If you have any doubts about whether Obama himself personally approves of what his DOJ is doing . .

[defendandprotect]

And, these positions are now being referred to as "Obama/Bush policies" . . .

UPDATE II: Just in case anyone had any doubts about whether Obama himself personally approves of what his DOJ is doing, Robert Gibbs dispelled those at today's Press Briefing (h/t CarolynC and Sam Stein):

Q. Last Friday, the Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege in asking a judge to dismiss a civil suit filed against the National Security Administration regarding its domestic surveillance program. And in its brief, the Justice Department argued that Americans have no right to sue the government for alleged illegal surveillance.

Does the President support the Justice Department's positions in that case?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, absolutely. It's the -- absolutely does. Obviously, these are programs that have been debated and discussed, but the President does support that viewpoint.

That was followed by this amazing exchange:

Q. Before he was elected, the President said that the Bush administration had abused the state secrets privilege. Has he changed his mind?

MR. GIBBS: No. I mean, obviously, we're dealing with some suits, and the President will -- and the Justice Department will make determinations based on protecting our national security.

Q. So he still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Given that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did in this area, Gibbs' claim that Obama "still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege" must be one of the most incoherent and intellectually dishonest claims to come from the White House since the Inauguration -- either that, or Obama believes that Bush abused the privilege and that he, Obama, is also doing so.

UPDATE II: Just in case anyone had any doubts about whether Obama himself personally approves of what his DOJ is doing, Robert Gibbs dispelled those at today's Press Briefing (h/t CarolynC and Sam Stein):

Q. Last Friday, the Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege in asking a judge to dismiss a civil suit filed against the National Security Administration regarding its domestic surveillance program. And in its brief, the Justice Department argued that Americans have no right to sue the government for alleged illegal surveillance.

Does the President support the Justice Department's positions in that case?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, absolutely. It's the -- absolutely does. Obviously, these are programs that have been debated and discussed, but the President does support that viewpoint.

That was followed by this amazing exchange:

Q. Before he was elected, the President said that the Bush administration had abused the state secrets privilege. Has he changed his mind?

MR. GIBBS: No. I mean, obviously, we're dealing with some suits, and the President will -- and the Justice Department will make determinations based on protecting our national security.

Q. So he still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Given that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did in this area, Gibbs' claim that Obama "still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege" must be one of the most incoherent and intellectually dishonest claims to come from the White House since the Inauguration -- either that, or Obama believes that Bush abused the privilege and that he, Obama, is also doing so.

UPDATE II: Just in case anyone had any doubts about whether Obama himself personally approves of what his DOJ is doing, Robert Gibbs dispelled those at today's Press Briefing (h/t CarolynC and Sam Stein):

Q. Last Friday, the Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege in asking a judge to dismiss a civil suit filed against the National Security Administration regarding its domestic surveillance program. And in its brief, the Justice Department argued that Americans have no right to sue the government for alleged illegal surveillance.

Does the President support the Justice Department's positions in that case?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, absolutely. It's the -- absolutely does. Obviously, these are programs that have been debated and discussed, but the President does support that viewpoint.

That was followed by this amazing exchange:

Q. Before he was elected, the President said that the Bush administration had abused the state secrets privilege. Has he changed his mind?

MR. GIBBS: No. I mean, obviously, we're dealing with some suits, and the President will -- and the Justice Department will make determinations based on protecting our national security.

Q. So he still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Given that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did in this area, Gibbs' claim that Obama "still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege" must be one of the most incoherent and intellectually dishonest claims to come from the White House since the Inauguration -- either that, or Obama believes that Bush abused the privilege and that he, Obama, is also doing so.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/09/tpm/index.html

website has live links for more info -

[biopowertoday]

1. It was just a silly lame excuse some here on DU were using.

[leftstreet]

2. Wow

Talk about incoherent. That's just nutty.

K&R

[Sinistrous]

3. And the point of the triple repitition of that item was ???

[defendandprotect]

11. Simple error . . .

what did you think the point was? Happy Spring--!!!

[Hawkowl]

4. Interesting

Interesting in the way it is in watching two passenger trains approaching each other on the same track each going 60 mph.

Obama needs to: Pull. His. Head. Out. Of. His. Ass.

[scarletwoman]

5. You might want to fix your tags, and the triple pasting repitition.

Other than that, damn. Thanks for the post -- hoping you notice that it needs cleaning up.

sw

[xchrom]

6. ok -- i do think that was weird -- and i don;t think the way you posted

it was an accident.

[defendandprotect]

18. So you don't think the triple post was an "accident" . . . ???

What do you think it was . . . . ?

And what do you think was gained by having an error in this post?

For instance, personally, I don't think it's an accident that you commented on

my error, but somehow failed to comment on the post, itself . . . ?


:eyes:

[Webster Green]

7. Ground hog day?

Good posts.

[gristy]

8. Deja-vu, man

All in the last 3 minutes. Like 3 times. Duuuuuuuuuuuude.

[lostnotforgotten]

9. Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

eom

[ima_sinnic]

10. so the "constitutional scholar" no longer even PRETENDS he gives a damn about habeas corpus

and the fact that "the world is watching."

I will watch his little charade unfold and collapse around him as the world wises up to the con artist. Unfortunately, since he couldn't give a shit about the "rule of law," we can expect rendition, disappearances, and grave injustices to continue by the world's number one terrorist country, with the support of our taxpayer dollars, of course, while he and his billionaire sponsors laugh all the way to their banks with their blood money.

[ProSense]

12. Yup, that's clear. So is this

Q. So he still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Is there more to the story?

[LWolf]

13. Yes. This part:

"Given that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did in this area, Gibbs' claim that Obama 'still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege" must be one of the most incoherent and intellectually dishonest claims to come from the White House since the Inauguration' -- either that, or Obama believes that Bush abused the privilege and that he, Obama, is also doing so."

[ProSense]

14. Or

there is more to the story.

I'm not inclined to believe I know everything.

[L. Coyote]

16. Indeed.

We do not have all the infomation, and we have to contend with all the disinformation too.

How likely is this judge to dismiss on the DoJ motion, and what impact might a ruling to not dismiss have? What will precedent here mean? Will it reset the Bush standard to Constitutional protection supremacy over Executive action?

[LWolf]

17. There's always more to every story.

Which is beside the point.

Of course Obama did run on the idea that "transparency" is a good thing.

[Kip Humphrey]

15. ECHO, ECHo, ECho, Echo, echo...