dagblog - Comments for " Dick, Liz Cheney Say Obama Owes Bush Administration An Apology "

So let's see if I've got this

SleepinJeezus — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:07:47 +0000

So let's see if I've got this straight.

Dick Cheney & Co. assumed these extraordinary powers unto themselves based upon their theories regarding the unitary executive.

And then Obama embraced these powers as a matter of law because Cheney & Co. had previously established them as such.

I'm not quite sure which justification for these policies is more reprehensible. We already know the outcome is the same.

I remember a time when Liberty was a valued commodity in the good old U.S.ofA.. And I remember really brave speeches given in New York, too, about how we would never let the terrorists win. Flag waving, even. Tear in the eye sort of thing. Jaws set, ready to fight! Yeah, kick ass and take names kind of ready to fight! It was actually quite impressive at the time.

We went shopping instead, presumably for white flags to wave from the comfort of our nanny state. Liberty? Here, Dick. You have it. OK?

Anyone interested in more

artappraiser — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:24:46 +0000

In reply to Dick, Liz Cheney Say Obama Owes Bush Administration An Apology

Anyone interested in more sophisticated comparisons between Bush & Obama "war on terror" policy, I recommend following this guy's link, a comment I ran across on Yglesias' blog post on topic:

Saul Tannenbaum · Top Commenter · Cambridge, Massachusetts

The continuity of counter-terrorism policy from Bush to Obama was an ongoing theme of a conference called "Law, Security and Liberty after 9/11" at the Harvard Law School and featured John Brennan (on the record and taking questions) and a bevy of elite national security lawyers on panels.

It's safe to say that all the former Obama lawyers took exception to the notion that there was continuity and most of the former Bush lawyers insisted that there was. Jack Goldsmith went so far as to quote Glenn Greenwald to make his case.

Charlie Savage gave the closing keynote and he tried to put this in a larger framework. From his perspective, the difference between Bush and Obama was not so much outcome but process. While the Bush policies (before the Jack Goldsmith revolt) were based on the theories of the unitary executive and the commander and chief's war time authorities, the Obama administration has dismantled those justifications and put them back together with what they believe is a rigid adherence to the rule of law. That they come out in the same place is just a coincidence.

That line of reasoning is parallel to yours. A focus on who we really went to war with on 9/11 is part of that whole shift to sound footings for the various policies.

Not to pimp my own work, but I wrote up the conference here:

http://www.cctvcambridge.org/LawSecurityandLiberty

Charlie Savage has expanded his keynote to a $.99 Kindle single here:

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Wars-Unmasking-Deliberations-ebook/dp/B005OTY468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317497820&sr=8-1

Yesterday at 12:38pm

Note that the Charles Savage Kindle single that he links to is titled

Power Wars: Unmasking National Security Legal Policy Deliberations Under Bush & Obama

even more importantly,

kgb999 — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 02:45:57 +0000

In reply to I hate it when I find myself

even more importantly, stopped it

This. I'm not even worried about an apology.

I hate it when I find myself

Verified Atheist — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:56:15 +0000

In reply to Dick, Liz Cheney Say Obama Owes Bush Administration An Apology

I hate it when I find myself even in part agreeing with Dick Cheney. Obama has effectively sanctioned many of Bush's actions by repeating them, or at least "rhyming" with them. No, I don't want Obama to apologize to Bush, but I would appreciate it if he apologized to us.

And then, even more importantly, stopped it.