Most of these posts are hillarious. Words like "dictatorship, martial law, nazis, end of the constitution and the bill of rights" are bandied about as if you're serious. Reminds me of all the foolish talk we did among ourselves about "revolution" and "Che" and "Mao" way back when I was a college student. But that was in college, which is a kind of womb existence. There you're supposed to play act beimg grown up, and are able to kick and scream and take yourself way too seriously without having to face any real-world future consequences. What's the excuse now?

All I see in the article are a bunch of "CYA" legal opinions justifying actions that Bush's people thought they might have to take if things got worse after 9/11 (maybe a terrorist nuclear explosion in NYC for example, or a biological attack.) If you don't think Obama (or any president) wouldn't take such actions if such events occured now, you're kidding yourself. You know, things like putting innocent civilians in prison camps (like when WW2 started), wiretaping political opponents and dissidents like MLK and numerous others in the 60's,and 70's, and numerous other examples back to Lincoln uaing troops to put down the draft riots of the Civil War. Presidents abusing the constitution is not exactly new in this country, and occurs whenever the country is caught up in some real or imagined threat. And people were VERY afraid of terrorism right after 9/11. The Bush administration responded to it, and of course took political advantage. After all, you want to take advantage of a good crisis to push your agenda - Sound familiar?

What matters is what was actually DONE by the Bush administration, not what was theoretically justifed just in case it was needed, or what they were exploring doing. Show me where wiretaps were used for political purposes, dissidents jailed, or martial law a dictatorship instituted? I remember some posters here convinced that Bush would suspend the last elections, would pardon all his "criminal" buddies at the last minute, and numerous other paranoid rantings. I see these posts about the Bush "outrages" in the same vein.

Show me how what Bush did was any worse that what so many other presidents have done; and how it was done in secret (without the knowledge and support of the leaders of the other party in congress, and then I'll be outraged. Sure, the power of the presidency is immense right now; and certainly, once people get that power, not unexpectedly, they get corrupted by it. Obama will too. So if the message you push is that Bush was the latest in a long line of presidents to push the ennvelope of executive privilege and power, and we need to be eternally vigilant, I'll agree. But gross exaggerations, and talk about nazis and dictatorship and the rest is stupid, and just causes people outside the liberal "kool-aid" drinkers to dismiss you're arguments out-of-hand.

So Limbaugh's the new punching bag here at Salon now, instead of Sarah Palin? Salon - Linbaugh today, every day. Very entertaining (not)! I'm sure Limbaugh loves the attention, it's driving up his ratings, and he's laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, how's your own wealth (401K retirement account, home equity values) doing so far under Obama? And you think Limbaugh is the fool?

Funny, I remember the NYT and other liberal media talking about the "Bush Recession" in March 2001, right after Bush was inaugurated. It wasn't the "Inherited Clinton Recession." So how long do you think you can get away with blaming Bush for everything? It's really a bitch for the Dems that they're in charge now, isn't it? You have to show results, instead of just talking a good story (which of course they had down pat). Time will tell. And do you really think Obama's policies have NOT affected the stock market in the last month?

Why so many Rush Limbaugh articles suddenly in Salon? It's all part of an orchestrated political campaign being run directly from the White House. See "Rush Job" on Politico.com today for the details. Salon being left leaning is one thing, but being a political propaganda outlet for the Democratic Party while disguised as a media outlet is another. That would explain that flood of bizzare Sarah Palin articles a while back, too. And here I foolishly thought that was just about a suffering web media outlet needing to attract readers (and needed ad revenues), and reluctantly having to sacrifice some journalistic standards. And you guys criticize the integrety of Fox News, and call it biased? Goebbels would be proud of Salon.

Sounds like a joke, right? But why not? After all, he's the "leader of the opposition party," right? President Obama himself attacked Limbaugh by name, apparently as part of an orchestrated political smear campaign, if the Politico article has any truth to it. I guess maybe Obama (or certainly some of his political team) really does come from that Chicago political sewer we all wanted to ignore, irrespective of his shining image.

So why not have a debate on the issues, as Limbaugh has called for? Would doing so lower the office of the presidency any more than the Obama administration has already done by participating in this farce? If Limbaugh is just an entertainer, a gas bag, with no real standing, why is Obama and the White House misleading the nation and claiming he represents the GOP? So, if he does lead the GOP, what is their excuse for not taking him up on his challenge?

I, for one, would love to see that, live on TV. I'm sure the ratings would beat pro wrestling, or maybe even the Super Bowl.