4 ms·
Have you ever thought of the fact that perhaps people behaved themselves because they were more afraid of Bush than Obama? It's easy to say, under "Obama's Adm
by segmondy 14y ago
Have you ever thought of the fact that perhaps people behaved themselves because they were more afraid of Bush than Obama? It's easy to say, under "Obama's Administration" as if they called Obama for permission and he stamped approved on it. That's akin to blaming the President of a company for something an intern did. Sure, in the overall picture, the President is responsible for everything that happens underneath him, but without the detail of who did what, why, who gave who permission, etc, let's not rush to judgement.
- danso 14y agoNo, I don't think this has anything to do with that kind of rationale. But to be fair, some of these leak prosecutions started with investigations that began under the Bush administration: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/politics/accidental-path-to-record-leak-cases-under-obama.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/politics/accidental-pat... But to your point: it doesn't matter if Obama personally investigated the cases himself or if a witchhunt is led by a middle manager. He is the top executive, what he says or implies trickles down the chain of command. If he passed along the word that these prosecutions weren't worth the time and effort, then the immense work that goes behind building these cases would, quite likely, dissipate.