When you refer to the preeminent blogging war critic I assume you mean me. Who else could it possibly be? If I am wrong though, I wish you would name the person you are referring to. Thanks in advance for the citation, or the correction, whichever it turns out to be.

I thought Dagblog had already issued a citizens arrest writ for Obama for war mongering?

C'est vrai, non?

So his availability to curtail a state of perpetual war, continue funding for DADT, or his ability to fund START, which were all mentioned in the White House brief as issues, are moot points, are they not?

Interesting. A blog post of extreme meta emo butt-hurt sadness posing as a news link ... with not a single shred of content from the supposed news article in question. So this is how you con people who would ordinarily choose ignore such whiny tripe into having your nonsense pop up in their faces?

Since this is honestly a blog about the work of other bloggers more than about the ACLU article you highlight as an excuse... my question in response would be: how does this mitigate or negate the legitimate observations and criticisms raised previously by others which far outnumber and outweigh this one bit of theoretical shining goodness?

The funny part is that Obama finally did something you think can be spun as decent from a progressive standpoint and you didn't even bother to make the post about Obama. You made it what this action by Obama says about how clever you are to support him without question - then didn't even have the huevos to toot your own horn and went out all passive-aggressive stylie into a meta-bitch at fellow bloggers who have been pissing you off recently (by not being unquestioningly supportive enough). No matter how lame Obama manages to be, his uncritical supporters demonstrate an ability to amplify his lameness with absurd fanboyism to the point they even overpower stuff he could get positive credit for. LMAO.

Although seriously. You'd have to be awful moist in the panties for Obama to get very enthused by this. We're supposed to be surprised that a president who has claimed executive powers more far reaching than Bush would threaten to veto a bill over provisions that limit his executive power? In what universe? Yeah, if something comes along that helps Obama and also meets with the approval of a constituency he usually pisses on, sure he'll do it. No big surprise there.

But there is one important thing being approached in a  misleading way that should be highlighted. The part of the bill that "attempts to launch a worldwide war without specific targets or reasons" certainly appears to have WH support on some level. In a practical sense it appears to provide legislative cover for some of the questionable stuff Obama is currently doing by executive fiat stretching the AUF - basically codifying and placing a formal structure (with oversight) on Obama's current policy. Unless he's got himself a John Yoo 2.0 it seems he'll need something like this sooner or later - we are almost out of targets that can be said to have responsibility for 9/11. OTOH, there is an amazing amount of power in having his action authority defined only through secret memos and executive orders - and operationally he is currently doing everything the legislation authorizes (and more) anyhow. I'll bet he wants congress mucking around in that as little as possible. It is an interesting dynamic but he is by no means threatening to veto over the provision - just saying the issue "merits extensive consideration".

With due respect, you have highlighted this particular round of political gamesmanship with all the intellectual heft of a schoolgirl agog over Justin Beiber.

Good call, TM.  But let me know when he gives up on the Bush era secret domestic spying and stops doing things like reauthorizing the Patriot Act without a hint of debate.

He's not equal to Bush, by any means.  But Bush is a very low bar.