I have been calling Obama Jr.Jr ever since he campaigned without ruffling a W feather and identified with him on many issues. But the New York Times is  noticing just now:

Obama’s War on Terror May Resemble Bush’s in Some Areas

So much so that

The administration’s recent policy moves have attracted praise from outspoken defenders of the Bush administration. Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page argued that “it seems that the Bush administration’s antiterror architecture is gaining new legitimacy” as Mr. Obama’s team embraces aspects of Mr. Bush’s counterterrorism approach.

But then it’s not like the WSJ didn’t know what they were getting early on. Let’s face it, while NY Times was busy attacking the women running against Obama, WSJ told us back in July that Obama would be Bush’s third term (OK, they told THEIR readers, for whom this was a good thing). They even found the cues in the inaugural speech.

But New York times as always is slower on the uptake, being obviously out of the loop on this one.

So they are slowly adding Obama’s FISA vote in the senate to his more recent signals

Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda.

They are genereous with the qualifiers but eventually notice:

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone

And again, blaming people other than Obama

Moreover, the nominee for C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, opened a loophole in Mr. Obama’s interrogation restrictions. At his hearing, Mr. Panetta said that if the approved techniques were “not sufficient” to get a detainee to divulge details he was suspected of knowing about an imminent attack, he would ask for “additional authority.”

Same with using W’s secrecy

“Every president in my lifetime has invoked the state-secrets privilege,” Mr. Craig said. “The notion that invoking it in that case somehow means we are signing onto the Bush approach to the world is just an erroneous assumption.”

Still, the decision caught the attention of a bipartisan group of lawmakers. Two days after the appeals court hearing, they filed legislation to bar using the state-secrets doctrine to shut down an entire case — as opposed to withholding particular evidence.

Oh, I get it NYT: Obama wants hope and change – but darn Panetta, Holder, Kagan and those other fiends don’t let him. Right? or maybe, I should get my news from WSJ.