How are you going to claim that the Bush administration's policies re: tribunals were harsher than ever before, and then run away when I point out that they're absolutely not? It's perfectly relevant to your argument - the fact that it doesn't help you doesn't change that.
If you're arguing that the principles in one are more important than in the other, that's been roundly rejected. If you're arguing that the two are identical in terms of the principles at issue, but one is more "politically important," then I don't know why you think that matters one bit as to the question of what it says about the lawyers who are involved. There is no intelligible way to distinguish the two.
And you think that once the lawyers won Hamdan, they all said "good work guys!" and went home? Of course not. They're still challenging all sorts of policies, both under Bush and Obama.
Every lawyer is required to have a good faith basis for his argument otherwise he can be sanctioned by the court. Almost by definition, if a lawyer is making a claim, then there are demonstrably sound principles supporting his position.
Given that, is it safe to say that if Alberto Gonzales had taken a bunch of lawyers who had spent years dedicating their free time to white supremacists and appointed them to work in the civil rights division, you'd have no problem with that?
I have stated and re-iterated my points 4 times and yet again you incorrectly restate my arguments. I'm done with this exercise in futility.