Serwer takes issue with my claim that Obama ended the US torture regime:
There is no law banning enhanced interrogations. There is an executive order that the next Republican president will reverse to as much fanfare from his base as Obama announcing the closure of Guantanamo. Absent explicit action from Congress, or a finding from the courts that enhanced interrogations are illegal, Obama has not "ended" the U.S. torture regime. He has given it a coffee break.
I am second to none in opposing torture. But I don't see how Obama can compell his successor; and I'm not as sure as Adam that the CIA will even want to resurrect it in the future. But I agree Obama has done the bare minimum, and should have done much more. Maybe in a second term. Sprung puts his finger on our differences:
In our polarized political arena, Sully stands almost solo in the center. Perhaps that's why — along with a propensity to render decisive judgment — he rests satisfied with Obama's hedged and trimmed positions. Drum is a progressive who put his finger fairly early on Obama's relative conservatism in the deficit reduction debate. Hence his ambivalence.
That's about right. I backed Obama because of his conservative temperament and post-1960s pragmatism. I do not want a progressive revolution. I want pragmatic reform, which is what we're getting.
The Dish 