There was a Washington Post Story today about former Bush administration officials criticisms of the new administration. I'm neither here nor there on the substance of the report - I can see a good argument either way on whether and how these guys should be criticizing the new administration.
I do have to disagree with the statement by Thomas E. Mann, "... A lot of these people are still caught up in these ideological battles and can't let go."
It's sad but that statement really isn't true anymore. Both side have ceased to honestly argue on ideological grounds. It implies that both Republicans and their opponents were engaged in ideological battles. In fact, very little of the opposition to Bush administration policies was ideological in nature. It was mostly personal. It was mostly because the policies were Bush's, they had to be wrong.
As evidence, here's what we've seen in two weeks...
Rendition? under Bush bad, under Obama ok
Lobbyists in Government? Under Bush bad, under Obama ok
Troops in Iraq? Under Bush bad, under Obama ok (read through the article to see how troops will stay in Iraq, but be designated "not combat troops.")
Corrupt officials? Under Bush bad, under Obama ok
Corporate fat cats influencing policy? Under Bush bad, under Obama ok.
You can tell me about the disagreements, but please, don't say they are ideological. That's just not honest. It's all about power.