The Tribune‘s lead editorial Wednesday touched all these bases and was headlined “Obama and overreach: Americans see evidence of truth-shading, arrogance and intrusion.” Scott Stantis labeled his accompanying cartoon “Richard Milhous Obama.” On Thursday, a New York Times story on Obama’s troubles observed that “the latest furors could harden an impression of an Obama presidency that has expanded the reach of government further than many Americans would like.”
But what we’ve been seeing over the past week is the second wave of attacks on the Obama presidency as authoritarian and presumptuous (Nixonesque, if you will). It’s driven by political enemies. The first wave was not. Many of those critics might loosely be described as troubled friends.
Jack Goldsmith in the New Republic, on drone warfare: “For official secrecy abroad to work, the secrets must be kept at home as well. In speeches, interviews, and leaks, Obama’s team has tried to explain why its operations abroad are lawful and prudent. But to comply with rules of classified information and covert action, the explanations are conveyed in limited, abstract, and often awkward terms. They usually raise more questions than they answer—and secrecy rules often preclude the administration from responding to follow-up questions, criticisms, and charges.