Chris Matthews accepts Democratic loss of Senate.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Damn Wrabbit.....you have another gold mine here. I have to go back to sleep for work tonight, I woke up because of a pretty intense thunderstorm, but will be looking into this much more in the morning when I get home.

This info deserves its own thread IMHO.

You have once again shown your skills that pay the bills here Sir.

reply to post by oblvion


Talk about a "wow" ... you're very convinced of your abilities; it's kind of funny ... not unlike a high-school kid in his first real college class.

And you're really counting "stars" ... LOL ... do they still use those on attendance certificates from Sunday School?

Enough. I'm not interested in your estimation of my abilities. Stick to the facts and counter facts.

Do you notice that you offer NO factual backup or references for your comments? Take a lesson from your pal Wrabbit there; see how their comments are being backed up by documentation? While we're handing out advice, mimic that.

I have presented facts, like quoting the Constitution, the Congressional Oath of Office, and basic descriptions of duties from documents published BY the Congress and echoed in basic Civics textbooks.

You have presented nothing more than your loosely constructed "opinions." According to you, your opinions are logical. It's cute that you're your own best supporter.

Dude, I don't want to get down into the silliness with you but your "stars" come from the fact that you're spouting the vague garbage you've picked on Fox and, surprise, a lot of the folks on here get their truth from the same source. If you really want to play that game, look at our "star ratios" ... you're a conservative posting on a majority conservative website and you're about about 3 stars per post overall. I'm at 2.85 and I'm a screaming liberal (at least in comparison to most folks here.) So, in this popularity contest, according to you ... shouldn't you be far and away the leader? But you're not ... LOL. Stop this silliness.

Let's stick to the facts, shall we? Best.

Wrabbit, I'm still working my way through the documents in the links you provided. Again, thank you for dealing in facts rather than mere opinions.

Even so, with the facts before us, the interpretation of those facts is far from simple.

1. The mission in Benghazi was in a very dangerous zone. All involved knew this.
2. Security was cut woefully at the Benghazi mission. In retrospect this was a contributing factor in the tragedy.
3. Considering all the trouble-spots around the globe, not to mention the actual day in question (September 11), it seems to me that we're expecting the State department to be able to predict the future.

No rational person can argue that this tragedy has not been used by the right-wing echo chamber, i.e. Fox News and associated media, to attack the Administration. For example, in the ten months following the attacks, Fox has pushed the myth 85 times that troops in Tripoli were ordered to "stand down." No wonder there are members here who accept this as fact. (Source)

However, the Senate Select Committee found the facts to be otherwise:

The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party. The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC (Intelligence Community) or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.

[...]

The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

(Source - Senate Report)

I admire your commitment to those who died in this tragedy, Wrabbit. There is no doubt whatsoever that security measures failed in this instance. But the fact remains that bad things happen. These Americans proudly served their country and died because of it. We need to do everything we can to prevent that, INCLUDING, fully funding the State Department's needs for secruity, which were cut tremendously by the Republican House. I'm amazed that you see no culpability at all there, honestly.

I'm glad to see you're not mindlessly targeting the President, though. That puts you far and above the majority of posters here.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I can't go with you on giving the Republicans any blame on this one. This wasn't even an Embassy to possibly appear somewhere as a line item for a congressman to have reason to be familiar with. It was a lonely outpost in a town the record shows most of the international community had closed up shop in and left well before we lost our compound to the local civil war and more.

I think, aside from local motivations to hit us, this really came about by two things. They're both political and they're both at one person's feet. It's just not Obama this go 'round. Not for the fundamental issue that makes this worth never letting go to see made right....or made a hell of a lot less likely in the future.

#1. Our foreign policy was pure arrogance and hubris to an extreme. I cannot, in my wildest dreams, believe the compound they had there for WHERE it was located. This...for $70,000 monthly leases? No... We can't blame staffers and Congressional freeloaders for this one. The decisions came from Washington and they came out of the State Department building. Those who made them and helped...need to answer for that.

look at the pictures. That packet only has a couple of Stevens and they aren't worse than media has shown before. However, they show the compound before the attack. It wasn't just short changing these guys D.S.S. agents to 2 from an authorized strength of 5 or the outright refusal for U.S. Marines as guards on the Diplomatic compound.

The compound ITSELF was a death trap! That looked like a little vacation home in Napa Valley, California......not an outpost in a nation that, a couple years ago, the locals would have killed an American and turned in their body for bounty in Tripoli. Libya wasn't a nice place ...however well they made it work and it may have been their right to live that way.

However, we strolled in like we owned the joint because NATO had plowed the road ahead and somehow, these people were supposed to be grateful and show deference to us or something. Well...Noooo...they didn't show good will. They shot at us, blew up our walls, stole our stuff, ruined our vehicles and then murdered 4 of our people before literally throwing us out of the city.....where I don't believe we've dared return (listen to how that sounds...shameful) for more than very short periods with heavy guard.

This was a total...unmitigated and complete failure of foreign policy with a very high ranking body count. The crafters of that policy really DO need to give the public some answers....and straight ones, not "legalese" versions for the press and lawyers. Why did our OWN SECURITY attack us and help kill our people that night? What were they after or trying to force us to do?

We all deserve that answered.....regardless of party or money. (Management throughout State will run between parties anyway)

* Oh... #2 was the way we bunkered in an open vacation villa like Club Med in a civil war.....while #1 was the arrogance to have gone there at all SO quickly after such a mixed way of seeing their whole life change.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I think we're getting off track in terms of the discussion thread, and that's partially my fault.

What happened at Benghazi is a tragedy. This is a violent world. Mistakes are made in judgment at all levels.

Acknowledging that fact doesn't for a moment discount that four Americans died or that in retrospect, there were ways to prevent these deaths. I agree that every step must be taken at every level everywhere in the world to make our citizens as safe as they possibly can be.

Continuing to rail against the Administration unendingly, seeking ... what, an admission? What would be enough? Would that bring Ambassador Stevens back or any of the other brave souls? There was a time when we accepted that tragedies happen without making political hay with them.

Wrabbit, regardless of the facts, neither you nor anyone else can argue that this torch is not being carried by the right-wing media in this country for purely political reasons. You may not agree that the actions of a Republican House contributed to the circumstances of the tragedy, but there are others that see a direct connection. I am happy to see you going after facts by reviewing these documents rather than merely grabbing your torch and pitchfork with the rest of the mob ... but, I guess at the end of the day, I have to rely on the findings of the BIPARTISAN Senate Panel:

Quotes below from Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14:

It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.

Although there was no formal written agreement about how security should be handled between the two facilities in Benghazi, there was a common understanding that each group would come to the other's aid if attacked, which is what happened the night of September 11, 2012.102 IC personnel immediately came to the aid of their colleagues at the Temporary Mission Facility, and fought bravely to secure TMF [The Mission Facility] personnel and their own Annex facility. The Committee interviewed U.S. personnel in Benghazi that night, and they credited their lives being saved to the personnel who responded to the attacks.

... and finally ...

The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, "They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking points-go through." In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination. Furthermore, such coordination processes were also standardized, often at the urging of Congress, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the explicit goal of reducing information "stovepipes" between and among agencies.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Continuing to rail against the Administration unending, seeking ... what, an admission? What would be enough? Would that bring Ambassador Stevens back or any of the other brave souls? There was a time when we accepted that tragedies happen without making political hay with them.

You've really got to be kidding me. "Continuing to rail against'? It hasn't been two years since these men all died for ..again...help that would never come...never TRY to come until hours after it was all over and the Ambassador's body wasn't even on scene anymore.

The world and ramifications to good and bad policy don't move on the fast food 24hr news cycle that we've been force fed to accept makes things pretty recent...seem distant..and all wrong doing to be 'everyone's fault' so..of course, no one is at fault.

This really is thread related though, because Chris Matthews isn't jumping ship over any one thing by all but declaring his passion a lost cause during that moment of open speaking. It's a culmination of things and more than one have honest to God bodies ...in large numbers. Fast and Furious wasn't a political scandal TO THE MEXICANS....It was feeding a steady flow of weapons being used to slaughter them, in real time to those weapons being run down there, to the tune of 10's of thousands of dead civilians in an ongoing civil war.

That and Benghazi alone, taken alone, should have and likely would have been enough to rock and possible even bring down other administrations. This one? It's the Teflon Don and his merry council of lieutenants. Chicago style. Even his Cabinet people are absolutely untouchable as Congress learned after directly pinning Holder down on key pieces of Evidence the DOJ had been playing silly games with. He got Executive Immunity. End of Investigation. End of EVERYTHING. On the spot. 100% Above the law, BY the law and official decree. It's ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE to watch...and then hear people say it HAS been investigated.

Well, yeah...these things have been investigated right into the brick wall of official corruption that plays the backdrop to them happening.

This is corruption..and it's corruption at a level I've never, in my life, seen in this nation. Nothing even close to it. Chris Matthews, for Obama, is like Walter Cronkite with Vietnam. There are turning points in periods and over the course of events. Moments where ...something just changes.

Well, he really did say he 'had a tingle up his leg' at an Obama rally, for how fiercely he supported him. Now even Matthews is disenchanted....and Libya is absolutely part of what has contributed to the Eagle's fall from the sky.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Matthews, as are many, was overreacting to one race in FL. I'm not sure it's fair to say that he is "disenchanted" with the Administration, or that he shares your position on the facts of Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc.

You apparently have no comment on the conclusions of the Senate Intelligence committee that had access to far more facts than you or I or what we can pull from documents posted on the internet, except to say, they're corrupt. That may be true, but it's not a refutation.

Who abandoned who exactly? Reinforcements did arrive from Tripoli before the second attack. The CIA has repeatedly denied that a "stand down" order was given at any point; numerous investigations by those who would have surely screamed even slight evidence from the rooftops (Congressional Republicans) have turned up no evidence of "abandonment" etc. etc. I hear you when you and others claim this. What are you referencing other than Fox News Channel rhetoric?

Perhaps, just perhaps, these calumnies and horrors that are so clear to you (and have been propagandized by Fox et. al. non-stop) don't appear the same way to the rest of us. No one has tried to keelhaul the President because, perhaps, just perhaps, the facts don't say what you think they say?

EDIT: THIS is the greatest level of corruption that has gone unchecked in your lifetime?!?!? The war crimes of Bush, Cheney, et. al. never happened, I guess. Wow. Talk about shredding the Constitution. You want to talk about unlawful, unreasonable, and unnecessary deaths? Let's start with the 4347 American servicemen and women who died AFTER Bush II claimed "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq? Not to mention Afghanistan. Not to mention 9/11. Puhlease.

Oh, but that's just "blaming Bush" isn't it? That's just throwing up the past.

Post on. I've got to back away from this for a spell.

Gryphon66
reply to post by oblvion

 

Talk about a "wow" ... you're very convinced of your abilities; it's kind of funny ... not unlike a high-school kid in his first real college class.

And you're really counting "stars" ... LOL ... do they still use those on attendance certificates from Sunday School?

Enough. I'm not interested in your estimation of my abilities. Stick to the facts and counter facts.

Do you notice that you offer NO factual backup or references for your comments? Take a lesson from your pal Wrabbit there; see how their comments are being backed up by documentation? While we're handing out advice, mimic that.

I have presented facts, like quoting the Constitution, the Congressional Oath of Office, and basic descriptions of duties from documents published BY the Congress and echoed in basic Civics textbooks.

You have presented nothing more than your loosely constructed "opinions." According to you, your opinions are logical. It's cute that you're your own best supporter.

Dude, I don't want to get down into the silliness with you but your "stars" come from the fact that you're spouting the vague garbage you've picked on Fox and, surprise, a lot of the folks on here get their truth from the same source. If you really want to play that game, look at our "star ratios" ... you're a conservative posting on a majority conservative website and you're about about 3 stars per post overall. I'm at 2.85 and I'm a screaming liberal (at least in comparison to most folks here.) So, in this popularity contest, according to you ... shouldn't you be far and away the leader? But you're not ... LOL. Stop this silliness.

Let's stick to the facts, shall we? Best.

edit on 8Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:53:54 -050014p082014366 by Gryphon66 because: De-snarkified a bit more.

I dont watch Fox news, actually I dont watch any news, as it is all propaganda.

As far as stars, I often state what you would consider "liberal" views, especially where economics is concerned. Did you even look at the links I left from the threads I made?

To a Fox news watcher they would sound like sudo marxist commentary.

Most of the people on this site are not "conservative", they are free thinkers, that recognize certain obvious truths in this world, and realize that some things just are part of human nature, and cant be planned out (socialism, which thinks one can plan a society out, even though all successful societies in history happened through chaos, and random discoveries of good ideas).

I didnt only offer my "opinion" without facts.

My "opinions" were about the facts you submitted, you just misunderstood them. For instance you claimed that congress has a mandate to legislate, which could not be farther from the truth.

Legislation as at the bottom of their mandate, meaning it is one of their least important tasks.

In every oath, the most important tenants are at the top, the least important are at the bottom.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Just for example the soldiers oath, first you swear to uphold and defend the constitution, as this is the most important part, followed by following orders from the president, who is the highest and most important person in your chain of command, followed by his lesser officers, who are less important and less authoritative than him.

It doesnt say officers, president constitution.

So your taking the last 2 lines and saying they are the most important is illogical, as in they defy logic, and saying that is their primary function is simply illogical.

My following the orders of an officer is far less important than following the constitution or the presidents orders.

This is the structure all our oaths stem from.

Most important at the top, least important at the bottom.

As someone trying to interpret oaths of office, I would think this obvious since it is the very first line of interpreting said oaths.

As for the rest of your statements.....once again meh, they are just so many words, and lack any really meaning other than to try and insight a hubris filled response you could try to make a point off of.

reply to post by oblvion


Yup. This is pointless. A few items:

1. You're either being dishonest here:

oblvion

I dont watch Fox news, actually I dont watch any news, as it is all propaganda.

... or you're being dishonest here:

oblvion

Just to point out your flawed use of logic, ALL media save fox news and a couple of papers are DEM taking point messengers, hence their failing ratings, because what they spout is retarded to everyone but the blind followers that keep reading it.

Whereas right leaning media are doing well, because they use facts and logic, of course they "spin" it in their own way as well ...

To break it down for you, either you're misrepresenting where you get your news from, or you're making claims about matters you know nothing about.

It doesn't matter which.

2. As far as the rest, just look up what the word LEGISLATIVE means for goodness sakes:

leg·is·la·tive, adjective \ˈle-jəs-ˌlā-tiv, -lə-\

: having the power to make laws

: relating to the making of laws

It honestly can't be made much simpler than that.

3. When I take an Oath, I swear to the whole thing, as do most. Sounds like you conceive of oath-taking as hedging your bets.

Ah well, best.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At the end of the day, I'm not sure any of us care what Chris Matthews thinks. Americans will vote according to their conscience in November, and if the Republicans win, so be it. If the Democrats, so be that.

The same Masters will still be in control, either way.

Gryphon66
reply to post by oblvion

 

Yup. This is pointless. A few items:

1. You're either being dishonest here:

oblvion

I dont watch Fox news, actually I dont watch any news, as it is all propaganda.

... or you're being dishonest here:

oblvion

Just to point out your flawed use of logic, ALL media save fox news and a couple of papers are DEM taking point messengers, hence their failing ratings, because what they spout is retarded to everyone but the blind followers that keep reading it.

Whereas right leaning media are doing well, because they use facts and logic, of course they "spin" it in their own way as well ...

To break it down for you, either you're misrepresenting where you get your news from, or you're making claims about matters you know nothing about.

It doesn't matter which.

2. As far as the rest, just look up what the word LEGISLATIVE means for goodness sakes:

leg·is·la·tive, adjective \ˈle-jəs-ˌlā-tiv, -lə-\

: having the power to make laws

: relating to the making of laws

It honestly can't be made much simpler than that.

3. When I take an Oath, I swear to the whole thing, as do most. Sounds like you conceive of oath-taking as hedging your bets.

Ah well, best.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At the end of the day, I'm not sure any of us care what Chris Matthews thinks. Americans will vote according to their conscience in November, and if the Republicans win, so be it. If the Democrats, so be that.

The same Masters will still be in control, either way.

Very nice try, but you missed one critical factor, I ATS, I get the news from every source on the planet daily, and I also use many other sources.

To "watch" Fox news, I would have to watch it, I dont, I dont even read it, except for parts I get from other news sources.

However, whenever I read an article, and read the links to Fox or other sources, as any good truth seeker would do, I see the obvious bias on both sides, and can than easily judge and see the bias, disecting the tidbits of truth from the BS.

I read HuffPo and drudge, I read infowars on occasion, but I also read the LA times, I read RT read dailybeast, I reddit, I use basically all media at all times, as I can trust none, but by viewing all, I can compile a more accurate picture of the truth.

My comments about Fox news should be obvious from my using the big picture content you quoted.

Fox flat out says obamacare is screwing more than it could ever help, while the lib sites say, things like " it has made it so people dont have to work, and can now pursue their other interests"

Which is entirely dumb, because it made healthcare much more expensive for all, and you couldnt afford without a job before, let alone now. Not to mention, there are less than 1/10 of 1% of Americans that dont need to work to live in the first place.

Psychologically humans need to work to maintain a healthy mindset, and physical health medically.

The entire premise from the left on all of this is simply spin, to try and make their obvious folly into a gain, even though their is nothing they can gain from a net loss for all.

Which is why they are all running scared.

Snarl knows my views, he is also A political, which is why at one point he said "I know you like the back of my hand". When I called out the BS from both sides.

Both sides are wrong on all fronts save a couple. The right has a couple of things right, and the left have a couple of things right.

The right is mostly honest though, with a spin of their own. The left......they lie all the time about everything, because their entire premise is BS and they know it.

If you dont know this already, I fear we will never have an honest conversation, because your blinded by political idiology.

The left wants communism, which has been found wanting in every aspect every time, they are too blinded by "want, could, should" to see that.

The right is blinded by greed, but greed has given Americans prosperity for generations, where their communist counterparts have floundered. Hence America not only being on top, but being very much so, factors even above anyone else.

In America our poor dont have cable laptops and smartphones( well most anyways), in communist countries the poor dont have food and shelter.

Which standard of living seems better to you?

I am speaking the truth from neither side, I am in the middle. I see the faults and boons of both.

I can never convince enough people to take a middle stance to matter though.

So I would side with the ones who has elevated us to where we are now, over the ones that want to make us like cuba.

The left are idiots, their idiotology has failed every single time it has been tried. So why keep trying to push it? Will they not be happy until we end up like Rome, Who was crushed by leftist thinking, where the government was feeding and taking care of most the citizens?

Seems that way to me, because those on the left follow blindly, like it seems to me you are now.

Only individualism can win out in the end. Embrace it or embrace you and your descendants downfall, their is no other choice.

"those who dont remember history are doomed to repeat it"

Sorry, oblivion, I'm going to simply ignore a lot of the intricate hoop-jumping required to transform your position into anything reasonable. Whether you observe something first hand or 21st hand, if you make claims about that thing (Fox) then you're either honest or dishonest. In this case, the dishonesty was obvious. I don't think that makes you dishonest in general, just blinded by, how did you put it? Your political ideology.

Here's the bottom line, and then, you can go on explaining how you're really right and anyone who disagrees is illogical and mentally deficient. Have fun with that.

NOTHING IS AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS. Facts are facts. Facts are statements that can be independently verified and that do not rely on opinion, perspective or ideology. Anytime a complicated situation, be it the Assassination of JFK, 9/11, or the current political status in this country is reduced to simplistic black-and-white or good-and-bad we should all realize that we're being sold a bill of goods.

Given that, the implications of "the facts" are not usually nearly as clean-cut as we'd like. Any attempt to make them so is to impose a narrative that may or may not reflect reality. We have striven, particularly in the last 200 years or so, to identify the best ways to sort through our observations and forge working, reasonable, practical conclusions from the "facts."

All that said, and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't disagree if you pause to think about it, it is ridiculous to state that what is broadcast on Fox News is "more logical" than anything else. It isn't. The agenda at Fox is so transparent as to be laughable. You've admitted as much yourself, and accused me of "ideological bias" which, could true, as I find the anti-science, anti-rights, pro-religion, pro-corporatocracy stance of the Right in this county abysmally misguided. If the only refuge were really the the false dichotomy of Republican and Democrat or Conservative and Liberal ... then, you betcha, I'd be a liberal Dem far faster than a conservative Repub.

Remember though, my thesis is simple: NOTHING IS AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS. Anytime we're presented with simple feel-good facts, whether it's "God loves guns" or "Everything is beautiful" ... I know I'm hearing strategically-placed BS.

The motto of ATS is to "deny ignorance" as we are oft reminded. The best we can do is to base our reality on the best facts we can find. For you that may be Fox News, et. al., but for me, that would be akin to believing that pro wrestling is a real sport.

Your mileage may vary.

Best.

EDIT: Look at your comments about "right and left" above. First of all, you took exception when I referred to you as conservative or right-wing and argued that you're apolitical and don't believe everything ascribed to "the right."

And yet, you make the wide, ludicrously generic comments about "right" and "left" ... you cannot possibly truly believe that everyone who is not a Right winger believes in communism, socialism, welfare-ism, lazy-ism, etc. That's just ridiculous. And it is ridiculous by your own argument for yourself. You want to be seen as a special flower, using "logic and reason" to filter through all the crap .. and yet, you don't think anyone else can do that and come up with a different opinion than yours?

That borders on megalomania, in short.

There is no single "left" anymore than there is a single "right" ... particularly in your statements just above this, you're claiming that one side is better than the other at the same time you're claiming that there are no real sides.

Even down heah in the south, we call that cognitive dissonance.

reply to post by Gryphon66

EDIT: THIS is the greatest level of corruption that has gone unchecked in your lifetime?!?!? The war crimes of Bush, Cheney, et. al. never happened, I guess. Wow. Talk about shredding the Constitution. You want to talk about unlawful, unreasonable, and unnecessary deaths? Let's start with the 4347 American servicemen and women who died AFTER Bush II claimed "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq? Not to mention Afghanistan. Not to mention 9/11. Puhlease.

Oh, but that's just "blaming Bush" isn't it? That's just throwing up the past.

I'm not pro-Bush because I'm anti-Obama and how I feel about one has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with the other except where Bush's bad policies and free wheeling approach led into Obama's taking those bad ideas to all new levels.

If asked, is Obama or Bush worse? It's Obama, every time. No question. The difference isn't even THAT much about the men, but their judgement in leadership. That's a small thing to some and just silly to others, but it's the difference of Bush having built a Cabinet that played to fill his weaknesses and make a strong unified team, vs a Cabinet that is viciously loyal to the point of loyalty coming before merit, experience or skill.

Even our White House Press secretary exudes all the confidence of Alfred E. Neuman on an internship, at times. Presidents can be bad leaders and have good people around them. Presidents can be powerful leaders with crappy men around them. Either can work and self correct in general terms. Having both at the same time is an ineffective executive branch outside of agenda points that get focus.

Bush and Obama are both men which history should require an accounting from for how things happened. Absolutely both. However. George Bush is a former President, not the man with years left to make yet more bad decisions.....and Bush didn't have immediate history to see the bad trend of action, then build on even more of it.

That makes quite a difference in men to care more about...with Party and other politics entirely aside. It doesn't excuse, just sets priority of focus.