I will make a general statement that we have not had anything like the policy of holding people in high office responsible for their acts that I think we should.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I would much rather see responsibilities exercised by individuals than have them imposed by the government.
I don't claim any moral or ethical high ground, but I also have chosen not to run for public office. Shouldn't there be a higher standard of conduct for public officials?
It should be remembered that the president cannot, by executive order, do things that affects the public at large unless there is some Congressional basis for it.
It was not the president's responsibility to run a law enforcement operation. It was ours.
Executive orders are meant for occasional use, not to force something through that the people's elected representatives aren't going to make law.
I don't write policy for my government.
There's no doubt that what has emerged in the years after 9/11, unlike the situation in Britain, there were practices sanctioned in the U.S. that fall far below the standard of conduct that should have taken place. It is for the American system of government, in all of its branches, to address that. It is not for a British politician.
If a policy is wrongheaded, feckless and corrupt, I take it personally and consider it a moral obligation to sound off and not shut up until it's fixed.
No duty the Executive had to perform was so trying as to put the right man in the right place.
What I learned is that policymakers have to force consideration of actions that may not have occurred to them at the time.