When Does "The Buck" NOT Stop in The Oval Office? Can We Have Some TRUTH?

     I know I'm going to catch a lot of grief from ALL sides for this one.  But understand that I have made a vow to "hold to the truth", no matter what it may be and whether or not I like it.  So, if a politician(s) deserves praise; I will give it.  If they deserve scolding; my tongue will be sharp and merciless.  If understanding is appropriate; they shall have it from me.  I will always strive to be honest and will not allow "party" and partisanship to cloud reality.

     I have been saying for quite some time now, I believe that often there is entirely too much credit cast upon a presidential administration as well as FAR too much blame.  I believe that this has been true in EVERY presidency.  Are there times when the person who sits at The Resolute Desk deserves a good lashing?  Absolutely.  Are there times when their hands are tied in a certain situation, or where wheels were set in motion LONG before their time which they are relatively helpless to stop?  Of course.  Now, and this is only my opinion, but it seems to me that a more appropriate target in most instances would probably be those who sit on The Hill.  After all, in most instances, Congress are the ones who set policy, pass law, and are responsible for all manner of things in this country from a legal standpoint and therefore I feel should bear the brunt of the failings of those policies.  Even our Constitution would seem to agree with me as Congress is given first priority and listed in Article ONE.  They were FIRST.

     This is not to say that a president cannot be CONNECTED to the successes/failings and such of Congress.  Often times, their agendas are the same.  One cannot operate without the other.  When a president sets an agenda, and Congress works with him (or vice versa) to see that it is fulfilled, both should share equal claim to the future successes and/or failures of that agenda.

     I say all of this because once again this morning I heard a certain phrase concerning the president uttered by a pundit.  This phrase ALWAYS grates on me, and in most instances I feel that it is sorely misplaced.  I am talking about: "It happened on his watch."

     It seems to me that about half the time that this phrase is used, it is entirely misplaced.  We have heard it for years from those on the left concerning the attacks of September 11th, 2001: "It happened on Bush's watch."  They say this as though Bush ALONE could have stopped it.  Were their failures in the intelligence agencies during his LESS THAN 8 MONTHS in office which could have been avoided?  Of course.  Where there massive failures and missed opportunities under the previous administration which led to the circumstances under which all those Americans died?  Absolutely.  So why, other than partisanship, do certain pundits and politicians look only to blame Bush (who, to his and the government's immense credit, kept us safe for the rest of his time in office)?  Probably because it's easier to get the fickle populous to fixate on one specific target rather than on the failings of a large swath of government, or government as a whole.

     But this phrase was uttered this morning in reference to President Obama concerning the shooting at Ft. Hood last week.  Now, to be honest, I am NOT a fan of President Obama.  But to say that this was somehow HIS fault?!?

     Are there items which a president can indeed be blamed in this way, that is to say; "It happened on his watch."?  That, the buck does indeed stop on that desk?  Of course...

Severe expansion of government entitlements (Obama AND Bush)?  Yep.

Massive new spending with no clear way to pay for it (Obama AND the Democrat-led Congress)?  Affirmative.

10.2 % Unemployment despite a Stimulus Bill which PROMISED to keep that number MUCH LOWER?  Oh, definitely.

     But, I am not surprised that pundits and media types would do something like this.  Many of them have been ignoring facts about this event for days now.  Honest truth is; there were many witnesses who heard him shout "ALLAHU AKBAR!!!" before he started to fire.  But that is being dismissed as just those witnesses IMAGINATIONS...  Really?!?  He was OBVIOUSLY a radical Muslim, but if you say that certain news folk and commentators will shout you down as intolerant and a fear-monger.  I am not saying that he is connected to Al Qaeda or the Taliban or any other group (although evidence does seem to suggest that he is connected to the Imam of 3 of the 9/11 hijackers), but this was OBVIOUSLY an act of terrorism.  So, there you have it folks; the first terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/2001.  And somehow this is solely President Obama's fault?  No...

     This was the shooters' fault.  This was the Army's fault.  This was the fault of politicians, of a government, and of a society that has become overly sensitive and far too politically correct.

     With each passing day, we learn more details which suggest that this COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.  There were definitely warning signs.  But political correctness forced the blinders BACK ON.  Whose fault is that?  At whose feet does the blame rest?  Every single person in this country who has stood idly by and allowed the virus of political correctness to cloud our judgement.  Every single person in this country who has been ACTIVE in furthering the spread of political correctness.  That DOES include Obama, but it's not ONLY his fault.

     There are indeed times when "The Buck Stops..." squarely at that desk and its occupant.  But we MUST know the difference between a systemic failure, which this was, and the failure of one indivudual or a very small group.

     Again, I am not an Obama fan.  But he is being incorrectly blamed just as Bush was and I must be fair.