Well, my point was that the difference between the media's coverage of Bush's use of executive orders and Obama's use of executive orders is based on how the executive orders are used, not who used them. If you agree with that, then yes, we are basically in agreement.
You are placing value on how the EO is used, I am merely mentioning the EOs and how they have been reported on by the media. Not that big a deal to me, though. Bush was a moderate by the end of his term, and look where it got us.
Yes, but how they are used affects the media coverage, which should be the case. A use of power isn't an inherent good or bad. It is how that power is exercised that matters. If you feel a power is being used abusively, you will probably be more critical than if you think the same power is being used appropriately. We can leave to other debates whether Bush was or wasn't abusive in his use of executive orders. I just don't think it is "amazing" (or inappropriate, though you may not have meant that) that Obama's use of the executive order in this instance didn't draw the same media reaction that Bush's use of them did.
You let me know when we videotaped the beheading of a terrorist with a dull knife. We are better. However, sometimes you have to get your hands dirty. Of course, we could just kill them all rather than detain them.
It's hardly trivial. Do you think they just stopped trying? It's a remarkable achievement that I hope President Obama's Administration duplicates.
Indeed. The sign on the ship was intended for the crew of the ship. The mission that the servicepeople on that ship had undertaken was accomplished. Blowing it out of proportion to extend to total victory in Iraq is a natural, if cheap, political point that some are still grasping onto. Ed O.
