oslecamo2_temp wrote:You can't put all the blame on Stanley when that kind of person has been his main advisor for titans know how much turns!
In any reasonable hierarchy, isn't the leader the one who is held responsible for success or failure? Would Bush be any less of a failure if he could just blame Cheney and claim that he wasn't responsible for starting a war with no exit strategy? I think not. The leader is
the one who bears the responsibility, regardless of the failures or duplicity of their underlings.
Only to a certain extent. The US government produces enough intelligence every single day that if Bush was required to read all of it, it would take 10 years. In all hierarchical structures, the Leader bears overall responsibility, but not sole responsibility. But, ultimately, he reads only what those beneath him decides he should, and they read what their subordinates decide, etc. down the food chain. That three layers below Bush someone stopped a report about someone taking pilot lessons that might have lead to 9/11 being stopped does not mean Bush is responsible for 9/11. he never saw the report, and no amount of Rules could make one person think this report is more important than the other.
And not all things are under his control.
For instance, on 9/11, Bush wanted to go to DC. The Secret Service refused and took him to Louisiana, and then Nevada, far from the danger. We cannot hold Bush responsible for not having the power to ensure he could go to New York that day: it was simply beyond his power.
So, yes, he carries more responsibility, but not all responsibility. Those below him still retain responsibility for the decisions they make for him.