Benghazi and Iraq: Isn't what 's good for the elephant good for the donkey?

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has issued a statement saying that it was the intelligence community, rather than the White House, which wrongly (some would say absurdly) concluded that the attack on the U.S. consulate at Benghazi, Libya was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic film rather than a carefully-planned terrorist attack.

The attack used rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. The State Department says that there is "clear evidence" that al Quaeda was involved.

Ok. Fine. Mistakes happen, and people shouldn't be blamed for the mistakes of others. But here's the question: how is acting on the basis of faulty intellegence OK for Barack Obama, but a heinous crime for George W. Bush?

If Obama gets off the hook for Benghazi because he was acting on bad information, Dubyah gets off the hook for the invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, if the buck stops on the Oval Office desk for Bush, why doesn't it at least linger on that same desk for Obama?

The Democrats can't have it both ways.