I am so glad that Glenn Greenwald has been consistent in his treatment of Bush and Obama. I loved his scathing critiques of the Constitution-chuckin' cowboy in the White House, but I was bracing for GG to come up with excuses for Obama (as so many have done). But not Glenn:

Ever since Obama reversed himself on the question of whether to suppress the torture photos, I've been searching for an Obama supporter who (a) defends his decision to suppress those photos but also (b) criticized him when, two weeks earlier, he announced that he would release those photos. I haven't found such a person yet, but I'm still looking.

When Obama originally announced he would release the photos, he was attacked on seemingly every television news show by people like Lindsey Graham, Liz Cheney and Joe Lieberman for endangering the Troops, but I don't know of a single Democrats who joined in with those criticisms on the ground that the photos shouldn't be released. But as soon as Obama changed his mind and embraced the Graham/Cheney/Lieberman position, up rose hordes of Obama supporters suddely insisting that those photos must be suppressed because to release them would be to endanger the Troops. I'm still searching for any pro-photo-suppression Democrats who criticized Obama when he triggered controversy by orginally announcing he would release them.

That is one of the most beautiful arguments I have ever seen in the political arena. He totally busted about 10 million people in this country. And I bet there are some of them who, if they read GG's post, would realize that was true of them, and yet they hadn't sensed any problem at the time. It all seemed so natural, and with Obama being picked on by that meanie Rush Limbaugh, one's inclination would be to defend him no matter what.