Reply #115: Oh, please.

[No Elephants]

If the POTUS were truly as helpless/choiceless as those making excuses for Obama claim, why did Bush do so well with his agenda, even after 2006--and why does Obama use the might of the U.S. to defend Dummya from a Spanish judge?

And why has Obama taken the same position as Bushco in the court cases? (Which may help explain why courts continue to defer to the Executives in matters of perceived national security. See Reply 113 on the court issue.)

"One of those that Bush released was radicalized by the process and is now a wanted terrorist in the Middle-East."

GREAT argument for ending Bush practices, instead of trying to legitimize and validate them via an EO signed by a Dem President and taking Bush's position in court cases.

Whenever Dems criticized the Iraq invasion and the WOT before 2008, Republicons pointed out Dems had voted for them. Now, Cheney points out a Dem administration is doing the same things Bushco did. And Al Qaeeda can point out the same thing when it recruits.

"These detainees cannot be successfully prosecuted in fedo eral court because all of the evidence was previously contaminated by torture and other extra-legal measures."

If the only so-called evidence against them was obtained by torture, maybe they're innocent?

We've let dangerous, guilty people go bc no one read them Mirandas. Why?

To deter government from behaving illegally the next time, knowing it cannot gain anything, even a conviction from behaving illegally.

Why? Because we once thought preserving our constitutional rights was worth something.

I recall Republicons making excuses for what Dummya did or did not do. However, I don't remember any of them claiming he had no power or choice but to take the course in question. IMo, all these "he has no power" excuses make Obama seem a lot lamer than he actually is.