Andrew Sullivan looks at two right-wing critiques of Obama's national security policy, and shoots down both of them. The post is worth reading, but I think the problem with the right's view on foreign policy and national security at this time is that the right has no idea what it believes anymore on those areas (let alone about Bush himself and his legacy), though they likely still believe in spreading "freedom" abroad while restricting it at home. Outsourcing freedom? Seems like the sort of pithy, demagogic but nonetheless largely right description of what these folks are up to.
But the right is paralyzed right now, which is probably why you're not hearing much on these subjects. As Andrew shows, Republicans can't agree on whether or not Obama is different than Bush. They can't agree whether he's a dangerous change or just more of the same. Ultimately, however, both critiques are fundamentally the same: Republicans are arguing that their policies were absolutely, positively necessary to keep the country safe, regardless of the moral implications. It's just that the path you take to get there is different: if you are arguing that Obama = Bush, then you're arguing that even Obama admits that Bush's policies were necessary. If you're arguing that he's a dangerous change, you're arguing that Obama is deviating from Bush's necessary policies. At this point, it seems like only Cheney is taking the latter position, as nobody seems much interested in defending Bush. In fact, I suspect that you'll hear lots more of "more of the same" from Republicans in the future because it accomplishes everything they need to accomplish--it's not a swipe at Bush since the base still loves him, it doesn't require a defense of Bush's policies, it allows conservatives to allege liberal hypocrisy--and if there's something they enjoy doing more than that, I don't know what it is. What it won't do is allow political space to blame a potential terror attack upon the United States on Barack Obama, though I suspect that they wouldn't try to do that anyway. People rally to their leaders after national disasters, and anyone who remembers the rapidity with which Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were drummed from the conversation after their comments about 9/11 will remember that pinning the blame on individuals and groups during a crisis doesn't really look too good, PR-wise.
And I have no objection to Republicans trotting out the "more of the same" line when Obama does something like use the state secrets privilege to throw out lawsuits, though. Keeps the right sort of pressure on the man. But I wonder when (if?) Republicans will decide to get back on the human rights bandwagon and if there will be a thorough accounting of what went wrong intramurally. Somehow, I doubt it.
