant communication with the lowest trooper and made every call himself. If a private, say, murders a civilian, he is the one who is tried for murder. If his superiors (the squad sergeant, the Lt., and on up) knew of the crime and did nothing about it, they become culpable, too. If a unit is involved in a crime, the same chain exists, except the officers are higher ranking and have more responsibility. To take down the president or the SecDef for something that happened in the war zone, a theater-wide crime would need to be perpetrated. Like a policy of executing prisoners or something like that. Slamming Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib was nonsensical (and political). The highest ranking head to roll for Abu Ghraib should have been a Colonel or Brig. Gen. Since the running of that prison falls under their authority. That's like firing an exec. vice president because the accounting department made a big error rather than the accounting department head.

Answer 3

Bush became the Commander in chief so of direction he became in charge for Abu Graib. Obama is the Commander in chief so of direction he's in charge for SSG Bales. the reality that the media comments, or does not rfile, that accountability does not substitute it.

Answer 4

He should be held responsible for the Iraq war in general, not for the acts of a few bad soldiers..

Answer 5

The Commander-in-Chief is liable for the acts of his subortinates based on the principle of "command responsibility". Thus, the President must be castigated for the errors committed by his soldiers in Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay Prison.

Answer 6

Just like your parents are responsible for all your mistakes. If your parents told you not to break the law and you did I guess you would want them to pay because your not adult enough to follow the law.
Soldiers are adults and responsible for their own actions. I know liberals don't agree but that is the way its suppose to be.

Answer 7

What are you asking, if President Bush should be sent to death for another person's killings? I think he has proven that he takes a great deal of responsibility by not backing down when Democrats in Congress threaten to take away funding for the troops supplies and equipment. The people guilty of the incidents you cite should be punished and held responsible for their own individual actions.

Answer 8

George Bush does not sit in a giant control room and take charge of every soldier on the battle field. He didn't order anyone to break the law.

If you're a teacher and one of your students brings a gun to school should you be thrown in jail?

Answer 9

Surely you can't be as dumb as you seem. Of course, he is ultimately responsible but do you think there has only been one friendly fire incident and can't you at least try to spell?God help us if you are the future of America.

Answer 10

He is and that's why he held those responsible accountable. That's the difference between libs and cons