It's hard to think of a starker demonstration of the irrelevancy of George Bush than the split screen running now on CNBC. On the right, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke answers lawmakers' questions on Capital Hill, warning everyone that economic growth will continue to be anemic for longer than expected. On the left, George Bush silently pantomimes something about asking Congress to do something about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, says weird things about the benefits of higher energy prices and moves around a lot behind his podium. Oddly enough, keeping Bush on mute somehow makes him seem more presidential.
Did the Bush administration intentionally schedule this press conference for the same time as the hearing on Capitol Hill? Why would they do that? Or is another example of White House incompetence?
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:04AM
By far the Worst US President ever, ran the Country into failure like every other Business he owned. Consistent atleast.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:06AM
lol
if you think bush sucks wait for obama.
#1 prediction - dealbreaker - gonzo.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:09AM
@11:05 - yes, I can barely wait for Obama, or even McCain for that matter. It'll be nice when the person holding the highest office in the land is not a demented fool.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:13AM
lol @ 11:09
there are no comments at 11:05.
you've got nerve calling anyone demented.
lol
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:20AM
WHO WAS THAT SENATOR WHO JUST LAMBLASTED BERNAKE
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:24AM
@ 11:20
I'm not sure but if he were running for President he would have my vote.
He left that idiot Bernake speechless!
Everything he said is true, the fed has boxed itself into a corner...they made a huge mistake bailing our Bear a few months ago because they wwere afraid of what would happen in the markets if they didn't and guess what...what they feared is happening now anyway and they are runnin out of bullets to stop it.
The Fed is a joke...hasn't this country learned anything since 1929 or has all our greed brought us back to the same scenario?
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:27AM
Wachovia is going to be bought very soon.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:28AM
that bernanke-owning was SO entertaining
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:31AM
the repeal of glass steagall will cause more damage to the sovereignty of this great nation than 10 Iraq wars and 20 NAFTAS.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:34AM
Let us all remember that the Current Occupant declared at the start of his first term that he would return dignity to the White House by making it a rule that men had to wear neckties in the White House.
Can't wait for Obama!
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:34AM
Jim Bunning
DATE ORGANIZATION TITLE
1/1999-PRESENT (US)SENATE SENATOR:KENTUCKY
1/1987-12/1998 (US)HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVE:KENTUCKY
Note: FOURTH DISTRICT
1976-1988 JIM BUNNING AGENCY INC REPRESENTATIVE
Note: FOR PROFESSIONAL AT
1982-1986 STATE OF KENTUCKY STATE SENATOR
1960-1985 MCCLOY-WATTERSON-COWEN INVESTMENT BROKER & AGENT
1980-1982 CITY OF FORT THOMAS COUNCILMAN
1970-1971 PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PLAYER
1969-1969 LOS ANGELES DODGERS PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PLAYER
1968-1969 PITTSBURGH PIRATES PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PLAYER
1964-1967 PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PLAYER
1955-1963 DETROIT TIGERS PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PLAYER
1950-1955 PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PLAYER
Posted by BottomFellOut , Jul 15, 2008 11:35AM
Ron Paul has consistently lambasted the Fed chairmen (Span and BenB).
Bush is telling everyone wiat till the effects of the tax rebate take hold. What world does he live in - that was spent in the gas tank and energy and food bills 3 months ago.
Bottom Keeps Falling out...any solutions?
Posted by BottomFellOut , Jul 15, 2008 11:35AM
Ron Paul has consistently lambasted the Fed chairmen ('Span and BenB).
Bush is telling everyone wait till the effects of the tax rebate take hold. What world does he live in - that was spent in the gas tank and energy and food bills 3 months ago.
Bottom Keeps Falling out...any solutions?
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:37AM
@11:24 its easy to criticize when someone is riding shotgun.
This isn't first time he goes to capital hill to get roasted. While greenspan prints money from speeches, Ben's in the trenches taking grenades.
Posted by diablo , Jul 15, 2008 11:41AM
Bush already accomplished what he set out to accomplish, as was outlined just before he took office in 2001 (link below). Now he's the lamest of the lame ducks. (Fear, deeply fear, that he might disagree and decide to "finish the job" in his last few months. The next guy is going to have a hell of a much bigger mess to clean up).
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:43AM
like most ex atheletes, sen. jim bunning was a stockbroker/investment advisor for like 25 years.
it's either that, or insurance salesman.
he knows his shit.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:48AM
What can Bush really do?
Seriously?
This mess isn't his fault. Last time I checked he's not running around pushing these CDO's like crack on the corner.
Oil at 146, now thats his fault.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:56AM
Bush and his team encouraged an ERA of manipulating facts, managing truths and getting what you want without regard to law. The Senior Executives in Energy and Financials picked that up quickly and made money hand-over-fist. Who fucking cares about the little people.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 12:04PM
he does look like the lame dumb drunk cocksucker he is. jumping around his podium on mute. man, this made my day.
eastguest
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 12:13PM
manipulator of facts? You sure have a short memory. Clinton was the master of that.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 12:16PM
@beenthere
They all are, no manipulation, no country.
Posted by chad , Jul 15, 2008 12:27PM
12:13 - please cite clinton manipulations..
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 12:35PM
12:13 - Hmmm, lets see.
"There is not terrorist threat to the country from islamo-fascists so lets nueter the intelligence agencies and reduce millitary funding as my dear left wing hippies have always wanted (gee, we lefties do absolutely hate the millitary - remember us spitting on the soldiers?)
I mean what are those islamo-fascist gonna do? Hijack planes and ram them into buildings? What a joke? Ha ha ha. Now pass me those cigars from where I stuck them into, will you?"
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 12:36PM
Yes, what Clinton manipulations unrelated to infidelity....
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 12:41PM
@12:36 You mean to say like the time puerto rican terrorists we let loose for the sake of a few votes?
Or when convicted criminals were being granted pardons for cash?
More?
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 12:43PM
The list of Clinton manipulations, aided and abetted by a compliant main stream media, is longer than the list of Dubya's verbal gaffes. No time to enumerate, I actually have a job. But to dispute the notion is laughable.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 12:47PM
What idiots on this board, can't stomach that Clinton did good and Bush Fucked it up. Spin all you want, the facts are the facts are the facts.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 12:50PM
@12:47
so NAFTA and the repeal of glass steagall were good things to you?
i'm no clinton hater but com'on.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 1:03PM
``Glass-Steagall protected bankers against themselves,'' Eveillard said. ``Bankers are sheep. They don't mind going over the cliff if everyone else goes over the cliff.''
========================================
Don't blame Clinton, blame the Bankers. The GOV is not your Mummy, learn to take care of yourself.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 1:05PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/21/america/prexy.php
If Bush likes it, Nafta must be bad.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 1:10PM
@1:03
huh?
you cut and paste a quote which supports my argument and destroys yours.
meaning that bankers and brokers are dangerous when not regulated.
put them together and it's like matter and anti matter. nothing good happens when that occurs.
btw - i take great care of myself. i even have a bidet in my bathroom suite. do you know how good warm water feels shooting up your asshole?
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 1:13PM
@12:47PM
I don't know if Clinton "did good", but he certainly has done well. By the way dude, how was Burning Man this year?
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 1:19PM
"What idiots on this board, can't stomach that Clinton did good and Bush Fucked it up."
What good and what bad? Economically Clinton delivered moderate prosperity interspersed with one mini recession (1998) follwed by a full blown one (2001). Bush delivered prosperity never seen before (till 2007) followed by one bad phase - STILL not a recession, the economy is growing. Ok. So what was good and what was bad?
Millitarily, Clinton set up the entire base for 9/11 by not pursuing the terrorists when they were committing random acts of terror outside the mainland. Yes, had clinton aggressively gone after the terrorists after USS cole and the likes then 9/11 might have never happened.
Bush started with a handicap in this field, had to go into war, then went into Iraq which was fine. But then he completely messed up the execution and it was too late till they got back.
Anyways, bipartisan surveys of presidential scholars rate Dubya somewhere in the middle of all the Presidents, several notches ABOVE clinton.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 1:29PM
Bush will be known as the WORST US President ever. There is no way around it.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 2:11PM
"Anyways, bipartisan surveys of presidential scholars rate Dubya somewhere in the middle of all the Presidents, several notches ABOVE clinton."
That is laughable.
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 2:13PM
@1:29
You clearly have not studied the American Presidency which was my major in college at one of the finest universities in the country, albeit with a left-wing faculty, as they all
were at that time. Thankfully that crowd has begun to die, but I digress. @1:19 has it right, that he is generally viewed as middle of the pack right now among those who NEVER appear on television. Not bad considering we're knee deep in blood from two wars at present. When the present day anguish from that recedes with time, and failure or success can be accurately judged (at least 10 years from now), he will probably rise quite a bit. The fact that no matter what you say, we have not been attacked since 9/11 in a mind-blowing achievement. Who would have believed that on 9/12? You seem very bitter.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 2:14PM
Why are there so many historically ignorant and economically illiterate commenters here today? Did the Huffington Post link to something on DB?
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 2:25PM
I think they are coming from Drudge
Posted by lemmerdeur , Jul 15, 2008 2:27PM
Yo Carney, didn't you vote for Bush?
I wish I had recorded all you Bush-voters back in 2003 or so, so I could upload the recordings onto the internets and link to them in comments on posts like this one.
I know, I know, a lot of Bush-voters apologize and regret their indiscretions, but tell me... would you kindly foot the whole bill for all these disasters? It would really add some meat to the mea culpas and the apologies.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 2:38PM
lemmerdeur, why go that far back? Didn't you vote for the dems in 2006?
So? They promised to totally change everything, new day, new beginning, immediate withdrawal from iraq, 'paygo', energy independence etc etc etc.
Leave alone not fulfilling upon them, looks like they have done the opposite. And now your new messiah is backpeddling on iraq and the surge - now calling it a success of the millitary after calling it a failure of the millitary.
And then we could look at previous democratic administrations too.
So? Would you kindly foot the bills for the unmitigated democrat imposed disaster like social security, medicare and the agencies?
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 2:38PM
Oh, forgot the link. Right here.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Surge_meets_purge.html
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 2:39PM
Are smart and presumably educated people still debating who is the worse president: Clinton or George Jr? Hate Clinton or love George W. all you want but the facts are: we are bogged down in two wars (one justified but forgotten in Afghanistan; and the other in Iraq); the economy is in the tank; millions of Americans are losing their homes; millions more can’t buy enough food; gas prices are out of control (although this is a good thing, environmental wise and all); we need to sell bonds to the Chinese so that we can prop up Fannie & Freddie so that they don’t default on the bonds that the Chinese already hold; we can’t make a phone call without being concerned that the Feds are listening in; we can’t open offshore bank accounts without our bank reporting on us; our government approves torturing prisoners; the current administration is an incestuous cesspool of corruption and graft; etc.
I will paraphrase that great Conservative republican hero Ronald Reagan: Honestly, are we better off than we were eight years ago?
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 2:39PM
@2:13
beentheredonethat wants everyone to know that DUDE, HE TOOK THE COURSE AND CRUSHED IT! AT FINE INSTITUTION NO LESS! SO SHUT UP!
Posted by Judson_Clark , Jul 15, 2008 2:42PM
Everything is bigger in Texas.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 2:51PM
To all the ignoramuses who came here from Drudge, HuffPo or Daily Kos: Yes, Chimpy McHitlerburton is a terrible president who puts puppies in blenders, clubs baby seals and likes to screen snuff films of the hapless innocents imprisoned in Guantanamo. Happy? Now go away.
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 2:55PM
@2:19
Wow, another angry guy. Lots of them on here today. I was simply pointing out some historically accurate points, not engaging in the "Crossfire" mentality of political shouting contests. If you think this economy is so god damn awful, you probablt still had a pacifier in your mouth in 1973-75, 1979-1982. This is child's play compared to those times. Now go look at the foreclosures going on now. Many of these concern buyers who couldn't come up with the 2nd and 3rd payment. Clearly shouldn't have been given the loan. Oil price? Opening ANWR in 2001 as Bushed asked would have prevented a world of hurt now, but your a tree hugger, right? Even where there are no trees, much less people.....
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 2:56PM
"Honestly, are we better off than we were eight years ago?"
Dont know about 8, but 7 years ago people were walking out of the city across the brooklyn bridge covered in soot, the nation had come to a halt and 19 camel jockeys from some cave in the middle of nowhere had brought the mightiest nation in the world to its knees. That was the stunning finale to the 8 years of previous supposed 'prosperity' (lets for a second forget the 2000 recession). All due to a pacifist philosophy which refused to take down the terrorists on their homeground and invited them over here.
And lets also forget for a second that in the intervening 7 years, the US saw prosperity that it had never seen before.
So yes, I think it was better than the previous 8 years. If in teh gloomiest period of a presidency, unemployment is around 5% and the economy is growing at 0.5%, it sure as hell must be a damn good administration!
What was the peak growth and contraction under clinton?
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 2:58PM
@2:51 Thank you.
Be careful with satire. The pos(t)ers here probably didn't get this week's cover of the New Yorker and are outraged!
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 3:03PM
Ownership society = owned
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 3:13PM
Also, let's get our English straight, starting with the title of the post. Irrelevancy and lame duck are redundant, as that is what the term lame duck implies. Now, for a lame duck President, he is seeming very relevant these days. Last week he got through his war funding bill, even though the democrats control both houses. While he might not get an immigration program through, he remains Commander in Chief until Noon on 1/20/09 as well as in charge of the Treasury Dep't. So I really wouldn't expect him to fade from view until McCain is sworn in in his presence on the West Front of the Capitol.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 3:34PM
3:13, As much as I would like that to happen, I doubt that the crazy old fool will be able to overcome the sly communist.
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 3:39PM
@3:34
Please remember the pot is not yet even simmering. After Labor Day, and especially October, when it reaches full boil, it will be clear to all what I am now convinced of: Obama can't handle the heat. He is awesome with a teleprompter and a disaster on his feet. At the slightest bit of criticism, he begins to wimper. To put it in the vernacular, the guy is a pussy. And while I am no racist, no white guy would presume to run for the Presidency with his resume.
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 6:28PM
"In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136."
Now if you oppose drilling ANWR and OCS yet enjoy bitching about the US economy, time to move to, say, Belgium.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 6:52PM
Moving to belgium would be a good idea for the liberals. It represents the best (worst?) kind of politically correct liberal bs that liberals here in the state fawn over. So much so that the country has just collapsed and will probably fragment into 2 pieces - all in the name of political correctness.
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 6:54PM
@6:52
Amen, brother.
Posted by chad , Jul 15, 2008 7:16PM
yea, fuck the liberals. go to belgium. yea. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 7:50PM
@ beenthere...
I generally think your comments on the market are excellent. However, when it comes to Bush he will go down as the worst president ever. How do you know that anything he has done in the last 7 years prevented another attack on American soil. The first WTC attack came during Clintons adminstration and there was not another for 8 years. Yes Clinton didn't get Bin Laden but neither has Bush. Perhaps if Bush had paid attention to the CIA breifing on August 6, 2001 that stated "Bin Laden determined to attack USA" then 9/11 may have been prevented. I would also argue that the use of gitmo, torture, abu gharib, unlawful combants, ect. has probably done more to create terrorists than anything Bush has done to prevent terrorism.
As far as NAFTA goes - seriously we are back to protectionism? Perhaps if we had not had such high tariffs on imported sugar cane we may have sugar ethanol (which actual works, check out the long term thinking of Brazil on this point) and have avoided some of the food inflation that is being caused by corn ethanol.
As far as drilling in ANWR, regardless of what Bush tried to do 7 years ago ANWR would not have been drilled prior 2007 because it was not ECONOMICAL until the point that crude hit and remained in the $60 to $80 range. Bush and Cheney are suppossed to be "energy guys" and yet this country has had NO energy plan for the last 7 years - WTF.
I am not a fan of Obama or a Clinton lover but i don't think he has been s "good president".
The prosperity that Bush delivered was an illusion based on the continued expansion of home values and home owners. When 60% - 70% of the Bush prosperity evaporates and all we are left with is the trillon dollar bill for the war in Iraq and $5 a gallon gas who can we hold accountable - Clinton?
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 7:56PM
from 7:50pm
ps - beenthere, everything i said in my last post was said with respect for your point of view. I am not trying to engage in some sort of crossfire BS.
Posted by beentheredonethat , Jul 15, 2008 8:52PM
@7:50
I went to frat parties that were rowdier than Abu Ghraib. I'm watching the All Star game now, but I'm sticking by everything I've said. As far as intelligence briefings go, they are written in the language of CYA (cover your ass). Yes, perhaps the August briefing said that. But there was no mention of who, when, where, what. Don't know about you, but I, try as I might, still cannot read tea leaves.
Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 11:25PM
beentheredonethat. I doubt that your frat parties lasted as long as imprisonment at Abu Ghraib. In view of the severity of the abuses that went on at Abu Ghraib, I just can't quite credit your statement.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 1:00AM
He exxagerated but I think his basic point was that abu ghraib (thanks to the liberal media) was made out to be much much more than what it actually was.
On one hand you had terrorists kidnapping people, videotaping their beheadings and then dumping the decapitated bodies in garbage dumps.
On the other hand you had naked men being made to form a pyramid, being mocked by women and terrorized by dogs on leash.
The second incident was no doubt tremendously unbecoming of the conduct expected of a professional millitary of a democratic country. However, the media did not just equate the two but potrayed the second as being the main attrocity while almost entirely glossing over the first as something natural.
Similarly, no one can deny that there will always be a few bad apples everywhere and there is no doubt that some soldiers committed attrocities. However, those were maybe 2% of all the US soldiers. However, 100% of the people we were fighting against were bad apples and their sole point was committing attrocities.
However, liberal media once again equated both sides, and if anything labelled the US army and the administration behind it the bigger terrorists (something that persists to date in left wing circles).
So whereas ACLU lawyers are lining up to fight on behalf of the terrorists whose sole mission was beheading people and killing as many people as possible, code pink is attacking the soldiers whose sole mission was to take those terrorists down while liberal towns try to outdo each other in trying to throw army recruitment centers (required to be able to catch those beheaders) out of their towns.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 3:13PM
Seriously that is what you think.
So you are willingly to give american soliders the benefit of the doubt - only 2% bad - but less than .0000000001% of arab/muslims/sunni Iraq's have anything to do with the atrocities you attempted to attribute to the prisioners of Abu Gharib.
Would it interest you to know that during the life of Abu Gharib, as a US run prision in Iraq, over 10,000 people were detained, over 1000 were subjected to versiou degree's of torture, three people died (after being visted by CIA interoggators) and five months after the initial scandal the prision was closed and NOBODY was EVER CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. They were NOT terrorists before the time at Abu gharib but i am going to bet they may think less favorably of the USA after thier time in Abu Gharib.
Our soliders are honorable people trying to protect the honor and integrity of our country. Detaining and torturing innocent people (regradless of where those people come from) is NOT honorable, it is NOT the USA. It is what countries like IRAN,SYRIA & NORTH KOREA do.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 3:20PM
ps - maybe we hold the USA army to a higher standard than the "terrorist" (hence the term "terrorist") So we are quick to condemn that which disappoints us. Clearly the behavior of a few personnal at ABU GHARIB was not the behavior we would expect from a solider/marine in the USA military. When a terrorist behaves well like a terrorist i think "reversion to the terrorist mean".
It is interesting to me that you don't hold your military service personal to higher standard.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 5:14PM
"but less than .0000000001% of arab/muslims/sunni Iraq's have anything to do with the atrocities "
Population of Iraq = 28MM. So by your calculation 2.8e-7 Iraqis were involved in terrorism.
By most calculation, there were at least a few million Baathist loyalist, and an army which was quite large. Rounding up only 10,000 seems to be surprisingly circumspect on behalf on the US!
"three people died (after being visted by CIA interoggators)"
So lets see. You are up against a millitary / guerilla / terrorist combo who have already killed thousands and are beheading hundreds by the week. None of them really leaves behind video or dna evidence so that a Law&Order style courtroom trial can be heard, and neither do the just answer questions when asked.
So how would YOU deal with them? Do you understand war? Do you think in WW2 when the US soldiers fought the Nazis they handcuffed them and read them their rights? There were no attrocities? LESS than 3 people / informants / soldiers / civilians were tortured killed?
Go back to the library and take a few puffs from the bong. The kind of 'guidelines' that you are suggesting will result in only one thing - totaly annihilation of the party following those guidelines. No one in his right mind wants to go out these and kill people. However, the soldiers aren't exactly walking around a mall over there. They are surrounded by unknown folks whose one aim is to KILL the soldiers. And those folks aren't dressed in full combat gear either. They are using every possible method of deception available to hide their identities while killing the soldiers.
You think that in such a situation one know who the innocents are and who are not? And how are you so convinced that those people were innocent? And what would you recommend the army do? Ask the terrorists to turn themselves in? What is your grand scheme of then bringing these people to 'justice'? What evidence will your produce? From where?
We already have a fairly high standard as a nation which is why we have 150k+ men and women out there putting their lives in danger trying to bring the RIGHT people to justice.
Had we been immoral, do you know how easy things would be? The US has more than sufficient firepower to flatten out all of Iraw that is worth living in and
to kill all the terrorist - along with a few hundred thousand others.
It is proof of the US's retraint and respect for law - as well as a desire not to harm innocents that it choses to be there losing 4000 of its brave citizens trying to bring the RIGHT criminals to justice, instead of carpet bombing the whole damn place.
Unfortunately, lefties like you refuse to acknowledge this tremendous restraint or applaud the efforts that the country is taking to actually take down only the criminals. It is the fight of a 95% immoral force (the US) against a 95% immoral force (the terrorists).
However you are fixated on the 5% immoral part here, completely gloating over the 95% moral part.
We dont hold out millitary personal to the same standards, we hold them at a much much much higher standard. However, your leftists hold the millitary to an impossible standard - which is unattainable for a force whose ultimate goal is to kill to defend. And at the slightest departure from that unattainable leftists standard - you immediately villify the millitary and directly equate them with terrorists.
Nice standards you do have, indeed.