Per the Daily Beast, TeamObama is about to launch a defense of their national security credentials. As part of this effort, Eric Holder will take poit in rationalizing the al-Awlaki drone strike:
Now the administration is poised to take its case directly to the American people. In the coming weeks, according to four participants in the debate, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. is planning to make a major address on the administration’s national-security record. Embedded in the speech will be a carefully worded but firm defense of its right to target U.S. citizens. Holder’s remarks will draw heavily on a secret Justice Department legal opinion that provided the justification for the Awlaki killing. The legal memorandum, portions of which were described to The New York Times last October, asserted that it would be lawful to kill Awlaki as long as it was not feasible to capture him alive—and if it could be demonstrated that he represented a real threat to the American people. Further, administration officials contend, Awlaki was covered under the congressional grant of authority to wage war against al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11.
Excellent. The same chap who thought that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (as we do routinely with US soldiers and airmen in training) represented a loss of America's soul will now explain why whacking disagreeable Americans on a one-off basis is acceptable. Maybe in the same speech he will explain his plans to close Gitmo (another blot on our national character) while preserving all of its capabilites at Bagram. The Niemann media watchdogs just can't figure out why this is being ignored by Big Media, although any righty could explain it.
Cue. The. Laughtrack.
YET IT SEEMS LIKE ONLY YESTERDAY: It was a year ago that Glenn Greenwald was bemoaning Obama's embrace of the Bush/Cheney war on terror; my Evil Excerpter stuck on this:
Aside from the repressiveness of the policies themselves, there are three highly significant and enduring harms from Obama's behavior. First, it creates the impression that Republicans were right all along in the Bush-era War on Terror debates and Democratic critics were wrong.
Dick Cheney is not only free of ignominy, but can run around claiming vindication from Obama's actions because he's right. The American Right constantly said during the Bush years that any President who knew what Bush knew and was faced with the duty of keeping the country safe would do the same thing. Obama has provided the best possible evidence imaginable to prove those claims true.
...Obama has won the War on Terror debate -- for the American Right. And as Dick Cheney's interview last night demonstrates, they're every bit as appreciative as they should be.
We were, we did, we do, we are.