I was pretty sure of that. But your reply did throw me off. I thought you were being truthful, rather then facetious. Sorry.

Yes, I believe you are 100% correct. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything that falls outside the length of their vision, which is about 10 ft.

Many have come forward to talk about Cheney and Rumsfeld influencing the president. I think this does point out who's responsible for much of today. However, this ignores the fact, that he's (the president) is ignorant enough to let himself be led by just those two.

It's been documented by many who've come forward to describe their observations while working in the whitehouse that you can't approach bush with bad news. They've seen the head of the messenger constantly getting chopped off.

I think the blame gets dropped at his feet for managing the way he does.

>>This is no longer worth to discuss. You and I are looking at the same thinga nd drawing 2 different conclusions. I've already posted from an article several months ago where military leaders were saying how Rumsfeld refusal to acknowledge an insurgency was dooming the US to failure.
>>
>>The current civil war is no different. Oh sorry, you don't see one. Nevermind.
>
>I think you're mistaking me for someone who thinks the Bush administration has done a good job in Iraq. In fact, I think the administration has done a terrible job in Iraq. Largely, it's Cheney and Rumsfeld's fault for reasons that are best explained in a series of PBS - Frontline documentaries:
>
>Truth, War & Consequences - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/
>Rumsfeld's War - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/
>The Dark Side - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/