Like Enron? Or Arthur Anderson?

The fact of the situation is that BHO was sitting in office when things went to shit. I believe it was a Democrat that said, "The buck stops here." BHO doesn't get a pass here.

I don't think anybody seriously believes that BHO was willing to spend time, resources, or political capital on securing a status of forces agreement with Maliki's Government. He viewed himself as elected to "end" wars and conducted his foreign policy accordingly, at least until the rise of IS. I'm skeptical that it's BHO's "fault" per se, but I'm also skeptical of those that give him a complete pass on this issue.

Regime change in Iraq was stated US policy, signed into law by Bill Clinton. The AUMF was approved by Congress, with a bipartisan vote. None of this is to defend GWB, simply to point out the GP is accurate when he said there's plenty of blame to go around.

Why was it speeding? There are a multitude of different reasons why it could have happened. Some of them (joyriding or distracted driving) would be the engineers fault and rise to a criminal level of negligence. Others (mechanical failure, software bug, take your pick) would not be his fault but may indicate civil or criminal liability for someone as yet identified. It might even fall into the "shit happens" category (a syncope with no prior medical warning, not an uncommon occurrence) and be no one's fault at all.

We simply don't know, unless you've got inside information that you're not sharing. Until we know the why it's premature to assign blame.

Unconventional != without honor or legality, two things that terrorists are sorely lacking. The equation (real or implied) with the militia is offensive; the militia derives its authority from the state and fights under the command of officers that were duly appointed by the state. There's a chain of command and accountability that terrorists can not claim. The militia largely obeyed the contemporary laws of war, something terrorists have never even pretended to do.

It's impossible to say how history would have judged the American rebellion had it failed but I think it's safe to say that it would not have judged it the same way that it's going to judge terrorism 200 years from now.

They were, at least by the Shia and Kurds. Of course, we fucked that up, through our own incompetence, and of course the Shia never going to be particularly happy when we got in the way of their pogrom against the Sunnis. The whole country is an artificial creation that is destined for the trash bin of history; everything we're seeing now would have happened eventually without our intervention. Fake countries rarely survive when their strongman dies. Our mistake was in being the one to break it, thus owning the problem.

Recent events (Libya) suggest that we still haven't fully digested this lesson. If you're gonna blow it up you should probably have a plan for what happens afterwards.

Fixed it for you. :)

There's a South Park parody of New Orleans after Katrina, with the entire town on their roofs, awaiting rescue, while Stan's parents argue about whether or not it was GWB's fault, FEMAs, or the local Mayor. Stan interrupts the argument and says, "But someone's going to help those people, right?" His Dad responds, "That's not important right now son. What's important is figuring out whose fault this is."

It's not oppressing you to say that your city government can't do certain things. My State denies towns under a certain population the ability to have their own police force. Is that oppressive?

If they're banning co-ops you've got a point about oppression but there is no oppression in the State regulating the size and scope of the cities, towns, and counties contained therein.

The Continental Army fought in uniform, under the command of officers, and did not hide behind non-combatants or deliberately target them. The British still regarded them as rebels, rather than POWs, at least during the outset of the war before the Americans captured significant numbers of British men and could retaliate for abuses committed against American POWs.

Either way, there's a huge difference between the actions of the Continental Army and those we currently describe as terrorists. Perception may be a different animal, though it's worth noting that the British never resorted to the sorts of tactics they used in Ireland or India to suppress rebellions.

Washington is a special case, defined by the US Constitution, but of course you already knew that.

Then sue on that basis. Or petition the FCC to override those franchise agreements. I'll support your efforts wholeheartedly. What I can't support is:

City: We want to get into the broadband (or garbage, water, food, or really anything) business.
State: You can't do that.
Uncle Sam: Yes they can.

I am not familiar with the NC Constitution but if the State Legislature is violating it your recourse is with the State Judiciary, not the FCC. The FCC has not claimed NC's Constitution has justification for this power grab. Even a Federal bureaucrat couldn't do that and keep a straight face.

In which case they deprived their authority from colonial charters. That authority was inherited by the States. There is no city within the United States that stands alone with supreme sovereignty. Any city within the United States could be dissolved tomorrow if the State Legislature decided to do it and their Governor was willing to sign off on it.

Red herring. I didn't claim the States could or should leave the Union. I simply claimed that the Federal Government can't decide for them how much power they wish to delegate to their political subdivisions. You should familiarize yourself with the 10th Amendment and concept of enumerated powers.