Finally, an opponent takes the gloves off against Obama

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The remark was in context of promises made to "moderates". Closing GTMO was a promise made to the Left.

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are about PolitiFact's Top Promises
The only broken promise I see here that would appeal to moderates would be a tougher position on industry lobbyists.

Other than that it's all Left-wing stuff.

-spence

He promised to cut the deficit in half. Was that pandering to liberals?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama wasn't forced, I think he looked at the situation (i.e. nobody wanted to take any of the inmates still there regardless of their threat level) and had no other options.

-spence

So what was Obama thinking when he said (as he was looking for votes during the campaign), that he'd close Gitmo? He said the existence of Gitmo was an embarassment, and he criticized Bush for using Gitmo.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He promised to cut the deficit in half. Was that pandering to liberals?

I think we've discussed this previously.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what was Obama thinking when he said (as he was looking for votes during the campaign), that he'd close Gitmo? He said the existence of Gitmo was an embarassment, and he criticized Bush for using Gitmo.

Not closing Gitmo is far from an endorsement. Obama was simply hamstrung by bad Bush policy he inherited.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think we've discussed this previously.

-spence

Perhaps you could refresh my memory?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not closing Gitmo is far from an endorsement. Obama was simply hamstrung by bad Bush policy he inherited.

-spence

Spence, you're really talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

So according to you, it was bad for Bush to use Gitmo. But it's brilliant for Obama to continue using it, because it's the smartest possible option. It was bad when Bush used Gitmo, awesome for Obama to use it.

Do I have that right?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you're really talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

So according to you, it was bad for Bush to use Gitmo. But it's brilliant for Obama to continue using it, because it's the smartest possible option. It was bad when Bush used Gitmo, awesome for Obama to use it.

Do I have that right?

No.
Gitmo wasn't great, but maybe needed after 9/11....
Now, it is a bitch to close b/c not all are suitable for release, and no country wants them.... it is definetly not brilliant or awesome. I think he's stuck and made a stupid promise....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No.
Gitmo wasn't great, but maybe needed after 9/11....
Now, it is a bitch to close b/c not all are suitable for release, and no country wants them.... it is definetly not brilliant or awesome. I think he's stuck and made a stupid promise....

"Gitmo wasn't great, but maybe needed after 9/11.... '

I didn't hear any Democrats saying that when Bush was in office. All I heard was that Bush was the second coming of Atilla The Hun for opening Gitmo. Then Obama descended from the heavens, declared that Gitmo was antithetical to American values. Yet, Gitmo is still there.

If any liberal feels that Gitmo is an unfortunate necessity in a screwed-up world (which is the truth), they should also feel like they owe Bush an apology. Because Bush used Gitmo for the same reason you just cited, and for that, he caughgt a lot of heat from folks on your side of the aisle...

"b/c not all are suitable for release, and no country wants them..."


Like Spence, you are using that to justify the fact that Obama is continuing to use Gitmo. But why don't you also concede that very same reason is justification for Bush opening up Gitmo in the first place?

Here's how this conversation is unfolding...

Bush: We can't keep these terrorists anywhere else, so I'll put them in Gitmo.

Liberals: Booo! War criminal! Impeach Bush! Hate crime! Murderer!

Obama: I'm going to close Gitmo...

Liberals: Yeah!

Obama: We can't keep these terrorists anywhere else, so I'll put them in Gitmo (note the similarity between this statement and Bush's statement)

Liberals: OK, sounds good!

It's OK for Obama to use Gitmo to keep these terrorists, but Bush was a monster for doing the same exact thing?

RIJIMMY, I don't often agree with you, but you are one very thoughtful person. In this case, it seems to me that Bush and Obama did the same exact thing. One guy gets villified for it, the other gets worshipped.

RIJIMMY, let me put it this way...please tell me the difference between Bush's use of Gitmo, and Obama's use of Gitmo. Because Bush caught a lot of heat for his use of Gitmo. In my opinion, Obama is using Gitmo the same exact way, and he gets a pass.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No.
I think he's stuck and made a stupid promise....

BINGO! He was pandering to the people who wanted it closed. Then, when he realized he wasn't going to be able to deliver on that and other promises he made, instead of just saying "maybe I was wrong to make that promise", he makes up lame excuses to deflect the blame.

I think he sucks as a President.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

RIJIMMY, let me put it this way...please tell me the difference between Bush's use of Gitmo, and Obama's use of Gitmo. Because Bush caught a lot of heat for his use of Gitmo. In my opinion, Obama is using Gitmo the same exact way, and he gets a pass.

How many have been added to the detaines under this administration? I ask b/c I just don't know... it does change that argument for 'using' and being 'stuck with'

and yes, I agree he was pandering, we aren't all blind idealogs on the left Jim........

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Like Spence, you are using that to justify the fact that Obama is continuing to use Gitmo. But why don't you also concede that very same reason is justification for Bush opening up Gitmo in the first place?

This doesn't make any sense.

Records seem to indicate that the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were released. Hell, people were just scooped up...Accounts of recidivism are small, but probably to be expected.

It appears like of those who are left they're either people of little threat that no country will take, or some genuinely dangerous folks that nobody wants to bring in the US, probably because the evidence against them is pretty weak.

It's a wart that Obama inherited and there's no easy solution.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

How many have been added to the detaines under this administration? I ask b/c I just don't know... it does change that argument for 'using' and being 'stuck with'

and yes, I agree he was pandering, we aren't all blind idealogs on the left Jim........

I honestly have no idea how many have been added.

I know that you are not a blind ideologue. In my last post, I referred to RIJIMMY when I meant to say RIROCKHOUND. I don't agree with you on much, but I know that you are very thoughtful. And thoughtful is the polar opposite of a blind ideologue. That's what I was trying to say before.

I still don't see how one can bash Bush on Gitmo, but not bash Obama. We'll agree to disagree on that score...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I know that you are not a blind ideologue. In my last post, I referred to RIJIMMY when I meant to say RIROCKHOUND. I don't agree with you on much, but I know that you are very thoughtful. e...

he's cute and cuddly too

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I still don't see how one can bash Bush on Gitmo, but not bash Obama. We'll agree to disagree on that score...

I think he did pander and overstate what he could do... my gut is that he has not been adding a huge number of new detainees, and I suspect, that if they are most are not random targets... a lot of the early heat on GWB about Gitmo was that it was more of a wide cast net, that has been thinned down... many needed/deserve to be there; many did not... that's why Bush got crucified for it...

think progress is not my 'trusted source' but I see the same number in two articles... 171, down from 779; it doesn't say how many added, but my sense is not many....

you view at as 'doing the same thing' I see them as one ordering the drinks and one stuck with the tab.....

By The Numbers: 10 Years At Guantánamo Bay | ThinkProgress
Guantanamo Bay 10th Anniversary: Obama's Detention Law Could Fill Prison Obama Tried To Close

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I know that you are not a blind ideologue. In my last post, I referred to RIJIMMY when I meant to say RIROCKHOUND. I don't agree with you on much, but I know that you are very thoughtful. And thoughtful is the polar opposite of a blind ideologue. That's what I was trying to say before.

Thanks

TXJimmy is a just some dumb redneck.... the opposite of very thoughtful

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

you view at as 'doing the same thing' I see them as one ordering the drinks and one stuck with the tab.....

[

based on your links, it seems as though he hashly criticized the guy at the bar for how much and what he was drinking and for even being at the bar in the first place, but upon depature he jumped right up on the barstool, set a deadline for the bartender to stop serving him but then signed legislation eliminating 'closing time" and he's been at the bar drinking ever since....I'm not sure that the tab he got stuck with will ever get paid if he has anything to do with it after the cops drag him out for overstaying his welcome and being disorderly I imagine the "tab" he got stuck with will probably get passed on to the next guy on the barstool.......

can't think of any reason why he'd be "adding huge numbers of detainees" but if we end up in a major conflict in the next couple of months this could certinly happen.....

from your link
Obama's Detention Law Could Fill Prison Obama Tried To Close"President Barack Obama failed two years ago to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison, and with Wednesday marking the 10th anniversary of its creation, debate is raging over whether a law he signed will ensure it will stay open for decades to come, jailing even United States citizens.

Tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which Obama signed on New Year's Eve, are provisions that appear to allow indefinite military detention of American terrorism suspects, and to require it of suspected foreign enemies.

[scottw]

it's funny that Ryan is accused of hypocrisy in the other thread for assisting a constituent(s) in accessing stimulus funds after raiing against and voting against them...

he'd have to rail against, vote against and condemn their very existence as un-American...then become President and sign legislation extending them and expanding the scope of those who might get "access"...to reach this level


August 2007

“As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists,” says then-Sen. Obama.

Jan. 22, 2009

“This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.”

May 2009:

“…by any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.”

http://www.salon.com/2011/04/25/obam...namo_rhetoric/

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

Obama's Detention Law Could Fill Prison Obama Tried To Close.

And if my Aunt had nuts she'd could be my uncle....

Can I be any clearer that I think it was a stupid pander?

I also think it is not a direct comparison to GWB... IF he STARTS to fill the prison he tried to close (which that line indicates he did TRY to close it) then the direct comparison with GWB can be made...

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

August 2007

“As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists,” says then-Sen. Obama.

Jan. 22, 2009

“This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.”

May 2009:

“…by any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.”

The Obama/Gitmo timeline - Salon.com

I have to wonder about salon, they've been around forever as a footnote.

Guantanamo Bay: How the White House lost the fight to close it - The Washington Post

Less spin, more reasons.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I also think it is not a direct comparison to GWB......

of course it isn't...GWB was presiding over a very different situation, Obama condemned the solution to the situation that was developed under GWB and then promised to end it and eventually signed law continuing it indefinitely and expanding it's reach....a little more than simple pandering, i think

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

I have to wonder about salon, they've been around forever as a footnote.

Guantanamo Bay: How the White House lost the fight to close it - The Washington Post

Less spin, more reasons.

I figured Salon was safe from being criticized as a intellectually challenged fox biased misinformation propoganda arm of the vast right wing conspiracy...I guess they're under suspicion too

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

I figured Salon was safe from being criticized as a intellectually challenged fox biased misinformation propoganda arm of the vast right wing conspiracy...I guess they're under suspicion too

Nah, not under suspicion, just wondering how they managed to stay solvent after their whole shot at "oh, pay for content" game. They were a mere flash in the pan for dotcom news/opinion/life sites, now they've turned into a "medium sized blogging news site (some news with too much opinion with no clear line)".

Hell when they first launched they were considered a daily goto site then just kinda flopped with trying to charge both bloggers and readers. They became a case study in "how not to run a large site".

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

Nah, not under suspicion, just wondering how they managed to stay solvent after their whole shot at "oh, pay for content" game. They were a mere flash in the pan for dotcom news/opinion/life sites, now they've turned into a "medium sized blogging news site (some news with too much opinion with no clear line)".

Hell when they first launched they were considered a daily goto site then just kinda flopped with trying to charge both bloggers and readers. They became a case study in "how not to run a large site".

not sure what that has to do with anything......particularly " spin and reason(s)"

[buckman]

Obama adds few inmates because he just kills them with drones
Gitmo is still needed because the brilliant idea of trials in New York kinda went up in flames

[likwid]

Originally Posted by buckman

Obama adds few inmates because he just kills them with drones

Its cheaper. See? He's saving you and I money.

Gitmo is still needed because the brilliant idea of trials in New York kinda went up in flames

I do love how Bloomberg WANTED the trials there, then suddenly reversed that one with the rest of the "outrage".