This is just sad, because I really like D-Day:
We now have an innovation in executive power. During the Bush Administration, mid-level functionaries would be found to write legal justifications for waging war, committing acts of torture, or what have you. Now, during the Obama Administration, the top lawyers are free to give their considered opinion on these issues. But the President will simply overrule them, as Charlie Savage writes today:
So what did Charlie Savage actually say:
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
In other words, he got conflicting legal advice, and went with Koh and Bauer over Johnson and Krass. Personally, I think it is ridiculous that what we are doing doesn’t amount to hostilities, and have said as much. If Mexico were occasionally launching drone attacks across our border and helping China bomb us by providing radar-jamming and surveillance, I imagine we would have a far less nuanced idea of what “hostilities” means. But still, there is no reason to simply lie about what happened in order to compare Obama to Bush. Obama didn’t “ignore” their advice. This is in no way comparable to having low level hacks just make shit up as Bush did. He had conflicting advice, and he went in a different direction. This happens every single day with every single decision the President makes.
But I guess that isn’t breathless enough for some circles, where you have outright lunatics writing things like this:
Based on these reassuring words, the response is supposed to be, “well, gosh, the alternative is worse, so I guess we should still vote for Obama.”
No. Just no. You’ve had your chance to prove you are indeed different, and you’ve failed on every front. Even though I have often decried the intolerant, inhumane, radical extremism, nuttiness and willful ignorance of what the Tea-GOP has become, I no longer believe that President Obama is meaningly different from what President Mitt Romney would be or indeed would have been.
And as I could never vote for the unprincipled moral chameleon Romney, I cannot vote again for a faux Democrat whose policies and moral sentiments now seem little different from Romney’s.
I defy any Obama spokesperson to point out any meaningful difference between what Obama has done and what a President Romney would have done.
Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.
Do I need to go on? Fucking idiots. Some days I think these guys truly deserve to live under a President Palin.