Why don't the media & The History Channel cover Shrub et.al like they do HITLER?!1

[UTUSN]

The other day The History Channel re-ran (again and again) one of their HITLER shows, this one, "High HITLER," about his drug addictions. These programs are excellent, but every time these things are aired, with the incredible detail, I yearn for our media to be documenting and exploring everything about ALL of our own and everybody's leaders. I'll be DEAD by the time all the dirt on ShrubCo, which I KNOW is there, ever starts to be unveiled.

We know (if not ALL), LOADS of crap about HITLER. Even that he had orgasms while he was orating.
I read my first deal on HITLER when I was a kid (Rise & Fall 3rd Reich), and here my entire life has frequently been bombarded with more details.

Despite that we often say that the personal lives of politicians is separate from their performance as power wielders, every time there is a tell-all from our recent administrations we "discover" that this-or-that humongous policy decision was impacted by the tiniest whims, personalities, or coincidences.


Why are KKKarl and his many ditto-minions (Roger STONE) allowed to roam around collecting millions and occupying a "respected" slot in society without having to answer questions about their innumerable hits on public persons (and therefore policies)? Why doesn't the History Channel document them now?

[tularetom]

1. Hitler was evil AND efficient

Those clowns are evil but bumbling and incompetent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. You should know what some historians say about the history channel

the history channel, where history becomes a lie

Now why don't they cover the Bushies in such detail? For the same reason nobody else covers recent scandals like BCCI or Central America

We are the US of Amnesia, to be honest, and WW II was the last good war