Too Close for Comfort?

Last week's wildly hysterical Washington Post editorial about Donald Trump deserves another look. Is it that the Post is overselling Trump's faults or is it that they have rose-colored glasses on when it comes to the current and immediate past Presidents?

Here's they key part of the Post editorial with some additional context added that is both accurate and telling - both about Trump but also about the state of American politics and the presidency. The bold faced type is the added language.

This is a front-runner with no credible agenda and no suitable experience. He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists, just like the extensive use of waterboarding that occurred under President Bush and the extra-judicial drone strikes that are routinely executed under President Obama's direction in foreign lands. He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in much the same way President Bush did when he looked into the Soviet dictator's eyes to see his soul and then ascribed to him the cutesy "Pooty Poot" nickname and sees no difference between Mr. Putin's victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people continuing the widescale efforts begun by the Obama administration that has resulted in 400,000 deportations per year, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot. He has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities and many more. He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed on a scale akin to the Bush administration's dubious claims that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, that Iraq was in possession of WMDs, or that the US "does not torture" (i.e., waterboarding) - wild assertions that were all categorically untrue but never repudiated by the President.