wow. wow.

a bit on a tirade?

I'd give a pass to the lower hacks doing the dirty work - although Lindy didn't get that pass.

As long as Obama doesn't shirk on keeping the memos and dirty laundry coming - cool. As long as he doesn't obstruct justice being served to the ones that really count (Yoo et al., Cheney, Bush - well maybe he'd get an insanity or not responsible due to ineptitude plea, but for sure Cheney) - then very cool.

If Obama gives a free pass to all involved, serious business.

well apparently, this administration CONTINUES to illegally spy on Americans through the NSA. WTF is up with this?! It sure explains Obama's push-back on legal review of the entire Bush program if he wants to just continue it. REALLY disheartening.

except MAYBE torture?? are u f'ing kidding! sounds like you'd be ok with Obama doing that as well.

take off the rose-coloured glasses. you don't need to cheerlead Obama when he's flat out, and grotesquely, wrong!

do you understand what he's defending in this case? essentially his right to abduct anyone, anywhere in the world (maybe you even), whisk you to Bagram and never tell you why, never give you an opportunity for legal recourse - nothing. Some of the people that have been taken there (from countries far from Afganistan/Iraq) have been there in darkness for over 6 years! And, Obama is fighting to keep them there as his perogative.

And you're DEFENDING that position? wow.

John Sifton has an insightful piece on the insupportable policies of Panetta/Holder and thus Obama regarding investigation and prosecution of those in the CIA that committed war crimes.
http://www1.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- stories/2009-04-09/cia-torture-cover-up/

This all something that the Admin seems to feel comfortable ignoring with a states secret blanket.

Shameful.

warrantless wire-tapping is unconstitutional period. this was a major gripe on all the progressive blogs against Bush and rightly so. you don't mind the govt reading every email, listenting to every international phone call - make yourself feel like a patriot and just cc. everything directly to the DOJ. sorry, though that you can't see how many people find that a dangerous infringement on freedom. that Obama is continuing this and some other policies of W, that his administration is thus far saying no to investigating/prosecuting some of the W-era crimes --- is and should be unsettling for progressives. the wingers are loving this. it's sad that so many apologists are out their on the progressive side though.

well the constitution is in place to prevent asshole bigotry from harming the minority. great that VT followed through on the side of rightness. thankfully though there's also the consititution which judges enforce when legislatures and voters are still mired in bigotry.

apparently not the power of government to protect people against raw bigotry, though. man. if your marriage depends upon discriminating against a group of people getting married - you've got much bigger problems to deal with.  see a marriage counselor, don't try to shrug blame onto someone else.

wow what an atrophied winger understanding of the JUDICIAL branch of government. Judges DO NOT vote their personal views (well Alito excluded), they base decisions on study of the law. Congress DOES vote personal views, and rarely the personal views of their constituents.

activist judges just seems to be used by wingers when the LAW doesn't agree with their bigotry.

what about the several states that held BOTH caucuses AND primaries and where the delegates were awarded according to results from less inclusive caucuses?

re DADT:  i also agree that now's not the time to push him on it. progressives pushed clinton on this issue and it was with the help of blue dog's and lack of follow-through support by progressives that led to his being excoriated for this and to the creation of DADT in the first place.

but it might be his choice should congress put it on the table as is being talked about among some members. if it gets put on the table then i will expect the admin to get behind repeal at that point and not try to postpone it till a more convenient time.

what would be nice though is an Oval office talking to with Gates telling him to get the word out that discharges will stop - NOW! regardless of DADT.

i agree that this doesn't need to be a high-profile move. giving benefits as in this particular case, by no means needs to be high-profile. thus, why I don't think there's any reason not to do that on Obama's part. likely he's just not informed about what happened. hopefully he'll find out and send the message to just change that policy. this doesn't appear like it would need any fanfare since Clinton's signing statement explained rather than rewrote the DOMA law by clarifying that DOMA did not contain any provision preventing the Feds from extending benefit rights. i really just don't understand this position of the Obama admin.

sorry but where the f''' is this coming from. chill.

didn't think you're purpose of this diary was to send the message ---- let's just wait, we'll get what was promised, just later when it's somehow more convenient.

and man, we're not even asking Obama to go too far out on a limb on this one!

so in the meantime those being kicked out of the military under DADT and those being denied benefits rights by a misreading of DOMA are just going to have to suck it up?????     because Obama shouldn't be asked to keep a KEY promise he made in order to win the GLBT vote? not a chance I'm going to go for that rationalisation.

after the mid-term there's LESS chance he'd take this on, he'll be working to avoid controversy to get re-elected. or are you saying we should sit tight until 2014?!

there's no circus without its clown, but there's nothing without the paying audience. they're the real embarrassment.

core ....   hmmmm.... 'All men are created equal....' doesn't mention black men, or women ---- but you agree they're included, right?