This "protect us" stuff is simply the language tyrants use to either gain, or add to their, power.

-- Timothy3

I completely agree with this. I think Bush's every move was made to amass more power. One need simply look at his office's theories of executive power in "time of war" to understand his motives.

On the other hand, I don't care what his motives were. If he committed a crime, he committed a crime. It should be investigated. There are defenses to crimes, of course - insanity, sef-defense, etc. But, whether those are valid should be left to the judicial process and finders of fact. Public opinion about whether a crime was acceptable because it was for the "good of the nation" is completely irrelevant.

If NOB's point is that the public opinion angle is why the Democrats chose not to impeach, it's not a bad point. But, if to say that Bush shouldn't have been impeached because his motives were pure (and I don't know if that's NOB's point or not), is both absurd and frightening.

The entire affair would become immensely political and discredit Obama's whole appeal to the MIDDLE MAJORITY.

--wbrooksjr

Honestly, who the hell is this group of people who you think wouldn't want crimes of a President prosecuted? What are your facts and data establishing this group of people exists?

Right now, you just sound like every Beltway talking head, wanting so badly to believe something that you're declaring it a fact.

"Senate Dems To White House: Preserve Records (Especially You, Cheney)"

Good news?

http://tinyurl.com/6b4p4y

But I'd note that I was in favour of more negotiations with the Taliban prior to invading, in an attempt to see if they were serious (or could be persuaded to be serious) about turning over al Qaeda if we produced proof of al Qaeda's complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Cheers,

-- Arne Langsetmo

Most people I was surrounded by at the time held a similar position, or are pacifists who were absolutely against any invasion. Shooter's talking point machine has to paint with a broad brush, though, because it so lacks sophistication or the ability to engage in critical thought.

I'm always amazed that Shooter thinks his soundbytes, which are so palatable to those who thrive on ignorance, will work in this comment section. Perhaps that's stronger evidence of Shooter's ineptitude than his actual comments.

I really doubt Obama -- before being inaugurated -- wants to be defending the idea that his chosen CIA Director had some involvement in renditions and was defending "enhanced interrogation techniques."

It's certainly possible that Brennan himself decided he didn't want to have to battle that controversy, get asked questions about this stuff on TV by Russ Feingold and others, etc. Who knows what exactly happened, but it seems clear that they thought - with good reason - there was enough against Brennan that it wasn't worth the fight.

-- GlennGreenwald

Interesting also that the MSNBC reporter said that the Brennan situation, and having Brennan need to withdraw himself from consideration, was one of Obama's first "mis-steps" or "mis-cues" in the transition. I wonder, did he mean that Brennan's withdrawal is the "mis-step" (merely embarrassing) or that it was that Obama considered Brennan, who is controversial, at all? Or, is that a distinction without a difference?

For him to have to withdraw, and to do so in a conspicuously -- and what seems to me to be a gratuitously -- dramatic way, is the first drama -- the first difficulty -- the transition has had.

-- GlennGreenwald

Good, that's what I was hoping. I think Obama has taken a lot of pride in his calm, drama-free persona. Indeed, many of the high profile conservatives who endorsed him cited that as a reason (though McCain's Palin pick seemed to be the main issue for them). Hopefully, this "set back" (so to speak) will cause him to choose other appointments with care.

Well, I won't hold my breath, but you never know. This really is a fasciating and potentially telling development.

Turley really is fantastic. Rachel did a great job with her questions, too. I love to see that kind of dialogue in the MSM. Everyone should watch the clip. (It's available at the Rachel Maddow Show page, as well.)

Also, to Glenn, just wanted to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and thank you for your work, and for being so responsive to your commentariat (I stole that word from the Sadly, No! comment section, I believe). I know you're just doing your job, but it means a lot.

"Bush: Iraq intelligence failure 'biggest regret'" (link @ sig)

The man is going to lie - and lie big - until the very last second of his term. Or perhaps he actually suffers from delusions.

P.S. Glenn, you have my sympathies - having been recommended for a position by someone who also recommended Greta Van Susteren must have ruined your day. ;)

This is a really obvious point, but I think it's important to distinguish between torture as a last resort in some crazy-it-will-never-happen hypothetical (and the consequences of such) and having a policy that we routinely torture people. The difference between the two is quite vast, and that should be clear to anyone who's paying attention.

But, as you note, the response (we might need it some day, therefore, we must make it legal) is emotional. Emotion and logic aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but emotions can cause one to lose logical perspective. Just ask the Republicans.

Also, to DCLaw1: I'd like to ditto mutex and say great post!

I have to give Gjelten some props for eventually backing down and admitting his mistake (though he did try to defend it). That's not something one sees very often. Of course, something like that looks pretty amazing relative to how the press really behaves, even if it's not something that spectacular when not compared to our current malfeasant media.