This quote highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of political allegiances and policy continuities across administrations. It underscores how political figures, especially those affiliated with neoconservative ideology, can transcend partisan boundaries when it comes to certain strategic or ideological priorities. The fact that those who initially condemned certain policies—like aggressive military interventions or counterterrorism tactics during the Bush era—have come to praise or support their continuation under Obama reveals a pragmatic, or possibly opportunistic, alignment that often defies direct ideological consistency. It invites reflection on the nature of political accountability and whether public criticisms are genuine or merely tactical. The quote also prompts us to question the true differences between administrations that are often portrayed as opposites, suggesting that core foreign policy decisions are perhaps less partisan and more aligned with overarching strategic goals rooted in national security interests. This can evoke skepticism about political integrity and highlight the blurred lines in policymaking, where rhetoric may differ from actual policy. The transition from aggressive criticism to support may also reflect internal changes in the political landscape, elite consensus, or the influence of long-term strategic agendas that persist regardless of who holds office. Such observations are crucial for understanding the real drivers behind foreign policy decisions and the importance of scrutinizing political rhetoric versus actions. They serve as a reminder to remain vigilant about the motives behind political support and opposition, especially in areas as consequential as national security and global stability. ---Glenn Greenwald---