> That's a scary thought because the President is also in charge of another large organization -- the military. So your logic would suggest that the President i

> That's a scary thought because the President is also in charge of another large organization -- the military. So your logic would suggest that the President isn't responsible for the acts of the military, yet in the same breath folks have no problem blaming Bush for Abu Ghraib. Something being scary doesn't make it untrue. It would not particularly surprise me if the first that Bush heard of Abu Ghraib was when it hit the news. There are of course relative degrees of responsibility - you are responsible for the people you hire, and if you have few concerns then your responsibility for those concerns individually goes up since you have more time to devote to oversight on them. But do any of us think that a president has few concerns and is directly involved with hiring three or four levels of abstraction beneath them?