This article is a rubber ball. Both parties are included to display a journalistic even-handedness but ultimately reveals nothing but contempt for both. Baldwin uses the relativity between a past corrupt administration and the incumbant to display current reactionary overzealousness following a devastating militaristic attack that left all of us with our mouths wide open and 3000 civilians dead.
Personal corruption vs. a Baldwin described incumbant thurst for power is a spin you should be able to decypher. Neither party is clean, but the personal corruption factor surfaced on the Dems by displaying lockstep loyalty to a single politcal party and individual over the sworn loyalty to the nation. The Repubs haven't had to make that decision in public yet.
Who's the badguy??? The presstitutes inability to inform the public without invoking a political favorite has left us divided and controlled. So for whatever reason, Chuck Baldwin is playing soft(rubber)ball here for political points and blames everybody including a hint at reporter ineptitude.
No.... Actually I don't like any of these things but they may be necessary to fight an expanding war frontier. I just think that if the democrats were in power they would have done everything 10 times worse. Democrats do not protect rights... they keep slaves. And, democrats don't know how to win wars because they can't think straight. That's why they are domocrats. Only a person with a poor understanding of history and the world becomes a democrat. You can't win wars when you can't be honest with yourself. Democrats are born liars.