It is perfectly consistent to defend Obama's decision while not criticising the earlier decision to release them.

Just hilarious. Did you agree with Obama when he announced he would release the photos, just like you agree with him now that he won't release them?

As many people of apparent good faith (I'm talking about commentators to blog sites here, not necessarily pundits who by definition take a black or white tack to issues) have said, we might have made a different decision but we can understand the decision made. So long as it does not go beyond the legal powers of the Executive branch, I can't quite see the objection.

That's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. As long as what Obama does isn't illegal, there's no reason to criticize it.

Certainly, it is O's right to appeal a Court decision - as it is any other person's right in the US.

The issue long ago stopped being about whether he would appeal the decision. He's made clear that even if he loses the appeal, he still won't release the photos.

Also, there is a nice little self-manipulation going on here by relying on so-called right wingers to make the argument for you, Glenn. Perhaps there might be an ulterior motive to those dudes claiming that O has adopted Bush's policies wholesale?

As I said explicitly, it isn't only right-wingers claiming this. It's also mainstream liberals -- pretty much everyone is doing that - other than the kind of people who defend Obama when he releases the photos and defends him when he suppresses them.

I would also have liked a fair update to this and to yesterday's article with the comment from O spokesman (he was named so not an anonymous source) saying there was no draft executive order. Also, perhaps a link to articles such as this one http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/27/cleaning-guantanamo/ in which the commentary is far more nuanced than most other commentary.

Whether they've actually drafted the executive order or not is totally irrelevant -- they are clearly contemplating doing so which is why they dispatched 3 separate officials to announce that in the Washington Post. That's what I said in the post -- it's a trial balloon designed to announce a policy before it's actually written.

I responded to you a few days ago, FWIW.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/24/photos/permalink/8f2e4d6b07170a0ebbb035d89daadb19.html

That Obama is replicating the Bush/Cheney approach in these areas isn't a by-product of some civil liberties extremist refusal to appreciate the joys of pragmatism or Leftist-purist dissatisfaction with all dogmatic imperfection. That this observation is heard from The Washington Post Editorial Page (of all places), from right-wing advocates such as Wittes and Goldsmith, and from mainstream, liberal and pro-Obama outlets (TPM this weekend: preventive detention approach is "the latest installment in the Obama administration's tendency to mimic the Bushies on war on terror tactics") demonstrates that rather conclusively.

Plainly. So why are we expected to continue pretending otherwise for the sake of your set-up about what unnamed parties argue?

http://christyhardinsmith.firedoglake.com/2009/06/29/tortured-logic-a-news-round-up-and-the-aclus-accountability-initiative/

When Obama threw his long time friend and mentor, the Reverend Wright, into the dumpster, I think a lot of us thought it was an act of necessary political expediency, and not worth serious analysis - getting the Right Wing out of the drivers seat was the overwhelming goal.

But that was a real clue to Obama the "Centrist", Obama the "Moderate". He validated White America's notion that blacks had nothing legitimate to bitch about. How mainstream can you get? Moderates and Centrists are the facilitators of every fiasco, whether the Iraq war, torture, rendition, eavesdropping, or the deregulation of banks. You can't leave home without them. Unfortunately, that's the crowd that Obama feel at home with.

When Obama tossed the Reverend we assumed he was was concealing his titanium spine and tool steel character so that he could proceed to save the nation. Now we know he had nothing to conceal.

This really pisses me off - my sense is that Bush based most of his signing statement on alleged "Commander in Chief" constitutional national security and war related powers.

But Obama just went way beyond that and basically said Congress has no role in labor and environmental standards, including important global warming pricing and accounting:

"Provisions of this bill...would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions," Obama said in a statement.

"I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations," he added.

The sections in question would compel the administration to direct its World Bank representatives to pressure that institution to use metrics that "fairly represent the value of internationally recognized workers' rights. Organized labor groups had pushed for a revision of those standards.

The World Bank section would also push the bank to account for the costs of greenhouse gas in pricing out projects, and would require development banks to more fully disclose operating budgets."

sorry malcontent - hit "publish" too soon on my prior comment before I noted that it was a reply to your post with this ink:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-issues-signing-statement-on-106b-war-bill-2009-06-26.html

Glenn, Ok, so here is my attempt at a reasoned reply to your snark:

- On the photos, I really don't see what is so unusual about holding competing ideas and thoughts in the same head. I supported the decision to release the photos. My natural inclination is for transparency and I think that Governments should be as transparent as possible. Having said that, I also understand that there are times where transparency is not possible or where other factors trump transparency. And, by the way, unless you consider that everything about government has to be fully disclosed, I don't think this is particularly controversial - rather it's just a matter of where you draw the line. And again you deliberately misunderstand my words: I said it was possible to defend the decision not necessarily that I agree with it. That may be a subtle distinction but it is one nonetheless. Frankly, and this goes to my point before, I don't know that I am properly informed enough to make the right decision.

- On the legal point, I wasn't saying you can't criticise anything that's legal - although I can see how that could come across in the post. What I was saying is that the "sky is falling" flagellation appears to be a bit overboard, given that O has the right to appeal a Court case in the normal view.

- I agree that it may now have gone beyond the Court case; what is clear to me and you is that O doesn't want those photos released. Again, I think that these photos fall somewhere on the blurred line of whether something should be secret or not. I must say that I did become increasingly sanguine about their non-release when I fully understood just how many photos have already been released and which were somehow forgotten or overlooked by those crusaders wanting full transparency now.

- I agree that the fact the administration are considering the executive order is worthy of comment, but the corollary must also be that it is worthy of comment that are not considering it. I know that you presented it as a trial balloon but for much of the commentators and the press, it is being viewed as a sure thing; which, at this stage, appears to be inaccurate.

- I find the whole Obama is (worse than) Bush meme a little idiotic and shortsighted. Is he torturing? Is he lying us into war? Is he denying climate change? I dunno, maybe I'm missing something.

Bamage, I did see your response, thanks, but haven't yet had the chance to respond. Don't think I really need to since from what I recall I don't think there were any specific disagreements with what I said but rather you place a much greater priority on the secrecy, transparency etc points. I think they are important but maybe not so much as you'all. On reflection, I think I might change my statement of "On balance, I think O has been a wonderful president" to "On balance, I think O has had a very good start". It's the "on balance" portion that's important, since I recognise that a president (and indeed a human)'s worth is best judged in the round.