If Bush is "told" to do everything that he does then why do liberals insist on blaming him for everything?

Question

after I made it clear in a previous question that Bush was warned in advance about 9/11 (which is why he continued to sit in the Florida classroom looking guilty), I recieved a response by someone, most likely an ignorant liberal, who insisted that Bush continued to sit in the classrom NOT because he felt guilty for ignring warnings about the attacks, but rather because he had not been "told" what to do or how to react. And as if that were not incriminating enough, I am now being told that Bush was TOLD to go to Iraq!!! And yet not only is Bush himself trying to make it look like it was his own decision, but Americans are blaming him for the war. So which is it here? Is it that Bush was told to go to Iraq and he thinks it is a good thing to be there, and therefore he is taking the credit for deciding to do it? Or is it that he decided to go to Iraq entirely on his own, in which case we have a right to blame him for it?

I am just trying to figure out who we should be blaming. Should we really be blaming Bush, or should we be blaming the people who "told him to do whatever he does"?

Answer 1

One of your presidents had a sign that said 'the buck stops here' and that applies to Bush.

Isn't he intelligent enough to make up his own mind what advice he takes?

Answer 2

Well, first of all, you need to stop looking for a single culprit.

Is Bush largely a puppet of more intelligent people? He certainly gives that impression (whatever the facts may be).

Does anyone argue that this dependence on others absolves him of responsibility for actions made by his administration? I don't think so.

I think whatever this person told you, they were probably trying to say that Bush is so dependent on his advisors, that he was incapable of making a decision independent of anyone else. Certainly, when you look at the film of him in the classroom, he not only appears to be a little lost, he does nothing which would indicate that he appreciates the gravity of the situation.

What he could have done - but chose not to - was to inform the children, without unduly alarming them, that sometimes Presidents are required to act at a moment's notice and this was one of those times. He could have politely excused himself and went on to handle the nation's crisis. But he didn't.

Why? I'm not sure of the answer, but I think the question is perfectly valid, if not critical. Surely the reasonableness of such a question isn't lost on you?

Here's the way I see it (for whatever its worth to you - you can obviously do your own research and reach your own conclusion) - the Bush administration displayed gross incompetence by ignoring intelligence reports indicating that a terrorist threat was on the horizon.

Now, did Bush KNOW about the attacks beforehand? That's an entirely different question. The evidence indicates that the government did not know ... however, there was ample intelligence indicating that bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S. - intelligence which was ignored not because they wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, but simply because they had other priorities.

In Bush's case, that meant going on vacation, pressing for tax cuts, etc.

Ultimately, Bush is responsible for taking the country to war because he could have ignored his advisors' advice. So there's nothing mutually exclusive about the observation that Bush is a puppet of more learned individuals and the fact that he launched the war.

Remember, we are all responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions.

I should add that the Bush administration would have had a much more difficult time persuing their agenda had the Democrats not been so quick to support his war(s) and the subsequent attack on civil liberties.

Answer 3

Because they have been spoon fed the lies that their party leaders tell them. Howard Dean said his only plan was to bash Bush. The liberal don't have a single issue of their own all they can do is stand by and watch more and more elections lost to Republicans. The congressional race in California was going to be their bellwether election. They were going to win, but they didn't. Now all they can do is worry and complain. Remember when they were(and still are) saying Bush is an idiot? Turns out that he scored higher on his IQ than D student Kerry. They complain about the war, but they voted for going. They complain about FEMA, but they voted to put that under Homeland Security. They even blame Bush for the bad economy when it's stronger now than in the last 4 years. They complain about not having any money, but unemployment is only 4.3% They complain about not sending the National Guard to New Orleans, but the Democrat Governor didn't ask for them. They say bush's poll numbers are low, but so was Clinton's during his second term and they are a lot higher than Kerry's or Gore's right now and Congress. They have even complained about Global Warming and melting ice when it was hotter in the 1800's before there were many factories and they fail to mention that the south pole and the Sahara Dessert were once tropical rain forests.

Answer 4

The Bush blame game was instituted by the media and Dems after 911 because he was so popular and they could not allow it. At first it was sickening, now it has become just absurd. The media kept using the phrase "sources in the Bush administration" as a catchphrase for everything and Dems used witch hunts. People are catching on to both because they are so ridiculous.

Answer 5

It was obvious that Bush wanted to go into Iraq long before he had authorization!I have never heard of anyone telling Bush to go into Iraq!For the sake of arguement lets say he was told...........It is his fault because he had a choice!

Answer 6

He is worthy of the blame because he is such a pushover! A president is supposed to be in charge, which means not letting other control them! The whole effind situation is fricken' frustrating..... I can't wait until he is relieved of his duties as president.

Answer 7

I'll put this simply, people like to point fingers, blame everything on someone else. I think its a psychological thing where people are afraid of their own failure so they point out someone else's failures to hide their shame. Llike in "The oLord of the Flies", when Ralph blames Jack for letting out the signal fire. Though it is Jacks fault, he doesn't like to admit it, and would rather place that responsibility on someone else than accept the humuliation. Later on, everyone just paints themselves like savages to hide their insecurities.

Democrats are strict on Republicans, but Republicans(conservatives mostly) are like strict things too. Conservatives like strict on homosexuality for example, when many conservatives themselves are actually gay, but they just flat out deny it and go as far as persecuting gays. This could means that some liberals, the ones who are pointing fingers, are actually power mongrels themselves on the inside, unless they are actually honest about protecting our rights and freedoms. But Ad Hominem attacks are so discouraging to voters. More subtle criticism would be nice, but thats my opinnion. I think mudslinging is very discouraging to voters.

I'm liberal (excluding economics, i know nothing about economics, and i dont excactly place myself as a democrat), and i dont blame bush completely...Hes just dumb and dumb people make good scapegoats i guess.

If my answer is barely intelligible, it might be stream of consciousness, my mind wanders a alot...makes it hard for me to organize

Answer 8

Easy to understand. Liberals live in a world like the cartoons. When they paint themselves into a corner (with their circular reasoning), they simply paint a door on the wall, open it and walk out of the room.

Answer 9

We should blame the government as a whole. When a group messes its everyones fault even if its only one guy or everyone that messes up.

Answer 10

All you need to know is that Bush is responsible for everything that every goes wrong and not for anything that goes right.


.