Another Democratic defeat?

I may be totally wrong about this as at the moment I do not know precisely what agreement was reached between Democrats and Republicans over the filibuster business. What I think, however, is if this was some sort of compromise, the Democrats lost. They lost because there was no reason to compromise. Republicans were totally wrong in attempting to do away with the filibuster (with a 200 plus year tradition in the Senate) and Democrats were entirely right to defend it. So why should they have compromised? It was also the case that public opinion was clearly against doing away with minority rights (the filibuster). Will Democrats never realize there is no such thing as compromise when it comes to Republicans? Of course I always forget - Democrats only pretend to be an opposition party and then inevitably give up. This is so because they all suck on the same Corporate teats. So what we now have in American politics is simply a charade. Democrats pretend to be a viable opposition, Republicans pretend the Democrats are, and they inevitably come out on the side of Corporate control of the world. It's a neat con game in which the middle and lower classes suffer to provide more and more wealth to those who need it the least. Actually, it's called Fascism. We like to believe it can't happen here - but it is.

Now I have a question about responsibility or the lack of it. This is perhaps a kind of philosophical question. There is no question whatsoever that George W. Bush is a war criminal. Everyone in the world knows this, including all of our Senators and Representatives (unless they are so stupid they don't understand anything at all). Now, in the case of Dubya, is he a war criminal because he is responsible for an illegal, immmoral, unconstitutional "war" that he deliberately lied about in order to start, or is he a war criminal because he was so irresponsible he let others lead him into it under false pretenses? That is, when he was off on his many vacations at his (pretend) ranch did he just not pay attention to what Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other neocons were doing in his name? Or did he know and agree to it all? Actually, in his case, I guess he could have done both: known about it but too stupid to perceive it was wrong. If and when the trial comes (and I sincerely hope it will someday) will he plead not guilty because he was borderline retarded or will he claim he was fully in charge and did what he believed was the right thing? Presumably, Hitler believed (maybe) killing Jews and Gypsies and Homosexuals was the right thing to do. Did Dubya believe killing thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis was the right thing to do (in order to steal their oil)? I do not mean to be facetious here. He clearly can't have believed he was really interested in spreading Democracy there given the fact that he is not interested in Democracy even in the United States. Unless, of course, he actually believes in all the claptrap bullshit he and the neocons have been spinning for the last few years. I give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he really is that stupid and has allowed himself to be used by a criminal cabal that he is basically uninterested in except in so far that it promotes his pretend dictatorship. He truly has no clothes and now has sent his wife out to cover his nakedness.