This article is unsubstantiated fiction based loosely on fact. It is info-tainment. Out of the gate Weisberg emphatically states fiction as though it were fact, He creates a series of dichotomies that do not exist between current and past presidents. Without question any new administration, particularly when empowered by a change in Party, is naturally going to adopt some of the buzz that got them elected - however - to completely fabricate a polarizing certainty is certainly not going to win a journalism Pulitzer although it is within the author's First Amendment rights, To write this article with certainty 7 months into the current administration with the most drastic socio-economic extremes in play our Nation has experienced might very well be brave - but not very cerebral. The first paragraph is plain silly - I'll venture to say Weisberg is not an alumnus the War College. The misinformation and unsubstantiated claims gather more altitude in the second paragraph with a total misrepresentation of the Clinton foreign policy timeline. Apparently, Weisberg didn't consider our engagements in Rwanda and other African Nations as important enough to include in the foreign policy of the Clinton administration, irrespective of a global collective and Clinton's own admission of 'blowing it' - it isn't as though there was no foreign policy for years as this article intimates. I would go on - but to what end?