Once again, you humble me with your depth of scholarship on matters on which I admit I shot from the hip. I continue to think (believe?) that Obama is not Bush redux, that whatever steps his DOJ is taking now will be revealed as having been necessary, perhaps regrettable in the short term but productive of a good outcome in the long. In the face of your cerebral, informed reaction to the events of the moment (that is, the time-segment of this ongoing travesty that comprises Obama's few weeks in office), I will not (cannot, emotionally, after eight years of Bush?) let go of my trust in Obama's essentially peace-and-justice-loving nature and wholesome political agenda. At least not yet.

Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me about the Geneva Conventions and much else.

The field of battle is a bit ill-defined these days, I think you'll admit. But that notwithstanding, I don't really disagree with anyone here about the particulars. I'm only saying that I choose to assume that the long-term trend, if Obama manages to finesse his agenda, will be toward the good, the fair, and the legal. If, on the way there, some compromises have to be made, well...'twas ever thus. If this seems to some to be overly trusting, even to the point of blind faith, then so be it. Time will tell. I respect all of you who have taken issue with me; I acknowledge that you know a lot more in terms of facts and legalities. In spite of your superior scholarship I continue to believe that you are holding Obama to a standard -- in one small briar-patch of the overall field of endeavor -- that no politician in a time of turmoil and exigency should be held to, given the larger framework in which he is striving to succeed in the few years allotted him.

There's a definite change in your tone, Ondelette. Can I ascribe it to a little wine taken with dinner? Even so, with both you and LiberalArtist, I am definitely out of my league in terms of quotable information and in-depth scholarship on the particulars of abduction, imprisonment of foreign nationals and the Constitution. (Though I will say, you're very respectful of national boundaries when it comes to abduction, but rather unconcerned about extending the rights under our national constitution to those who live on the other side of such boundaries.)

I think both of you continue to downplay the political challenges of an agenda like Obama's at this point in history.

LA says I'm comparing Obama to a sports coach and yes, I did use an analogy that leaves me open to that allegation. The reality is that Obama's job is more like multi-dimensional chess. LA's quite correct version of that is that, "...his primary responsibility - is taking into account and assessing all the various forces and interests at play in our democracy over the course of his term, translating all the diverse influences coming to bear on him into coherent policy and action." I agree completely. The question at any point in time is, what constitutes coherency. No one plays chess without losing a few pieces, even ones he/she would much prefer not to lose. When the bishop gets knocked over, the audience moans in despair. But the great player knows the game isn't necessarily lost.

Since when is anyone "in American custody" not on American soil entitled to rights above and beyond the GC rules about humane removal from the field of battle? You say that, and it sounds good, and in ideal times we could extend those rights and feel wonderful about ourselves (never mind that in ideal times there would be no field of battle). In no armed conflict prior to today have we ever extended those rights.

No, the president is not at all times a conduit through which the people express their wishes. Not any more than an airline pilot is expected to take a poll about what to do when there's an in-flight emergency requiring his training and skills to bring everyone down alive. You speak as though the (air)ship of state was cruising through smooth skies. Leaders lead, they do not follow.

Yes, history has given Truman a better score than he had at the time of his presidency. But do you think for a moment he could have achieved a tectonic change in health care or education after his firing of MacArthur?

No one wins any game by winning every point. Presidential politics is a complicated game at best and right now it's fraught with challenges with which few presidents have dealt successfully. I have no problem with citizens objecting to this or that policy of the moment, but at the end of the day we have entrusted our president with the leadership of our country. To say to Obama, after the horrors of the Bush years, that he is no better than Bush because one aspect of his policy is not consistent with our principles -- at least seems not to be to those of us not privy to his overall, long-term strategy -- is unnecessarily strident and ugly.