The explanation is quite simple: The leftists have no moral principles. When the decision making process is guided only by expediency, there are no moral or legal guide posts.

Bush did do those kind of things. His administration then handed the 'baton' on the Obama administration. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

The travel complaints are pretty much bullshit. Bullshit when the Left complains about Republican presidents, bullshit when the Right complains about Democratic presidents. Forgive the pun, but it's the price of doing business.

As for Holder's speech (and Obama's record when it comes to indefinite detention, drone strikes and this apparently new policy of killing US citizens abroad without due process), that definitely isn't bullshit.

"Leftists" (to coin the bright and shiny new term of derision from Right Wing Nut Jobs like BarSinister), including, but not limited to Greenwald, actually have been screaming bloody murder about it. But the main stream media and most progressive Democrats, not so much. And if you try to say, look it wasn't right when Bush/Cheney engaged in this policy, it's not right when the Obama administration does it now, you're shot down as being an "Emo-Prog" ( a lovely term meant to characterize you as an "Emotional Progressive" unworthy of engaging in rational discussion).

A lot of us don't consider Obama a liberal or a leftitst. We consider him a moderate Republican. As far as the Democratic Party goes? Please. Again, moderate Republicans, filling in a gap created when the Republican Party went far-right, Christo-fascist. And, yes, the braindead hypocrisy of the Democrats and so-called "liberals" regarding Obama's detention, murder and obsfuscation policies has been nothing short of astounding. Jake Tapper of ABC News has been one of the only TV journalists to question the Obama Party line. But keep in mind kids, on questions of Privacy, Assassination, etc. Obama has had the full support of Congressional Republicans, with only Ron Paul (R) and Bernie Sanders (Socialist) dissenting. And, please, the Washington Press Corps. with the exception of Helen Thomas, was just as asskissing to Bush.

Bush did do those kind of things. His administration then handed the 'baton' on the Obama administration. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

Bush at least made a pretense of showing respect for the Constitution.

He briefed Congressional leaders about the "enhanced interrogation" techniques being used. His administration debated their use, even referencing the Constitution when framing their arguments.

He asked Congress for authorization before committing the military to an overseas venture (twice).

His Patriot Act wiretaps and surveillance required a FISA court warrant.

Obama, the erstwhile "Constitutional scholar" and part-time law professor, treats the Constitution as an afterthought while ordering the assassination of American citizens, committing American military personnel to foreign adventures, forcing Americans to participate in practices that violate their religious beliefs, etc.

And his minions are just as bad.

==============================

Eric Holder frightens me as Attorney General.

He told a press conference that if the government tried Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian trial in New York City and Mohammed was acquitted of all charges, that didn't mean he would go free. Uh, Eric, that's exactly what an acquittal means. Without new charges, the acquitted is free to go.

Now, Holder says the government doesn't need court's permission to assassinate US citizens ... even on US soil (where they are ostensibly under the "protection" of the US government and US Constitution).

==============================

Leon Panetta is arguing that the president can commit US troops to "kinetic military actions" without the premission of Congress ... as long as the president has international permission for such action.

And that the president can decide whether - and when - he wants to let Congress know about it.

Bush at least made a pretense of showing respect for the Constitution.

So that's enough for you? That Bush pretended better than Obama pretends?

So that's enough for you? That Bush pretended better than Obama pretends?

Way to miss the point ... entirely, MonicaP.

Lots of presidents have been frustrated by the limits imposed upon their power by the Constitution. However, except for a very few, they've all maintained at least a pretense of respecting it.

Until Obama.

Under Obama...

...we've got an Attorney General who believes the president can be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens anywhere in the world.

...we've got a Secretary of Defense who believes the president can send our sons and daughters to war and does not have to inform Congress of whys, whens, and whats ... before or after the fact.

...we've got a Secretary of Health and Human Services issuing edicts that force Americans to violate their religious beliefs.

...we've got an EPA that has saddled the US economy with trillions of dollars in job-killing regulations while ignoring Congressional objections.

...we've got a president who is tripling the national debt by ignoring Congressional spending and regulatory oversight requirements.

...we've got a president who routinely makes recess appointments ... when Congress is not actually in recess.

And your biggest concern is to make sure Bush gets blamed ... or is judged to be at least as bad?

And your biggest concern is to make sure Bush gets blamed ... or is judged to be at least as bad?

If I missed the point, it's possible that you didn't make it very well initially.

My biggest concern is that these awful things are happening. That they are happening under Obama is secondary, because they were happening under Bush, too. And they will be happening under the next president, Republican or Democrat, most likely.

And yes, it's important that we recognize just how much Bush screwed up, because it keeps us from pretending the Republicans can fix this, or that it would not be this bad had McCain been elected. It kills the fantasy that this is a problem we can fix by voting in a Republican instead of a Democrat.

Bush never respected the Constitution. Our 4th amendment rights first started eroding under Bush and Yoo. In 2001 and 2002, Bush and a split Congress gave us the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. Bush lied to all of us about weapons of mass destruction in order to embroil us in a war in Iraq.

There's not a lot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans right now. People don't generally give up power once they have it. At the very least, the Democrats have never pretended to be about small government. In the end, I'm more frustrated with voters. This is our fault. We are the government, and we refuse to change this. It seems like we're having too much fun treating politics like sports.

Side note: If Congress wants to consider itself in session, then it should actually be in session, not pretending to be in session in order to block Obama's every appointment on general principle. There are plenty of bigger things to hold against him.

If I missed the point, it's possible that you didn't make it very well initially.

Perhaps.

My biggest concern is that these awful things are happening. That they are happening under Obama is secondary, because they were happening under Bush, too.

But they're not the same things. And no amount of hating Bush and wishing he were as bad will change that.

The president and COngress will always struggle for supremacy in our government. It's the way the system was designed. Our founding fathers had seen that committees could be just as tyrannical as monarchs and wanted to avoid concentrating too much power in the hands of any ruling entity. So they set up Congress and the president as opposed and equal parts of the government.

Bush and Obama's struggles with Constitutional restrictions are not the same thing.

Bush respected Harry Reid's sham recesses and didn't make appointments during them.

Bush consulted Congress on matters of committing troops to combat.

Bush prepared and submitted budgets to Congress, and debated Congress on getting them passed.

Bush cabinet appointees submitted to Congressional oversight, albeit sometimes reluctantly.

Obama makes appointments during the recesses, demands Congress give him a budget, and trods heavily over people's Constitutional rights in enacting policy and imposing regulations.

Bush lied to all of us about weapons of mass destruction in order to embroil us in a war in Iraq.

Ah yes, the "Bush lied" canard rears its ugly head.

Every Western intelligence agency reported that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He had already used chemical weapons against the Iranians, the Kurds, and the Shi'ites. Wikipedia lists 15 chemical weapons attacks perpetrated by Saddam Hussein. The fear that he might use them again was not a lie.

British intelligence reported he was shopping around for nuclear material (including, but not limited to, the famous Niger story).

Years earlier (1981), the Israelis bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak to keep nuclear weapons out of Saddam's hands.

In 1990 a shipment of nuclear triggers bound for Iraq was seized at Heathrow Airport.

Saddam promised rewards of $10,000, then $25,000, to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel or the West. That he might put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization was a reasonable fear.

In 1995, an Iraqi scientist admitted to UN inspectors that she had grown several tons each of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and other biological weapons agents.

In 2002, the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded that Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons in only a few months, if it could obtain fissile material (e.g., yellow cake uranium). The Federation of American Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists considered the time estimate optimistic, but did not refute the overall conclusion.

In 2003, Hans Blix, in charge of monitoring Iraqi disarmament for the UN, stated that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted UN resolutions demanding that it disarm."

So, the belief that Saddam Hussein had, or could quickly get, and was willing to use weapons of mass destruction was not some straw man created by a war-mongering Bush.

The Bush administration always maintained there were three reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein: weapons of mass destruction, support for terrorism, and the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Weapons of mass destruction was highlighted because it was the reason most of the administration could agree warranted the use of force to remove of Saddam Hussein from power.

Mistake? Probably. War-mongering lie? No.

There's not a lot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans right now. People don't generally give up power once they have it. At the very least, the Democrats have never pretended to be about small government. In the end, I'm more frustrated with voters. This is our fault. We are the government, and we refuse to change this. It seems like we're having too much fun treating politics like sports.

On the substance of this, we agree. I won't split hairs on the differences.

And yes, it's important that we recognize just how much Bush screwed up, because it keeps us from pretending the Republicans can fix this.... It kills the fantasy that this is a problem we can fix by voting in a Republican instead of a Democrat.

"I voted for the Democrats because I didn't like the way the Republicans were running the country. Which is turning out to be like shooting yourself in the head to stop your headache." -- Jack Mayberry

We know Obama cannot fix this. That leaves us no choice but to vote for a Republican to fix it. Choosing that Republican is the tricky part. Santorum is a big government evangelical who thinks the devil is coming for us all (and he may be right on that). Romney is an expert at corporate turnarounds, but the government is not a corporation. Ron Paul has some good fiscal ideas, but is a complete whack job on foreign policy. Gingrich is an ideas guy (with a few good ones and a few out-there ones), but lacks any experience putting ideas into practice and has not articulated a coherent policy (foreign or domestic) for his presidency.

...or that it would not be this bad had McCain been elected....

Let's not pretend McCain and Obama were two sides of a single coin.

In the final analysis, it probably would not be this bad had McCain been elected.

McCain's agenda was different from Obama's. His perspective and orientation were different.

McCain came from a military family, a conservative state, and went to the Naval Academy.

Obama was the child of hippies, was educated at liberal schools (Columbia and Harvard), and spent his politically formative years associating with political radicals (e.g., Wright, Ayers, and Dorn).

Obama had no prior executive experience or training. Both his national and his Congressional experience were made up of less than one year in the Senate. He authored no bills, gave no major speeches, took no stands, and chaired no committees. As a result of this featherweight resume, Obama has been a hands-off president, offering no coherent policy and vision. He demands that Congress deliver bills for him to sign; and he signs them as instructed, allowing his "allies" in Congress to load them with pork.

McCain also lacked executive experience, but did have US Navy leadership training. His experience in Congress spanned several presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. He had risen to a leadership position among his peers in Congress and had sponsored several major bills - many with a co-sponsor from across the aisle.

As early as 2005, McCain spoke forcefully about the need to reform Fannie Mae, joining six other Republicans in an effort to do so after the Bush Administration's effort died in a Democrat-controlled Congress. McCain's bill never made it out of Chris Dodd's Banking Committee.

If Congress wants to consider itself in session, then it should actually be in session, not pretending to be in session in order to block Obama's every appointment on general principle.

The Democrat-controlled Congress started playing that game to block Bush's ability to make recess appointments.

In politics, turnabout is fair play ... unless you're a Republican. Then, it's obstruction.

That [Saddam] might put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization was not a reasonable fear

Sorry - it was a reasonable fear.

I've got to say, our last two Democratic Presidents have appointed two of the worst attorneys general in the history of the nation. Janet Reno and Eric Holder are two sociopaths who should never have been allowed within ten miles of any kind of police power.

and spent his politically formative years associating with political radicals (e.g., Wright, Ayers, and Dorn). -- Conan the Grammarian at March 14, 2012 4:36 PM

You forgot to mention Derrick Bell. www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/08/obamas-beloved-law-professor-derrick-bell

Somehow the lame stream media has skipped reporting the suspension of Posse Comitatus. If a drone had been used in the U.S. under Bush, I don't think the media would have left it alone.

Then there is the Fast & Furious gun running that has barely made a blip in the big media outlets. What about stuff where no one died, like Solyndra, and Light Squared.

But of course it's all relative.

Jim, that's an issue that I am currently pretty close to (don't ask), and as near as I can tell, those flights are not legal. The FAA currently does not authorize flights of unmanned air vehicles anywhere in U.S. airspace, except for military restricted areas, and a few other areas where special agreements are in place. The latter require considerable advance safety analysis. The FAA just got a Congressional mandate to start developing the systems and regulations by which UAVs can operate in domestic airspace, but it's going to take several years. So I don't know how those law enforcement agencies are getting away with it.

@CD,

In ancient days I worked around Green/Red Flag out of Nellis as a participant. Luckily none of our pilots broke the black box.

But will you agree that there is a double standard?

JimP: Yes, absolutely.

With the help of efficient mortgage rates. I had opened my new IT company . I like this blog it having so much information regarding It Field

Hello,

wow post.. really to good I very much enjoyed your post and it so much helpful for me.
thanks for sharing.

Regards
Graphology