This is a particular difference between us: on 27 October 2013, I see no credible evidence to support your belief. If the evidence eventually appears, apparently it's an intention to go back and trumpet that you were correct. But on 27 October 2013, you were not correct based on available evidence. Prejudice that turns out to be correct still is prejudice and it has nothing to do with evidence eventually emerging to support prior claims. Also I notice that when prejudice turns out to be unfounded, people aren't so keen to go back and claim ownership of the version they asserted. Seems to me to be much more reasonable (though less dramatic) to base judgment on evidence, not on whatever people hope will turn out to be true.

You're right....the predictions/projections I've made regarding this administration keep bearing out, despite any evidence I had at the time of the projection :)

Again, I said that I highly doubt M.O. would receive a dime. But I again ask the question - how does a Canadian firm with a documented history of failed deliveries in North America get awarded such a big, high-profile contract, where their proposal was (again, a documented fact) the only one evaluated? Why did CGI executives visit the White House six times prior to receiving the contract? Why is there no public record of any public solicitation for the Obamacare website contract? Why were White House visitor logs suddenly marked as "private"?

This is not unlike Solyndra and the nearly 2-dozen different firms who that received federal stimulus funds based on highly questionable merit. There was strong speculation that Democratic leaders were getting kickbacks - sure enough, Nancy Pelosi turned out to be a benefactor from the stimulus.

Believe me, JR, this administration has enough bad marks that they should no longer get the benefit of a doubt from anyone.