What an incredible display of disingenuousness. Seven years into the Bush Administration and the knee-jerk retorts of “But Clinton did it too!” to excuse or defend are getting really tiresome. That would be like finding out that someone in the National Security Council got caught in some scandal and trying to defend by saying “but the NSC has been in existence since 1947. BUT TRUMAN!!!1111″

It isn't JUST who/what was involved (the Principals Committee), but what they *did*. Perhaps the Principals Committee has existed since 1989. If you want to put that forward as a point, maybe you could answer why it took Yoo and Addington to push the legal justifications for torture under the *current* administration.

Please refer to Chris www's response for the main course.

Other instances involve his refusal to vote for emotional, as opposed to real policy, bills thatt have come before Congress.

An example is the resolution calling Iran's security forces terrorists.
Whether that is ture or not , is beside the point. The resolution just provided venting for our frustrations without advancing any measures to deal with the cause of those frustrations.
Besides, the resolution opened the door to some other coutnry resolving to call the CIA a terrorist organization.
It revved up fears of Iran by some and fears of the consequences of the resolution in others. Nothing was achieved, and obama was right to keep cool and refuse to take part.

He also avoided the pressure to join the chorus that was selling the Iraq war, despite administration visions of mushroom clouds.

During the primaries, we argue about the economy and Iraq. Those, and others, are vital issues to consider, but first and foremost, I'm looking for a president who won't lose his head in the face of adversity, controversy or, even, an extreme shock like 9/11, .

That's why I support Obama. He appears to be the one able to keep cool under fire.

There seems to be a moral progression with those who would defend the Bush administration use of torture and suspension of rights. It goes something like this:

1) Nations that play by humanitarian rules are the good guys.
2) America plays by those rules, therefore America is one of the good guys
3) America is one of the good guys even if it doesn't play by those rules anymore simply because they are one of the good guys.

Its a false train of thought but so many seem to think that simply because we once stood for justice and accountability we are entitled to that distinctoin whether or not our actions merit it. Those people make me sick.

If America is to cleanse itself, these people should be on trial for war crimes. There is enough information to start those proceedings against Mr. Yoo right now.

We all knew from the start that the abuses at Abu Ghraib weren't just the machinations of Lynndie England. This is just more proof.

Since this committee has been in existence since 1989, what do you think they talked about during the Clinton years, sexual positions? Does that statement sound ludicrous to you? It does to me. But, the same report could have been filed, including as much 'proof' of the conclusions that the ABC News piece draws, to support my statement if it were the year 1999.

Reality Check, there is no evidence to indicate what was actually discussed at the committee meetings, there is no proof that any agencies' activities were influenced by the determinations of the committee and there will be no repercussions (according to you) related to the committee's activities. I would say that there is no there there.