Don't you think it's noteworthy that every person who he's appointed to an important position are ones who voted for the Iraq War -- Emanuel, Biden, Clinton, Daschle, Napolitano -- and the ones he seems like to appoint soon did as well -- Robert Gates, John Brennan -- did as well and are Bush officials? Meanwhile, those who voted against the Iraq War seem nowhere to be found.

Is that all just coincidence?
— GlennGreenwald

On the other hand, he is certainly emptying Congress of those who voted for the Iraq war.

Incidentally, with regard to "a promise to bomb Iran rather than let them proliferate", I don't remember Obama making a promise to bomb Iran. I remember him saying that it would be unacceptable for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, but it is "unacceptable" because Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. I remember Obama telling AIPAC "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," but perhaps he believes in the Constitution and realizes that bombing Iran unilaterally is not in his power. Admittedly, that would make him the first president in well over half a century to accept this, but "everything in my power" is not necessarily a promise to bomb Iran.

One grammatical quibble, Glenn: you write "Obama's most significant appointments thus far are comprised of pure Beltway establishment figures..." The word comprise means "include or contain" so to say "Obama's appointments are included of establishment figures" is poor grammar. I would suggest "composed of" as a substitute.

Everybody does it. "Comprise" might be the most abused word in the language.
— Jestaplero

Utter nonsense: The most abused word in the language is "masterful".

com⋅prise /kəmˈpraɪz/

–verb (used with object), -prised, -pris⋅ing.

1. to include or contain: The Soviet Union comprised several socialist republics.
2. to consist of; be composed of: The advisory board comprises six members.
3. to form or constitute: Seminars and lectures comprised the day's activities.

—Idiom

4. be comprised of, to consist of; be composed of: The sales network is comprised of independent outlets and chain stores.

Usage Note: The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected. See Usage Note at include.

The usage is idiomatic but not universally accepted. But a few more years and objectors to this usage will be down in Bush popularity territory. That's one thing about substandard usages: Once "everybody does it" it's not substandard any more.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I sincerely hope that it isn't something where anyone's life is dependent on your analytical capabilities.

In fact, this Administration has displayed a strong commitment to the rule of law, with all that entails and I suspect, and I admit it is a suspicion tinged with hope, that the next Administration will maintain far more of this Administration's legal architecture than the intemperate rhetoric in some quarters would seem to suggest.
— M.B. Mukasey, prepared remarks

Interestingly enough, the Nazis also had a strong commitment to the rule of law. This is why extermination camps were set up outside of Germany proper — because they were against the law in Germany. In much the same way, the Bush administration has set up its internment camps and torture facilities outside the US because they would be against the law in the US.

Like the Nazis, the Bush administration sought legal advice on how to make the most heinous crimes somehow fall within the law. Now we hear that torture, indefinite detention on the say-so of the executive, secret prisons, and "extraordinary" (i.e., outside the niceties of the legal system) rendition for indefinite extralegal detention and torture are just "policy differences" and should not be criminalized. These things were criminalized long before the current policies that implemented them.