Glenn, there's 150+ years of American history in which presidents, from Lincoln to FDR, broke the law. Should each of them have been brought into a court room? If so, every President in history would have his caibent filing legal briefs for the rest of their lives.

The argument made by Obama -- that prosecuting Bush officials would bog down the ability for Washington to function -- is a valid one, with a long tradition in America.

In Bush's specific case, I actually disagree, as the torture and FISA lawbreaking rise, in my opinion, to the level of prosecutoral response.

But the larger point -- that there are other ways to handle law breaking in politics, is one you refuse to even consider.

Acceptance of the ability for the President to operate "illegally" and outside of the Constitution is one with a long tradition both inside and outside courtrooms in this country. It is a concept that tempers your nonsensical belief that at some point this mythical, all powerful "rule of law" will settle in over the Washington elite in every single instance of lawbreaking. Like some magical "courtroom" of perfect idealism, in which all crimes face accountability.

How's about starting wars without a declaration of war from Congress? It's been happening fof 60 years, and last time I checked with the Constitution, that was highly illegal.

And of course the ability to "Pardon," embedded from the start, gives the President a strange ability to override the rule of law that was written in by the founding fathers to allow certain cases of clemency when the "rule of law" fails to lead to justice.

The real issue is not this magical pony "rule of law" simplicity you keep espousing, it is about transparency versus secrecy. This is why a viable investigative news media is so vital, and why Fox News is so dangerous. The answer to illegal actions is not always prosecution -- it is sunlight.

Bush operated illegally in secret.

Obama is making his tough and sometimes clearly "illegal" decisions above the board and directly to the American people. Agree or disagree with the legality of his handling of some Gitmo prisoners or his refusal to release previous administration torture pictures, but he's announcing what he's doing and why he's doing it.

This is the key difference. The actions themselves, some of which clearly violate laws, are above-the-board, and can be met with public response at the voting booth.

There is a long tradition of letting this sort of "illegal" accountability be handled at the voting booth rather than in a courtroom.

This is the point you continually fail to grasp.

It's not about being "legal" and "illegal," especially in cases of military decision making.

It's about transparency.

If Bush had been remotely transparent, his lawbreaking would've been handled with backlash in the court of public opinion, and the need for prosecutions wouldn't have been necessary. The actions would've been either aborted or accepted by the American public, and handled by voting the bums in or out.

As it was, when republican law breaking became common knowledge, their asses were thrown out of office.

The point is that in the political realm, the reprocussions for lawbreaking are handled in the "courtroom of public opinion," that this second "courtroom" was forseen in the Constitution, and that it is, for our political leaders, as valid a response as sending in prosecutors and defendents to drag out a five year courtroom show, that could easily devolve into the absurdities we saw in the 90s of Clinton talking about his penis under oath.

You are right to advocate for the resurrection of a potent national media to challenge and expose everything Washington does. But to always demand a "prosecution" for every crime committed by political administrations could easily lead to endless lawsuits and a paralyzed government.

And what will all this get us? This poster sums it up:

not amused by this administration

Obamas weak-knee approach on health care and the Bush crime family will not drive me to the evil party, but it sure as hell will keep me home on next 2 elecion days. That,s a fucken promise.

Congratulations.

The real world doesn't matter. All that matters is that Glenn was right arguing his case in his imagined court of mythical law on a cloud somewhere.