I agree that Benghazi is the one that Obama's involvement needs to be examined the most closely. That is where he may have actually had some part in decisions made and actions taken.

 

On the other two items, if people who made the poor decisions were appointed by Obama, then I think he has to share some of the blame and it is a reflection on him. Were the decision makers in those two situations appointed by Obama? I am asking because I don't know the answer.

 

Is the Head of the IRS not appointed by the POTUS? I just assumed they were.

So when employees prove to be bad employees the people who hired them should be held accountable?

"Phone records seizure"

 

Are subpoena and seize synonymous, now?

Most previous administrations have at least tried to carry on an appearance of following the Constitution. Even if they did not do so. Since the Constitution is designed to restrict the powers of a powerful centralized government it is something of scorn to all Presidents and to many in Congress.

 

Example:

 

- Bush did get Congressional approval to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. He followed the War Powers act, though as since WWII, we did not declare war. Obama committed US forces to Libya without any Congressional approval.

- Recess appointments. Ruled unconstitutional but have they been fixed or are the appointees still in the positions or in 'interim' positions.

 

The point is - at least try to act like your following the Constitution. The current administration is not even trying.

Rand Paul trolling for votes.

 

My key question in all these issues is this - how culpable is a President for what happens in government under his administration? If something wrong happens, is it the President's fault? For example, when we had incidents of wrong doing by military personnel in Iraq, should Bush be held personally responsible? He was the Commander-in-Chief.

 

I am sure discussion of my question above will run down party lines but hopefully we can have some rational reasoning and thought in the posts that follow.

 

 

I think to answer the question, you need to look at how close those individuals were the president that it should be reasonably expected that the president should have known what was going on.

 

When it came to enlisted men abusing prisoners or soldiers urinating on dead enemy, I really cannot hold Bush or Obama accountable, there are simply too many levels of management between an enlisted soldier and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to expect either presidents to have been aware of these actions going on. The exception being if discipline had been so relaxed and the president knew of it, that such behavior was bound to happen.

 

On the other hand, when the Sec of State who reports directly to the president makes such a stupid decision, I do hold the president to some degree responsible for that.

 

Now saying that, not sure how soldier misbehavior relates to ignoring the constitution. IRS officials possibly receiving direction from higher ups in the agency to target conservative groups, that I understand. Possible snooping on the press to assist the president, understand that too.

Here's a good joke on topic.

 

A friend of mine just graduated law school. She says that her professor on the 4th amendment refers to his class as a history course.

Is the Head of the IRS not appointed by the POTUS? I just assumed they were.

 

IRS is under Treasury. Treasury is under 'TC' Geithner. Geithner's father worked with Obama's mother in International Financing. Notice that Geithner's name has not come up.

Is the Head of the IRS not appointed by the POTUS? I just assumed they were.

 

I know with 100% certainty that the IRS Commissioner is confirmed by the US Senate so my assumption would be that the POTUS appoints him but I don't know for sure