Count Me As Skeptical

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama recast the U.S. fight against terrorism as no longer a "boundless global war" but a targeted effort to dismantle specific extremist networks.

He said America was at a "crossroads" and should no longer see it as a "self-defeating" perpetual fight, but one that must at some point end, "like all wars."

Obama said "the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat,'' but its affiliates elsewhere pose dangers. He also touched on new overseas and homegrown threats, and explained publicly the use of drones against terror suspects overseas.

For some reason I'm not grasping this.  I do agree the perpetual war agenda is self-defeating, ridiculous and very costly.  But I fail to see how "affiliates else pose dangers" as a refocus of the war is any different in the long term, perpetually speaking of course.

No doubt the Obama administration has waged a much more effective war against al Qeada.  There's no comparing Bush's invasion of a country with nothing to do with 9/11 to Obama locating and killing bin Laden.  No comparison whatsoever.  With that said, the war on terrorism has never been a struggle of military might.  It's always been a struggle of thoughts, ideas, and modernization. Let's hope another refocus of this 12 year war is finally defined in such terms.

Hillary Wins

This week's testimony by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sums up everything that is out of touch with the Republican Party.

To better understand what is going on and why Hillary's presence was so demanded by Republicans you have to step back from reality for a moment and enter into a make-believe world where everything is a conspiracy.  Truly that is why Republicans think Benghazi is so important.

They believe the administration convened a huge cover up about the events of the attack on the American embassy that left 4 dead.  They believe the administration was negligent by ignoring intelligence warnings leading up to the attack; and that the administration tried to downplay the attack by claiming it was just a random protest turned violent.  For this, the GOP and Fox News viewers think Hillary should be fired, Obama should be impeached and we should immediately start governing the way Republicans want or face annihilation.

But history, factual history, paints a very different story of what is really prompting the GOP to appear to care.

Now what possibly could cause Republicans not to care when over 30 people were killed at American embassies and consulates over a 6-year period?  Oh that's right, George W. Bush was the Decider and everything was perfect in the world. Republicans were governing as fiscal conservatives by running up a trillion dollar deficit and doubling the federal debt.  They were busy trying to privatize Social Security, growing government to huge levels and bailing out mega-wealthy CEO's with trillions in tax payer money.

But now that those good ol' days are gone, they want everyone to believe they care.  And their Fox News minions and Facebook conspiracy theorists are more than happy to go along with the charade.

Forever War or Else

Ending the war in Iraq caused the embassy attacks in Libya. 

9/11

The William McRaven Quote No One Mentions

Remember how the Navy Seal raid that killed Osama bin Laden was all thanks to George Bush?  I mean, I'm sure you've watched Fox News and listened to hate radio and heard that the entire raid was because of the proud leadership of George W. Bush, surely you have right?

• Here Republican nut job Donald Trump goes on Fox News and questions Obama's leadership.
• Here uber patriot Sean Hannity on Fox News saying that bin Laden was dead thanks to George Bush.
• Here uber patriot Sean Hannity on Fox News saying Obama didn't want to catch bin Laden.
• Here Rick Santorum tells Fox News viewers that Obama was merely following through with Bush's policy.
• Here the Republican Candidate for President questions Obama's leadership on the raid.

Remember everything good in this country is because of George Bush and the GOP.  But what did Admiral William McRaven who was in charge of Joint Special Operations Command and the Navy Seal raid have to say about the president's leadership and decision-making?

About Obama, without a question to prompt him, he waxes lyrical and at length. The planning and decision-making for the bin Laden raid, he volunteers, "was really everything the American public would expect from their national leadership."


"The President was at all times presidential," he says. "I would contend he was the smartest guy in the room. He had leadership skills we'd expect from a guy who had 35 years in the military."

That doesn't sound at all like the caricature the GOP is trying to paint does it?  Of course Sean Hannity, Donald Trump, Mittens Romney and no one else at Fox News had anything to do with the daring raid at all.  They simply are in charge of dispersing propaganda from their comfy armchair that is used to distort reality.  To hear them talk, though, they know all about it.  And their only assertion is of course always negative for President Obama. Their words and actions are the very thing they would have called treason had it been done to President Bush. 

Another #2?

(CNN) -- Abu Yahya al-Libi, the No. 2 man in al Qaeda and a longtime public face of the terror network, has been killed by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

His death marks one of the most significant blows to al Qaeda since the U.S. military killed Osama bin Laden in a daring nighttime raid in Pakistan a year ago.

How many #2's is this?  We have to be on the 15th or 16th #2 killing by now.

I realize just as soon as we kill the #2 man or the #3 man someone else steps right up and takes his place.  The progression of the promotion to #2 doesn't concern me.  It's the logic of how mundane our indiscriminate killing program truly is.

The kill list is really quite bothersome.

Quickies

• Want to know what counts as ignorance and incompetence in GOP circles?  When you refer to Nazi death camps in Poland as Polish death camps.

• When you misspell the word America, however?  That's no big deal.  Simply means you're a Great American Patriot.  

• Florida GOP is trying to purge thousands of eligible voters from the rolls.  One is a 91-year old WWII veteran who ain't too happy.

• Alabama Republican Roy Moore says secularism will lead to Sharia law taken hold in America.  He's a genius.

• The Times is reporting President Obama personally oversees secret drone attacks on terrorists around the world. 

Landmines Easily Pass Through TSA

As long as they get to see my penis is all that matters.

We're Just Not Going to Call it War Anymore

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan — President Barack Obama said Wednesday a “time of war” was ending in a moment of American renewal, on a secret trip to Afghanistan a year after ordering the death of Osama bin Laden.

A time of war is ending in about another half decade or so.

So Easy For a Chickenhawk to Say

When I read Mittens' comment that even Jimmy Carter would have ordered the raid to kill bin Laden, I immediately thought the same thing as Greg Sargent.

The rub is that in a sense, Carter did give “that order,” as Romney puts it. In April of 1980, Carter ordered the launch of an American military operation designed to rescue Americans held hostage in Tehran. The mission went horribly awry, of course, killing eight American service-men — a disaster that played a major role in ending Carter’s presidency.

The purpose of Romney's answer was not to demonstrate just how tough of a decision it was for the administration, but to render the simplicity of the decision by inferring even the tree hugging diplomacy-loving Carter would have ordered it.  Sad at every level.

Like Sargent mentions, this ignores the fact that the bin Laden raid was built upon the 1980 Tehran raid that failed miserably. We learned from history. Amazing I know. The Obama administration knew enough about the failed 1980 raid that it ordered backup gunships just in case everything went wrong like it did for Carter.  President Obama, in making his order to go after bin Laden, had to have had the Tehran raid staring at him with excruciating realness.

All of this, however, fails to even touch upon the fact that Carter is not the weakling the GOP tries to portray him, which was the exact intention of Romney's comment. Carter is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis Maryland-- one of the finest military academies in all the world. Unlike tough guy Ronald Reagan who lived in liberal Hollywood all throughout WWII and made movies, Carter served his country by fighting in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. After the war, Carter remained in the Navy and served in the nuclear submarine program.  Hardly the job for an appeaser.

It's possible Mitt Romney knows nothing about Carter's background or anything at all about the 1980 raid, which thankfully President Obama did. But comments inferring emasculating conditions against people who actually served their country in time of war from a guy who fled to a palace in France during Vietnam isn't something the American public should take lightly.

Senate Report Concludes Bush's State Sanctioned Torture Program Didn't Work

There were Democrats on this committee so that can only mean it is a complete bogus report engineered to aid the gay terrorists so they can enforce Sharia Law and force women to take birth control.

Administration Says It Can Kill Citizens Abroad Without Trial

This might be scarier than any unemployment or debt chart you'll see.

"The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." Attorney General Eric Holder, March 5, 2012.

I couldn't imagine the outrage by Democrats if this had been the Bush administration claiming such authority.  Holder went on to justify his reasoning by claiming the war on terror is limitless, without boundaries and knows no border.  "We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country," he stated.

This is War Without End.  That's why I've said time and time again the NDAA's indefinite detention clause is minute compared to its statutory claim of forever war.  I don't think anyone can argue that we aren't at war.  We surely are.  Whether it's been formally declared by Congress is pointless.  Congress granted the president broad authority in September 2001 with the AUMF.  Since then, each NDAA has confirmed such Congressional authority for the president to wage war.  Congress successfully and legally signed off on all of it.  So now we find ourselves in a very broad war-- a war without borders-- where even citizens of the United States as long as they are not on our soil can and will be killed.

What Once Was, Still Is

For the Bush administration’s entire second term, the Department of Justice failed to tell Congress how many intrusive wiretaps (i.e., eaves dropping without warrants-- direct violation of the 4th Amendment) were carried out by law enforcement, despite a legal requirement that it produce an annual report detailing the practice, a security researcher has learned.

Sounds pretty bad doesn't it?

For its part, the Obama administration has dealt with this issue in the worst way possible: extending provisions in the Patriot Act; allowing telecom immunity for participating in the illegal wiretaps; and even continuing to keep Congress in the dark about the federal government's role in spying on its citizens.  Not that Congress cares or would do anything about it even if the president told them.  I'm just saying, 2008 candidate Obama sure didn't live up to this promise of change.

Hits Them Where It Hurts

Of all the crazy lies and denialism Republicans make-up to justify their Fantasy World, their insistence President Obama deserves no credit for killing bin Laden is second only to their insistence that the president wanted bin Laden kept alive but was overruled by the military. Super Tough Guy Patriot Sean Hannity makes the case for why Republicans not only live in a Fantasy World but rely on complete lies to justify their ideology.

“They’ve got a foreign policy that shows a lot of weakness,” Hannity said. “I know the President will say they got bin Laden, putting that aside.” 

“And the public gives him credit for that,” Luntz interjected. 

A reluctant Hannity replied, “But it wouldn’t have happened if he had his way, and I think that could be proven as well on tapes.”

The fact bin Laden was killed at the order of President Obama, a Democratic president elected with the most votes in the history of America, hits a raw nerve with Republicans. In their world, only Republicans and people who support Republicans are tough, manly and strong enough to kill the most wanted man in the world. Only war-cheerleaders who constantly chest thump invasion after invasion and who routinely label Democrats as panty waists are serious enough-- and love America enough-- to administer foreign policy and seek revenge for 9/11.

Anything that deviates from such ideology is a conspiracy only meant at destroying America. That's why Hannity alludes to "tapes" proving Obama didn't want bin Laden killed.  It's a right wing baked conspiracy theory that allows them to exist in an alternative universe.  Republicans believe that the president ordered the military to stand down and the military vetoed it and successfully took out bin Laden.  It was only after the successful operation did Obama take credit.  Because, as we all know, had it not been successful he would have thrown the military under the bus and ordered them all executed for treason.  I'm not making this stuff up either. This is mainstream Republican thinking.  This is their every day conversations.  They not only believe, they beat off to it.

Why do they do it?  Why must they concoct complete lies against their country?  I haven't read a better explanation in years than Simon Malory's:

The death of Bin Laden has proven to be an intractable problem for a conservative commentariat that relies upon facile and outdated stereotypes of the opposition. Say what you will about the Obama administration's expanded use of drone warfare and targeted assassinations, but it certainly does not comport with the flower-child caricature that has served as a foil for talk radio tough guys. And the death of the world's most prominent anti-American terrorist is not easily explained away.

No This is Not the First Time Congress Has Codified Indefinite Detention During War

I've long revered Glenn Greenwald a staunch supporter of civil liberties.  His work on the fallout from the 2001 Patriot Act and its various extensions has been tremendous.  His books How Would a Patriot Act and With Liberty and Justice for some, are incredibly difficult to put down. I read the former all the way through in one day.  It was that good.

Nonetheless, his recent posts about the latest NDAA approval from Congress is startling and very worth the ten minutes it takes to read them (here and here).

In short, the NDAA has a complete disregard for the Constitution and civil liberties.  It's hard to argue with much of what Greenwald writes.  And I won't except for a small discrepancy he keeps repeating.  For example, take this sentence: "First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have aggressively argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges..."

It's true both administrations have argued they have the war power to imprison people without charges or trial.  But what war president hasn't?  President John Adams signed four bills we now know as the Alien and Sedition Acts.  Scores of people were arrested, held without formal charges and even died in custody.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the four bills by any means.  I'm just saying this isn't the first time Congress has codified the president's wartime power of indefinite detention.  Those who oppose NDAA are making it sound like these are vast new powers for the first time codified in law.  That's just not true.

Lincoln didn't even wait on Congress.  He acted on his own and declared his wartime powers suffice to handle enemies he greatly regarded as American citizens.  He locked them up throughout the duration of the Civil War.  Woodrow Wilson, too, had Congress codify his wartime powers, which led to hundreds of civil rights abuses.  FDR acted more like Lincoln with his assumed wartime powers.  He didn't wait for Congress, he single handily wrote an executive order that effectively placed American citizens in concentration camps throughout the duration of WWII.

Like Greenwald states, during the Cold War, Congress codified indefinite detention again regardless of Truman vetoing it.  It was overruled.

Say what you will about the NDAA trampling the Bill of Rights.  It does.  It's a pathetic excuse of wartime power.  But it's not the first time it's been codified by a bipartisan Congress.  Every wartime president has had the exact same powers, not just Bush and Obama.

The problem with the vast powers granted to the president is not indefinite detention.  It's the war authority.  Unlike past wars, the war on terror will not have a formal surrender signing.  It will not have an end date.  That's what scary.  It's more like the Cold War than any of our other wars.  And according to the president's war powers secured all throughout American history, the president's powers are authoritarian.

White House Lifts Veto Threat

Just got a news alert that the WH has backed away from its recent veto threat of the NDAA.

The passage of the defense authorization has been a stir for quite some time in online media. Opponents of the bill, such as the ACLU and many civil rights groups, say the bill allows for American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial, without due process or without ever talking to a lawyer.  This is crazy folks.  The provision at hand is this:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

I'll let my more defense/civil rights legislative savvy readers explain it better. But I read it as saying citizens are only exempt from the requirement in Sec. 1032 that mandates all terror suspects to go straight to military prisons.  It doesn't exempt citizens from being detained by the military for an indefinite period if they are deemed as terrorists or having ties to terrorism, all contained in Sec. 1031.

Am I missing something?  Please tell me I am.

Republicans Really Hate the Fact Prez Obama Got bin Laden

One of most disappointing aspects of watching the January primary calendar come to a close will be seeing God's Servant, Rick Santorum, once again losing.  It's sad, but I'm sure Fox News will keep him employed.

There are a lot of things to argue about in Obama's presidency.  But suggesting he had nothing to do with the death of bin Laden just isn't one of them.  Republicans, though, have invented an entirely different course of history.  In the Republican Fantasy World, Obama merely "followed through" with Bush's policy of hunting bin Laden.

“Osama bin Laden was a continuation of President Bush’s policy. It had nothing to do with a contingency or a problem that came up on his watch. He simply followed through, which we have been trying to do for 10 years.”

And the president doesn’t deserve credit for doing — he didn’t make a decision, if you will, as to go after bin Laden. That decision had been made 10 years ago.”

I'll gladly write this one a thousand times if I have to.  It bothers me none to keep repeating that George Bush took all focus off of bin Laden and the people responsible for 9/11 when he invaded Iraq.  As if sending 150,000 troops and invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 isn't enough to constitute a change of plans, Bush made it formal in 2005 when he officially disbanded the anti-terrorism unit tasked with hunting bin Laden.

So despite what idiot Santorum says, YES Obama did create new policy when he came into office in 2009 and ordered the CIA to refocus its attention on finding and killing Osama bin Laden.  Ending the war in Iraq and refocusing our efforts to Afghanistan was not George Bush policy.  That is absolutely nothing but the policy of the current administration.  And it has been very successful.  

Republicans can't accept the reality that Bush failed.  It's like this with everything involving the GOP.  If it doesn't fit their narrative, then lie.  Just like the constant insistence from Republicans that Reagan shrunk government, cut spending and made America free again.  Or the complete lie Republicans tell all the time that George Bush created 10 million new jobs or that he handed Obama an economy with 5% unemployment.  None of that ever happened but in their world it did.  Admitting none of it ever happened would crumble their whole world to pieces so it's easier to pretend.

Who Wouldn't Make the Decision to Kill bin Laden? George W. Bush That's Who

Birther and former GOP candidate for president Donald Trump tries to deride President Obama and his successful operation that killed the most wanted terrorist in world history by asking Fox News "who is not going to make that decision?".

As if Trump needs to look very long or hard for that answer.  George W. Bush flinched when he was put to the task of tracking down Osama bin Laden.  When the U.S. military had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora in the Fall of 2001, George W. Bush refused to let our troops finish the job.  In 2005, because Bush was not concerned the least bit about bin Laden, he fully dismantled the anti-terrorist unit tasked with tracking him down.  It wasn't until 2009 when Barack Obama took over the White House did the United States revamp its efforts at finding and killing bin Laden.  Last May the president and his operation was successful.  George Bush failed.  Get over it.

*Update:

How much more amazing can the Republican Fantasy World really get?  In their world it was George Bush that led the charge in killing bin Laden.  Fox News and Sean Hannity make sure history gets rewritten to fit their very messed up narrative.

In Sean Hannity’s world, President George W. Bush succeeded in killing terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

The Fox News host on Thursday noted that bin Laden was dead “thanks to George Bush.”

During a segment on Time magazine’s top 10 news stories of 2011, Democratic consultant Joe Trippi lamented that the death of the al Qaeda leader didn’t make the list.

“Thanks to George Bush,” Hannity interrupted, ignoring the fact that bin Laden had been killed under President Barack Obama’s watch.

“You’d give credit to Bush?” he asked Trippi. “Because if Obama had gotten his way we wouldn’t have gotten bin Laden, you know that.”

In no world where oxygen is breathed is Hannity's interpretation of history even remotely valid. Bush had been out of office for two years.  As noted above, in 2005 he ordered the anti-terrorism team tasked with hunting and killing Osama bin Laden disbanded.  In 2003, he ordered an American invasion into Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 forcing us to officially take our eyes off bin Laden.  In 2001, Bush ordered a halt in the execution of Tora Bora where the U.S. military had cornered bin Laden, officially allowing him to escape.

Bush's actions did anything but lead to the killing of bin Laden.  His actions (invading Iraq, dismantling units tasked to kill him, and allowing him to escape in 2001) all helped bin Laden to live a life of luxury in a mansion in Pakistan.  But not in the Republican Fantasy World.  Bush is responsible for all that is good in the world.  No one with all their chromosomes would ever watch Fox News and trust it.  Yet this kind of make-believe talk by Sean Hannity gets touted in GOP circles as tough guy, Super Patriot talk.  It's scary that the Republican Party is even a major national party in any country let alone America.

Refocusing War Efforts on Al Qaeda is Not Appeasement

I love this...the person who turned his attention away from bin Laden and those responsible for 9/11, who intentionally disbanded the unit in charge of hunting bin Laden and recklessly ordered a homicidal invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the people who attacked our country is considered by the GOP a strong, patriotic, tough guy War Hero.

But the guy who actually refocused our efforts on the people who attacked America, has tracked them down, killed them with remarkable success and brought the war of choice that had nothing to do with 9/11 to an end, is an appeaser.

Republicans are a sick group of people, no doubt.  But this line of idiocy is unwarranted.  I'm glad the president spoke as forcefully as he did.

"Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top Al-Qaeda leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement... or whoever's left out there."

Go F' Yourself Cheney

One of the most unpopular men in American history, who can't get enough Glorious War on his Fox News teevee set, and who co-presided over one of the most despicable and lawless administrations since Richard Nixon, says President Obama should apologize to the Bushies.

"I think it was a very good strike. I think it was justified," Cheney told CNN's Candy Crowley on "State of the Union." But "I'm waiting for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for 'overreacting' to the events of 9/11."

The Obama administration has "clearly ... moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it is justified," Cheney said.

Not that there's any chance in the world the current president will apologize to George Bush or anyone who worked for him, it's clear Cheney still has no grasp of reality.

Like Steve Benen notes, President Obama never said in his Cairo Speech the Bushies overreacted to 9/11.  No where in the speech can you even find that word.  While we are focusing on facts, if invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 isn't "overreacting" then what is?

Let's also be clear, too, on the second part of Cheney's complaint that Obama has "clearly...moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it is justified."  OF COURSE THEY HAVE.  But let's be clear, President Obama took "robust action" on al Qaeda, the people responsible for 9/11, and not a man and a country that had nothing to do with it.

Obama has been robust at Bush's failures.  He's tracked down and killed bin Laden.  He put the focus back onto the people responsible for attacking us.  And he's been quite successful at all of it.  Way more successful than I ever thought he would be.

By all means, if the president is going to be robust then be robust competently.  Forgetting about bin Laden and his organization and turning your attention to Iraq is not robust action.  It's criminal stupidity.

The Bush administration is criticized precisely because they took robust action on the wrong people.  Had Bush not invaded Iraq and sent America into a downward spiral, then criticism for his other activities would have been on the same level of as what the current president is receiving.  But invading Iraq did more than just make Cheney and George W. even richer.  It opened them up to criticism on everything, robust or not.