Not a Maher fan, and he goes too far, but... to a certain point, he does have reason.
Does anyone here not believe that we would have far less dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan had Bush/Rumsfeld/Petreaus/et al not over-reacted to the al-Ghraib controversy and enforced (for years) overly restrictive Queensbury rules of engagement in both countries (in a way that was not in evidence during the initial invasion of each country)? Sorry, but that was playing politics with our troops in a way that would have been unthinkable during WWII.
I do believe Bush rightly should (and, likely, does) feel some guilt. Otherwise, why is he constantly seeming to “do penance” by (admittedly, in a respectful manner) promoting the cause of wounded vets?
Now, this in no way, of course, exculpates the current resident of the White House, as he has only made the overly restrictive rules ever more restrictive, and, if I detect his sentiments correctly, he — unlike Bush — feels ZERO guilt over any ill effects his policies may have on the life, health, and/or morale of our troops.
That is not the point bill maher (a real world class slimeball) is trying to make. In fact, if you point holds water at all, maher is at least partly responsible for that.
But really for him it’s all for yucks, don’t you know?