Hypocrisy we can believe in

Obama administration supports indefinite detention. Well, I guess that means his previous objections were merely partisan sniping. [Link]

Remember when the Left scoffed at the argument from George W. Bush that claimed the authorization to use military force allowed the executive branch to hold captured terrorists indefinitely, without criminal trial?  Bush’s opponents screamed about human rights and due process, and claimed that Bush had abused his power.  Those critics included Barack Obama, who regularly castigated the Bush administration for its failure to provide his idea of due process to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, as well as blasting Bush for his argument that he didn’t require Congress to act to maintain that power.
Now?  Change you can believe in, baby:

The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday.
Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.

One more thing we can believe in:

All of Obama’s statements come with an expiration date — all of them.  Ask the Poles, who heard Obama offer rhetorical support at about the same time for a land-based missile shield, a controversial issue for which Polish politicians had risked much, only to have Obama flip-flop on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion.
Will Obama acknowledge that Bush had it right all along, and that war powers give the executive branch the right to hold unlawful combatants indefinitely until the end of hostilities?  Or will he attempt, as the New York Times reports, to make distinctions without differences?