There are many reasons to object to Craig. His record is nauseating but neither his record nor his actions have anything to do with this. He is merely a convenient scalp to take and parade about when the subject of Gitmo inevitably arises. His greatest qualification for this ceremonial defenestration is his Clintonite pedigree. Bill, lately, has been carrying mucho water for Team O. Knowing him as we do, can we doubt he expects something in return? And the recent treatment of Hillary, as something like a crazy aunt consigned to the attic, is not it. Watch the Clintons, Barry. Craig is their pet gargoyle and unless you got prior permission to knock him off the roof, they will draw their price.

It's very interesting to me to see how, on the one hand, Bush was loyal (to a fault) to a lot of his people, Obama tends to eject those souls troublesome to his agenda post-haste.

Now I'm not going to attempt to draw any conclusions from this but, like I said, it is interesting...

>>"Craig, the top lawyer at the White House and a close aide to President Barack Obama, has helped lead the administration's efforts on several national-security policies that initially enjoyed popular support but have since become liabilities for Obama."

So shouldn't Obama be stepping down for doing what this guy (who Obama selected) said?

How many people get thrown under the bus before it dawns on the public that the problem is with the man who appointed them?

Steve:

I think, at least in part, that you've answered my question as to why Bush kept around some of the more questionable clowns in his retinue for so long--he was afraid (rightfully, as Obama is now bearing out) that he would be painted as incompetent by the media for doing the sort of thing Obama does with a carefree attitude.