http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022290.phpLEAVE THE GOALPOSTS ALONE.... Dahlia Lithwick had a terrific item the other day noting
one of the key problems with the discourse surrounding national security policy: what was considered "tough" up until very recently is now considered "weak." As of January 20 of last year, the right moved the goalposts and the political establishment didn't notice. snip//
* Bush/Cheney read Miranda rights to attempted terrorists. Did you publicly criticize this at the time?
* Bush/Cheney put terrorists on trial in civilian courts on American soil. Did you publicly criticize this at the time?
* Bush/Cheney locked up terrorists in American prisons on American soil. Did you publicly criticize this at the time?
* Bush/Cheney endorsed closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Did you publicly disagree at the time?
This isn't complicated. If a conservative critic of the president can honestly answer "yes" to any of these questions, he/she is at least on consistent ground. It's substantively foolish, but those who argued publicly that Bush/Cheney's national security policies represented "weakness" on counter-terrorism have a credible foundation from which to launch their arguments now.
But therein lies the point:
identical practices are not generating identical reactions. Presidents with Rs after their names are applauded for embracing one set of policies, while presidents with Ds after their names are condemned for embracing the same policies.
It's so transparent as to be obvious: those who answer "no" to the questions above, but who are now trashing the Obama administration, are shameless and dishonest hacks. Period.—Steve Benen