Quote Originally Posted by mkemse View Post
My question remain, Freddie Mac goes under, Fannie Mae the same, why did our Prsiedent need his advisors to tell him this?? he said he had no clue about Freddie or Fannie TILL THEY went under, my issue is surew he can't keep an eye on everything, but he rads papers, he watches I assume TV why did he not see or read about? He comes across as to say I knew nothing about his til my advisers told me, I don't buy that, I had to have seen or heard both Mac's goingu nder, then he gets hids advisers together and says what is gointg to happen next, but for both fannie and Freddi to go under and him have no idea til he was advised they had, i can't believ eh did not literaly see this or hear abouti t or rad about, that he was clueles til his advisers told him they had gone under, he said himself he did not know til his advisors told him
I'm with Ragoczy on this one. I'm no fan of Bush, but in this case I can't push the blame on him, at least not totally.

However, any executive, whether political or business, must surround himself with able administrators who are capable of handling their little piece of the action and who aren't afraid to walk in and tell the boss that something is wrong. Any leader who shoots the bearer of bad news soon winds up without any trustworthy messengers, and ends up on the trash heap, and he'll never see it coming.

There were, indeed, people who saw this coming. Some, far too few and generally not highly placed, tried crying wolf, only to be castigated for it. Some, those most highly placed, spent most of their time making sure that they wouldn't be the ones caught in the collapse. Their nest eggs are quite secure, you can count on it. And they're the ones we need to bring under the bright lights and demand an accounting from.

But that isn't likely to happen, either.