http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html?_r=1

"The Obama administration said Friday that it would abandon the Bush administration’s term “enemy combatant” as it argues in court for the continued detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a move that seemed intended to symbolically separate the new administration from Bush detention policies.

But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration."

I wonder how many Obama supporters would still BE Obama supporters if it became generally known that, when it comes to the War On Terror, the policies of the Obama Administration do not differ significantly from the policies of the Bush Administration?

If even the messiah of the hysterical Left says that these policies are necessary, how can ANY dispute this?

Michale....

Exactly.

Which is why I get so frustrated with all the ignorant Bush Bashing I see around. (Thankfully, not so much on here..)

I would like to see those that mercilessly and unfairly bash the Bush Administration try to put themselves in the leadership position and honestly consider how THEY would fare under the same circumstances..

It's easy to sit on one's moral high horse and righteously proclaim, "Torture should NEVER be done!!" But to enforce such a proclamation and have to live with the blood of thousands on your hands?? How many can live with that?

If the H1N1 Flu Pandemic follows the 1918 model, then President Obama will be hailed as a hero. If not, not so much..

My point is simple that hindsight is always 20/20.. It's easy to be righteous and have all the right answers with the benefit of hindsight.

Those who bash the GOP and the Bush Administration unfairly would do well to keep that in mind..

Michale.....

Yeah, I have to admit Katrina was on my mind when writing this. But even in Katrina, put yourself in Mayor Nagel's place. Do you evacuate? When do you evacuate? You have to remember, there are many storms each year which are "on track to destroy New Orleans" and if you evacuate and the storm doesn't hit, you are going to pay a political price for doing so (there's a low tolerance for "calling wolf"). So you wait a day or so, hoping the storm track narrows to show you what to do. When you finally make the decision, it may be too late at that point. That's the nature of the problem, and the decision.

It's a hell of a job. We all love to sneer at "politicians" but they are the ones we elect to make such decisions. And when it all falls apart, how can we be sure we'd have made a better decision?

OK, in a nod to Michale's propensity to quote sci-fi flicks, it's a lot like the decision the New York City mayor made in the most recent American version of "Godzilla." He knows what it actually means, in nuts and bolts, to evacuate the city, and so he sees it differently than the scientists. Again, that's why we elect these guys. So we don't have to make those decisions.

I have to give Bush credit here (an odd thing to say in a comment about Katrina, admittedly), because the FUBAR response to Katrina actually did shame Bush and FEMA into attempting to do some forward-planning. This planning (epidemic/pandemic planning in particular) is what allowed Obama to respond in the way he has over the past week or so. Obama himself (in his 100 days presser) acknowledged Bush, and I meant to do so in the article itself, but note now that it slipped through the cracks.

There are plenty of reasons to rip into Bush for Katrina, but I have to give credit where credit is due. And who among us really envied Nagel his job during Katrina? That's all I was really trying to say.

-CW

Two words...

Hurricane Katrina

Two words....

Hurricane Katrina

Michale.....