Gerard,
Consider this. If I asked you take a walkie-talkie and talk to the conductor of a train that is sitting outside on a railroad siding and make arrangements for him to start the train down the tracks and then stop at some predetermined point, you could probably do that. You would have started the train in motion and made some plan to keep it under control and to bring the train to a stop. You would have maintained control, with the cooperation of the conductor, for the entire procedure and could be seen to be 'responsible' for a nice, clean end to the scenario.
If, on the other hand, I asked you to stand in the railroad tracks in front of a runaway train and stop it using only your forehead, do you think you would stop the train within 1 inch, 1 foot, half a mile or perhaps not stop the train at all? At what point would you become responsible for your inability to stop the train with your forehead?
While these are not exactly accurate analogies, they illustrate the concept that you and others who argue the 'responsibility' issue are trying to make.
On the one hand, yes, Bush is in the White House and he has the ultimate authority to address all issues that need to be addressed as well as being ultimately responsible for all of the results of his actions. But to ignore the spiteful destruction of the economy by the outgoing administration and say that Bush caused it, is just irresponsible and non-productive. Bush has to make decisions on the fly using the best information he has available at the time. Just like you do. Just like I do.
By the way, just how far would the train travel after contacting your forehead? If Bush can't get the stock market under control by the end of his first term, maybe you and he will have some common ground with respect to runaway trains. |
