The actual role of a president in calamities facing a nation

It is easy to blame Bush for all the fallacies that have messed up america during the time of his presidency. But I do feel that the situation is not so hard and fast as it has been put up on both the sides. Let us ignore the liberals for now, because what they do is just blame the guy because he lacks charisma and has difficultly expressing himself in a coherent fashion. Yours truly has a similar difficulty, so can really assocaite with that. But then even with regards to descisions to invade iraq being specially planned by bush to get oil, does seem to fly off in the way of a reasoned debate if analyzed very closely. If we look at bankers who are driven to maximize their profits at any costs and who are the behind the scenes generals of all policies, the motivations of a president are definetly different. Because from a presidents viewpoint, once he has finished with hsi term, he is out of the limelight. Unlike a banker with the muscle power of money and the greed for more, a president does not have that liberty. He cannot just say that he would be entirely a puppet in the hands of the bankers, just so that the president gets to enjoy being in power for 5 years. The desire to stand in elections, starting from a senator till becomign a president should be coming from something outside personal desires (even though personal desires are a major factor in the race for power too). He cannot sit and quote jefferson and washinton, just to fool the people and not believe a cent of their sayings in his own heart. This is because after those 5 years he is completely sidelined from power, unlike the bankers who are still the major players, with major power.
That being said, I think it would be really weird that people came in to bush's office and asked him to start a war in iraq so that people who are sponsoring him would be able to maximise profits and at the same time, ask bush to ask his people in CIA, MI5 and KGB, to manufacture photographs of alleged nukes in iraq. It is obvious that the guys in power definetly know about their responsibilities to work for the benefits of the money barons, but just going on a war to plainly satisfy the money barons seems really unlikely.
I feel that the supposed nuclear sites in iraq which were constructed with the help of western technology were constructed during the phase of an american iraqian friendship, so that in the future an attack on the country could be justified. Also the construction of these sites really points to the fact that the president is not plainly a puppet, but is a guy who could be easily manipulated. That is why when bush was shown evidence of nuclear weapons in iraq by major intelligence agencies around the world, he had no choice but to attack.
I mean, if I was the president, what would I do if that is what top secret agencies tell me the intelligence on iraq is, especially when I have never worked in the armed forces or intelligence gathering myself. Do I just ignore such evidence as manufactured by the rich and powerful. It is a different matter that when the war has begun and the oil contracts go out, they will go to the friends of the president and that is what exactly happened.
The same kind of a reasoning comes up, when you confront bush with messing up the economy and the wall street failure. Even before the economy failed, the top economist of the country, neither the media warned against a possible failture. Expecting that the president has some secret knowledge about failing of the economy and wanted it to fail, just to satisfy his bosses, also does not fit the criteria for a reasonable debate.
Blaming Bush for failing of the economy is like praising clinton for the IT revolution. The president is just a figurehead who works on the information given to him by his coterie, who get their information from others.
When I saw the interview of Bush, on a human level I feel that it would be wrong to say that the guy was just putting up an act, when talking and trying to defend his presidency and in reality all he was, was a puppet who really worked for his wall street bosses. That he never possessed the same feelings that drive other patriots in america, to strive for the good of his fellow citizens and that his beliefs in things personal to any human being such as God (the guy actually quit drinking because of such beliefs, which is a challenge for most humans) is just all about getting a small cut offered by his money bosses, so that he presides over the superpower of a country. I feel that making such statements, just trivializes the entire problem of govt which inadvertently ends up working for the rich. If the problem is not even clearly identified , the soultion backfires in terms of its efficacy.