[kswier]

No, they don't both get the blame. The pilot at the helm when a ship runs aground gets the blame. It doesn't matter who was steering when it left port.

Some policy decisions can have long lasting effects, and the blame should be allocated to the predecessors. For instance, if the economy had waited to collapsed until Obama's term, it would not have been fair for him to hold all of the blame (it could have just meant that he did not diffuse the bomb in time). I think it is important to look at the root cause of issues and allocate blame appropriately. Otherwise we blame the wrong people/policies and then repeat the same mistake. That is more of a philosophical discussion, though.

In this case, I think your statement is true. Obama has been in office long enough that he should own this mistake.

[jeffkrol]

Some policy decisions can have long lasting effects, and the blame should be allocated to the predecessors. For instance, if the economy had waited to collapsed until Obama's term, it would not have been fair for him to hold all of the blame (it could have just meant that he did not diffuse the bomb in time). I think it is important to look at the root cause of issues and allocate blame appropriately. Otherwise we blame the wrong people/policies and then repeat the same mistake. That is more of a philosophical discussion, though.

In this case, I think your statement is true. Obama has been in office long enough that he should own this mistake.

Then you have to also look at the root cause of why the fixes weren't not initiated..

IFthe US was a corporation.. and the pres could "clear lower management (i.e. Congress) and right the ship well then yes it is his fault..FORTUNATELY (and unfortunately) that is not the way it works.
House of Representatives has the "power of the purse" and AS BOEHNER himself pointed out "we write the laws, you only sign them"..............

Soo how does one blame a CEO who can't control his company directly????

how would you fix a group of people who would not even vote for their own (at one time) ideas, just to make the "CEO" look bad..............

[GeneV]

I might agree except in this case, both operations were outside the law. The only difference was one blew up on them and one didn't. It is too bad though that Holder didn't man up to it and either fire those responsible, or if the blame stopped at his desk, resign.

The investigation uncovered that Holder was not aware of the operation, so his resignation would not be in order. The A.G. is not told of every operation in federal law enforcement and even the deputy was not told of information which would have disclosed the problems. Whether others get fired is to be seen now that the investigation is complete. One has resigned, and another was "retired." 14 employees are up for discipline. Investigation finds no evidence AG Eric Holder knew of 'Fast and Furious' gun-running sting - Open Channel

[GeneV]

No, they don't both get the blame. The pilot at the helm when a ship runs aground gets the blame. It doesn't matter who was steering when it left port.

If you think about it, that analogy is so flawed that it is hard to know where to begin. If the ship is already aground when the pilot takes over... Ships don't have courses about which the pilot doesn't know... If the ship left the port with a drunken pilot who took bad charts along... (The whole ship thing doesn't really fit).

[Parallax]

If you think about it, that analogy is so flawed that it is hard to know where to begin. If the ship is already aground when the pilot takes over... Ships don't have courses about which the pilot doesn't know... If the ship left the port with a drunken pilot who took bad charts along... (The whole ship thing doesn't really fit).

So we're back to "everything is Bush's fault." Obama was was powerless to end the program. Got it.

[GeneV]

So we're back to "everything is Bush's fault." Obama was was powerless to end the program. Got it.

Those are not the two options. Both and neither also come to mind, as to various degrees to one or the other.

[Parallax]

It's amazing how horrible W's policies and programs were, yet Obama's approach to many of them seems to be/have been "Meh, let it ride, let's see what happens." Gitmo is there because Bush opened it, not because Obama won't close it; we're in Afghanistan because Bush put us there, not because Obama won't get us out. Fast and Furious? Oh, Bush started that one............ Maybe I missed it in Civics class, but exactly where in the Constitution does it say the policies of a president shall remain in force in perpetuity, unchanged by successive presidents?
In a little over 3 months, Obama supporters are going to have to stop blaming the previous administration for all of the country's and the world's ills because as of January 20th, 2013, whether he is re-elected or not, Obama's will be the previous administration. The "The buck passes through here" sign is going to have to come off of of the Oval Office desk whether he's still sitting at it or not.

[GeneV]

It's amazing how horrible W's policies and programs were, yet Obama's approach to many of them seems to be/have been "Meh, let it ride, let's see what happens." Gitmo is there because Bush opened it, not because Obama won't close it; we're in Afghanistan because Bush put us there, not because Obama won't get us out. Fast and Furious? Oh, Bush started that one............ Maybe I missed it in Civics class, but exactly where in the Constitution does it say the policies of a president shall remain in force in perpetuity, unchanged by successive presidents?
In a little over 3 months, Obama supporters are going to have to stop blaming the previous administration for all of the country's and the world's ills because as of January 20th, 2013, whether he is re-elected or not, Obama's will be the previous administration. The "The buck passes through here" sign is going to have to come off of of the Oval Office desk whether he's still sitting at it or not.

IMHO, it is the responsibility of both, but it may be the "fault" of neither. If it has been established that Eric Holder did not know, it is likely that Alberto Gonzales did not know of an operation at this level either. It is interesting that Gonzales stated in a Fox interview it is "absolutely possible" that Holder did not know without stating whether he (Gonzales) knew. Fmr. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Believes It?s Possible AG Eric Holder Was Not Aware of Operation Fast and Furious | Fox News Insider

If an FBI agent makes a mistake and kills an innocent civilian or another agent, in some respect the buck stops all the way with the President, but as a practical matter, that is not the level at which the President or the Cabinet operates.

[Afghanistan and Gitmo are subjects of other threads. It is not always as easy to get out of something like that as it appears from the outside]

[Blue]

IMHO, it is the responsibility of both, but it may be the "fault" of neither. If it has been established that Eric Holder did not know, it is likely that Alberto Gonzales did not know of an operation at this level either. It is interesting that Gonzales stated in a Fox interview it is "absolutely possible" that Holder did not know without stating whether he (Gonzales) knew. Fmr. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Believes It?s Possible AG Eric Holder Was Not Aware of Operation Fast and Furious | Fox News Insider

If an FBI agent makes a mistake and kills an innocent civilian or another agent, in some respect the buck stops all the way with the President, but as a practical matter, that is not the level at which the President or the Cabinet operates.

[Afghanistan and Gitmo are subjects of other threads. It is not always as easy to get out of something like that as it appears from the outside]

Actually it was established that Holder did know and got caught up in potential perjury. It comes down to what did Holder not know and when did he not know it.

[Parallax]

[Afghanistan and Gitmo are subjects of other threads. It is not always as easy to get out of something like that as it appears from the outside]

I agree completely. So when candidate Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay and withdraw from Afghanistan was he
A: Lying?
or
B: Unqualified for the office due to his ignorance of the complexities of the situations?


DISCLAIMER: I don't think in this regard President Obama is substantially different from any other politician. Chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of "How to Run for Office" is: "You don't need to be able to do the job, you just need to know what to say to get elected".

[GeneV]

I agree completely. So when candidate Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay and withdraw from Afghanistan was he
A: Lying?
or
B: Unqualified for the office due to his ignorance of the complexities of the situations?


DISCLAIMER: I don't think in this regard President Obama is substantially different from any other politician. Chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of "How to Run for Office" is: "You don't need to be able to do the job, you just need to know what to say to get elected".

Well, Jim, again I'd say they aren't the only two choices. I'd restate something in the direction of B as" unaware of all the complexities, which may include information to which only the President has access." I would agree that few who take that job really know everything it entails.

[Parallax]

Well, Jim, again I'd say they aren't the only two choices. I'd restate something in the direction of B as" unaware of all the complexities,

I think it's a combination of one and two. No need to worry about keeping promises, just say there were things you couldn't have known about at the time, and you're off the hook. I wasn't using ignorance in the pejorative, so if want to substitute "unaware" for it, okay.

[kswier]

Then you have to also look at the root cause of why the fixes weren't not initiated..

IFthe US was a corporation.. and the pres could "clear lower management (i.e. Congress) and right the ship well then yes it is his fault..FORTUNATELY (and unfortunately) that is not the way it works.
House of Representatives has the "power of the purse" and AS BOEHNER himself pointed out "we write the laws, you only sign them"..............

Soo how does one blame a CEO who can't control his company directly????

how would you fix a group of people who would not even vote for their own (at one time) ideas, just to make the "CEO" look bad..............

I agree to some extent. The president has limited control over a lot of things. However the president does have substantial control over the bureaucracy (not total control, but a great deal of influence). It is the responsibility of the leader of an organization to provide direction and a certain amount of oversight.

Unless congress mandated fast and furious and Obama stood up and said it was a bad idea, I am afraid he owns this blunder. He either failed create policies that provided adequate oversight or he had direct knowledge of it and did not stop it. Do I think this makes him a bad person or a bad leader? No. I think a president is forced to delegate tasks, and trust advisers. Since similar operations were carried out in previous administrations, it would appear as if experts in the area thought the program was a good thing (and perhaps they got good results in the past from similar programs). Nevertheless, Obama/his administration made a mistake on this one.

Obama owns this in the same way Bush had to own the terrible aid response to Hurricane Katrina.

[kswier]

I agree completely. So when candidate Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay and withdraw from Afghanistan was he
A: Lying?
or
B: Unqualified for the office due to his ignorance of the complexities of the situations?


DISCLAIMER: I don't think in this regard President Obama is substantially different from any other politician. Chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of "How to Run for Office" is: "You don't need to be able to do the job, you just need to know what to say to get elected".

I actually think that Obama got into office and found out that Gitmo and Afghanistan and Iraq were much more complicated problems than he had originally thought. I think that he realized that he was coming in with almost no foreign policy experience and listened to his foreign policy advisers.

[Rico]

If you substituted the name Bush for Obama, your statement would have just as much credibility.


Some day, I hope in my lifetime, people will stop being Democrats or Republicans and become independent thinkers.

Sorry no Tom S you can not just substitute in President Bush's name for Obama into my statement and it has the same credibility. President Bush was never made into a cult of personality by the media. President Bush was savagely vilified by the media. President Obama on the other hand a man with no practical experience in anything other than promoting himself has been made into a complete fraud of who he really is by the media which has born the cult of personality that he has become.

If people became independent thinkers they would start questioning the absolute disaster that is in the White House instead of the daily excuses for the state of the nation President Obama has created.