Blaming Bush

[ElTexican]

Earlier in the day I was outraged on the blaming of Bush for the attacks in London. My rationale was the terrorists are the ones to blame not Bush. If we go down the line of blaming every wrong in society on the people in power, are we then going to blame a local murder on the mayor or the Ipod killing on Steve Jobs?

But then I was reading another thread on people who died in Iraq yesterday. My initial reaction was that Bush is the one who got us into that mess. So then I thought what is the differentiating factor between London and Iraq. My response to self was we have troops in Iraq, not London. But then my mind swung to a more conservative viewpoint. If we can't blame Bush for the London incident, then we shouldn't blame Bush for the daily terror attacks in Iraq. My immediate response to this thought was yes we can blame Bush because he put our troops in harm's way (so I'm blaming Bush for loss of American soldiers). Even further we can blame Bush for creating chaos that leads to terrorists thriving. (Some Americans may blame Bush for the former point and not the latter point, but rationally I do not see someone blaming Bush for the latter point and not the former point.)

But can I use the same agrument of creating a terrorist enviornment for London? Of course, a war is not taking place in London. Even if I were to use the argument that depletion of American resources reduces our domestic security budget in the States, this argument cannot be used for England (unless you are to argue Britain's own war budget is to blame for lack of security at home. But do you blame Bush or Blair for that?) This is where I'm stuck. I may be able to blame Bush directly on a lot of terrorism issues, but this issue is so remote to American control that I can't blame Bush right now for what happened in London. I wish to hear why I should blame Bush though. My thoughts are still forming on this issue.