Decius wrote:

Obama is defending executive power against his supporters by making shrewd moves that have the appearance of concession without the substance and the leave the public believing that he has a "balanced" position of civil liberties when in fact little has changed.

We continue to be governed by slick spinmasters who have little regard for the basic principles that underpin the great institutions they've managed to gain control of. Our downward spiral quickens.

Ever since election night:

He has to start deciding whom to disappoint.

It's not inconceivable that some leaders who make these cynical tactical decisions do realize what they're doing, but feel trapped. This is an observation, mind you, not an excuse ... One imagines that in the highest halls of government, every day is an epic struggle against giving in to cynicism.

Recently, George Packer:

Unlike Johnson, Obama wanted a serious internal debate about his policy, and he got one, with advisers considering whether the war was already lost. Yet the conclusion was, in a sense, foreordained by the President's campaign promises. Intellectual honesty in the private councils of the White House told you something about the calibre of the officials involved, but in the realm of public policy it made little difference.

From the days when Holbrooke was cutting his diplomatic teeth in The Nam, here are two thoughts from one of the Best and Brightest:

In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.

You can't change human nature.

Here's Holbrooke on the lesson of his early years:

A decade later, after I had left the government, I wrote a short essay for Harper's Magazine titled 'The Smartest Man in the Room Is Not Always Right.' I had Bundy -- and that evening -- in mind."

RE: Obama on Civil Liberties