The idea that Bush didn't invent disregarding the Constitution is certainly true. FDR interned Japanese-Americans, as but one of many examples and they don't make anyone proud. And Bush didn't invent signing statements, either. My point is that Bush's relentless abuses, unchecked by Congress (which I didn't mention in my already-plenty-long post) has put Bush in a whole different league. The place Bush has taken the country is now resulting in Beltway discourse that presumes, without discussion, that the law itself is not relevant as a starting point of discussion or unless it supports your position.

And no, Obama should not be expected to reverse all the evils of the Bush Administration -- not because he's evil himself, but because that's the way the Constitution presumes the Executive will act (maximizing the Executive's power unless restrained by the Legislative and Judicial branches, have we seen much of that during Bush's time?).

I don't join you in the conclusion that all is lost and all is corrupt, but I do understand it.

What I want to see is the Obama Administration and Congress step up and reinstitute some respect for the rule of law. Abolishing signing statements referencing the true evil there (Bush's concept of "unitary executive", which is repugnant to the Constitution), pursuing war crimes and felony wiretapping, and the like, etc. Obama alone isn't the one to be expected to cure all these things, but Obama can set the tone. And the tone must be respect for the law.

Here's to that maybe happening some. GG's article today provides yet another reminder of just how far off base we have allowed the discourse to be misdirected.

Polite discourse is, as you said, a good thing.

But you also belatedly disclose that you're a "New Zealander living in Germany". Sh*t, I didn't know that. I'm a 'Murikan, dammit, why would I care what you think? You're not a 'Murikan, get your butt in line. In fact, your best hope appears to be that if you can blindly support Bush quickly and blindly enough, there might yet be a Presidential Medal of Freedom in it for you, like that Aussie guy just got.

Sorry, couldn't resist. The foregoing is a joke, though I wouldn't run it by Bush and Cheney if I were you. Peace? Maybe not in the Middle East, but with all New Zealanders living in Germany? No law against that, if it matters.

the way Nixon did before he got on the helicopter.

I only listened on the radio. It was like the goal for the speech was to have somebody think "gee, wasn't he gracious tonight". Incompetent, utterly detached from the reality he has visited upon us all, but at least he didn't sound bitter.

That ain't enough. I'll watch Air Force 2 take off on TV but only in the hope I am able to see it head east toward The Hague, not west.

Thank you, Glenn. Now if everybody would please forward Glenn's rather concise statement of what's at stake and what the rules actually are to anyone who recently has told them that "Bush kept us safe since 9/11" or "there should be no prosecutions because 9/11 changed everything and our guys meant well", perhaps we could have a rational discussion in this country.

The significance of having an Attorney General of the United States saying what Eric Holder just said before the Senate, versus that craven enabling posture of Michael Mukasey in that position merits special recognition, too, but we'll get there I'm sure.

First of all, GOOD morning, Glenn and America and the world.

As we are considering whether or not to try to become a nation of laws once more, a word about the apologist line that we should not prosecute war (or other high) crimes because we need to look "forward not back".

The law already reflects considered societal provision for the proper balance between "forward looking" and "back looking". It's called a statute of limitations. Based on a balance of the concepts of deterrence and repose, designed to facilitate a concept of justice. If you prosecute nothing -- and by definition, any crime was committed in the past -- you deter less.

To all those now piously advocating "looking forward not back", perhaps they could reflect that they aren't the first to think of such an idea. Apply the statute of limitations applicable to the crime. Because, you know, that's the law. We're a nation of laws.

The actions of George W. Bush and his cabal are what they are.

But vengeance is too small, too personal, too selfish a term to describe the need to prosecute.

The concept that applies is vindication. Vindication of an ideal, of belief, of integrity. Vindication of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Rule of Law it embodies.

We would not need to seek vindication had George Bush and his ilk respected these principles, as they swore to do. But it is not vengeance to hold them accountable for their deviation from the standards of our society, it is vindication of the standards themselves.

It's mind boggling that somebody could be so petty as to attribute the deep revulsion for what Bush has done to no more than a personal dislike for the man.