There are no consequences when Republican Presidents break the law - that much has been obvious since the Bush administration did so with impunity. My guess that the courtesy of impunity will be extended to Democrats who are merely making war or ordering torture.

I know, it's the Russian Times, but the Palace Guards (American Media) don't seem too interested in this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo

When we "hypocritical liberals" screamed about Bush's illegal acts, we pointed out over and over that once you've decided that a president is above the law, it was going to happen again - without impunity. You've mocked Bat Guano repeatedly for citing Glenn Greenwald on these matters. NO ONE has been more consistent about the effective ending of the rule of law than Glenn Greenwald - and he's been just as critical of Obama as he was of Bush - he hammers Obama all the time on this and other criminal acts. That's what they were when Bush and Cheney did them, that what they are now.

Cheney is a war criminal, Bush is a war criminal - there's no other proper interpretation of the law. They ordered torture - they violated the Geneva convention to which this country is a signatory. According to Article 6 of the Constitution, they have not only violated international law, they've violated US law.

Obama has probably violated the law - but since when do you give a shit about that?

You seem pretty desperate to make this about anybody but Obama. Clearly, He can count on your support.

I have not mocked Bat Guano. The closest thing I said that might be construed as mocking is to ask him if he is Glenn Greenwald. I asked because those were the only links he posted leading me to wonder if Glenn might be promoting himself in the blogosphere.

You seem pretty desperate to paint the regulars of this blog as a bunch of hypocrites who bashed Bush over wars and who aren't criticising Obama for the same. It just isn't working out for you - none of us are defending Obama - it seems to me that he's breaking the law. It seems to me that he's just fine with the imperial presidency. But then, when he flipped on FISA even before he was elected, he already had given a big hint that he was going to be a "serious" guy in the sense tha Greenwald uses the term, i.e., someone who's just fine with the law applying only to the powerless, not to those in power.

Ask my wife - I'm disgusted with Obama. I'm disgusted with his gutlessness in confronting the crimes of the Bush administration and now with his complicity in many of those crimes.

I think you're frustrated, and it shows in this kind of crap:

You've all been played for fools, and you refuse to say anything about [Libya] because you know you're going to vote for him again, and you're going to call anyone who doesn't vote for Him a racist.

There were very few people here who bought into hero-worship you ascribe to us. I can't recall people on OGM calling you a racist either (but I haven't been keeping careful track of it, I'll admit.)

I'm going to vote for Obama because the alternative is worse - that's all. I'm frustrated because that is the way it has been for me for so damned long.

BTW, I find it difficult to believe that you "wonder[ed] if Glenn might be promoting himself in the blogosphere". I'm pretty sure that the readership of Salon is couple orders of magnitude greater than that of OGM ... and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Wow! Been absent for a little while and I see my name a couple times up on the forums! I actually thought my posts went pretty much unnoticed... Now that I've inflated my ego, I'll let it deflate a bit more before I start going on and on about... what do I usually go on and on about?