I'll ask again......

What has Obama done which is any different than what McCain would have done?

The requests for delay came as the United Nations honored victims of torture in an international call for remembrance. President Obama issued a White House statement yesterday saying: "Torture is contrary to the founding documents of our country, and the fundamental values of our people. It diminishes the security of those who carry it out, and surrenders the moral authority that must form the basis for just leadership. That is why the United States must never engage in torture, and must stand against torture wherever it takes place." (emphasis added)

Obama administration officials are proceeding cautiously as they seek to calm the political waters and forestall congressional Democrats' efforts to create a "truth commission" that would examine the government's anti-terrorism efforts using subpoena power.

Separately, administration lawyers urged a federal judge late yesterday to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed against former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Bush officials by the families of two detainees who committed suicide in 2006 after four years of imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay. The families allege that military leaders violated the men's constitutional rights.

Lawyers in the Justice Department's civil division argued that the former military officials are entitled to immunity under the law, and that the issue is "fraught with political and military concerns" and is "best reserved" for Congress.

The Washington Post, June 27, 2009

(http://tinyurl.com/p4bvjs or click sig)

@Bystander

Warning - reading this Harper's article likely to cause shame, disgust and nausea:

Harper's Magazine

July 2009

We Still Torture: The new evidence from Guantanamo

by Luke Mitchell

http://mathforum.org/~josh/articles/Mitchell-Torture.pdf

Yes. Bob Dole.

I've definitely been called a "dick". I'd wear the "Hard Left" label, proudly, thank you very much.

As to the finer points of your question, I wish there was a way we all might ask Dana Milbank directly.

When he advocated for the reinstatement of Holy Joe to the good graces of the Democratic caucus, I felt as though he had merely misread the position of his supporters. Now, I know that he was merely positioning that piece of excrement to assist in implementing his real agenda - which is no where near the agenda he was elected as supporting.

You have provided yet another fine addition to my list of strange "people" decisions Obama has made. Let's see, he dumped Howard Dean who arguably set up a NEW Democratic strategy in states that helped Obama win them and thus become President and he dumped Jimmy Carter [wouldn't allow him to speak at the Dem convention] because he was right about Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians and because Carter has done more good for Israel than any other president has to date, yet he supported and continues to support Lieberman who helped lie us into the war, defends the torturing of detainees, wanted us to bomb Iran, went out on the campaign trail on behalf of McCain and spoke at the GOP convention, and was labeling any Dem who disagreed with him on his Bush-supporting positions, anti-American and unpatriotic.

Also we must add to this list Arlen Specter. Not because Obama and the Dems wanted him to caucus with the Dems but because Obama and the Dems have assured Specter they will support him against any and all Dem challengers he could face in 2010. The Dems will do what they did to Ned Lamont: Allow a terrible Democrat to take a Senate seat a much better Democrat could have won. Sorry everyone but this certainly is NOT CHANGE!!

Obama is no better than the dogs he has chosen to lie with and taking Lieberman back was an absolutely horrible decision.

But let's hope Obama isn't implementing the Lieberman agenda or we will see warplanes with bombs heading towards Iran.

Harry, thanks. I have an inherent resistance to anyone thinking they know the answers to everything. Glenn is a pretty good read because he deals with things that others don't, but it's not the first time I've raised things (really just in order to further my knowledge and understanding) to have my "obvious naivete" or fundamental desire to aid and abet criminals or some other thing raised in defence (offense?).

It's sad but it seems to be the way of the world, these days.

For example, Glenn still hasn't addressed the fact that the Supreme Court, twice, has ruled that in certain instances preventive detention is permissible. Now we can argue about whether that's a moral position, but it seems to me that the law pretty clearly allows for it; yet whenever discussion about the proposal for PD comes up, it is always branded as illegal.

What's this about sending troops into "new theaters of war"? Do you know something the rest of us don't? What war is in the offing now?

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.

NO. Not me. I considered it one of the defining moments of the campaign, and still do. I really did believe it was a window into the man's soul. He didn't just dump Wright, but also Trinity Church, which he had described as his extended family. What really made a huge impression on me was the statement Obama issued announcing the rift. It was so peevish, infantile, and self-absorbed. It was some of the few honest words Obama had spoken, and I think he revealed a part of himself that he had rather have kept hidden. In fact, every time he does speak candidly, shit comes out that he probably regrets revealing.

it's impossible to understand how anyone whose objections over the last eight years were sincere...could be supporting what Obama, in these areas, is doing now.

Except that you do understand it, Glenn; in fact, you've dissected it. It's all about cultish devotion to one's beloved Leader/Daddy/Savior. Political power won't corrupt -- if we just make out our blank check to the right politician.

Given Obama's reverence for Abraham Lincoln, his actions "in these areas" is hardly surprising. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, instituted military conscription for the first time in this country, used military tribunals to try civilians, instituted a disastrous central banking system (the precursor to today's even worse Federal Reserve) -- all to support an unpopular war whose casualties included 50,000 civilians(despite the myth of "national unity", one out of every seven Union soldiers deserted, some because of atrocities they witnessed, and many others because they felt their orders violated their enlistment agreements -- and the benevolent Lincoln responded to the problem by having his generals "repress desertion" -- with summary mass executions of deserters in front of the troops.)

And yet, is there an American politician more revered in this country than Abe Lincoln? Weren't we all taught from childhood to absorb the reverence without taking too close a look at the actual record? Wasn't the "national unity" propaganda that government schools -- oops, I mean, public schools -- began spinning in the 19th century as prevalent as today's "American Exceptionalism"? Don't most Americans feel that criticizing Lincoln is tantamount to blasphemy?

I suspect it will be the same with Obama. Even if he keeps heading in the anti-transparency, anti-civil liberties direction, one wonders if his legacy will suffer. The prism of history is a powerful filter, and 150 years from now, he might very well have his own huge marble statue nearby "Honest Abe" -- and be similarly canonized in the American consciousness for his relentless devotion to the "cause of freedom and the rights of man." And how could any "Serious Person" living then think otherwise, once he's done his homework ? I mean, all you have to do is go back and read Obama's eloquent speeches...