Obama extends Gitmo

[Chief Pedant]

Did I miss something while I was away?
Where's the liberal outrage?

"The announcements, coming more than two years after Obama vowed in another executive order to close the detention center, all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html?hpid=topnews

I don't think I have a particularly worthy opinion on either side, but I guess I thought there'd be a little more outrage from the pansy side of the fence.

[Der Trihs]

Did I miss something while I was away?
Where's the liberal outrage?You aren't listening to actual liberals? Liberals despise Obama. And I've already heard outrage about this, if not on this board yet.

[Naxos]

Did I miss something while I was away?
Where's the liberal outrage?

The outrage is with the human excrement that established them.

The disappointment with Obama is what caused too many centrist and progressives abstain from the polls last November and let the sewage of Republicans regain the House, so this type of action does have an effect, after all.

[magellan01]

Thou shalt not draw attention to the failings of The One.

[Der Trihs]

Thou shalt not draw attention to the failings of The One.:rolleyes: Please. Stop projecting the flaws of the right wing onto the left. It's the Right that insists on treating Republican Presidents as Messiahs whose acts are never to be questioned; the Left has criticized Obama from the beginning.

[FinnAgain]

...and, we're off!

[Der Trihs]

...and, we're off!Oh, America's been more than a bit off for a long time.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Thou shalt not draw attention to the failings of The One.
No one ever thought he was perfect. It's just that the alternative was unspeakable (and still is).

I wish he wouldn't do this, but I never expected that he would do everything I wanted.

[Stink Fish Pot]

No one ever thought he was perfect. It's just that the alternative was unspeakable (and still is).

I wish he wouldn't do this, but I never expected that he would do everything I wanted.

Please. This is one of his "absolute" promises to the American people before the election.

If the democrats that elected him had any self-respect, they'd vote against Obama in the primary. He's blown a number of his campaign "promises".

Change - Yeah, right.
Hope - good one!

Wake me up when we are out of Afghanistan and Iraq. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[pkbites]

Where's the liberal outrage?

It's not Bush doing this so why would there be any outrage?

The hypocrisy of the left shines on.

[markdash]

Have you been paying any attention to this topic over the past 2 years? Plenty of SDMB members are displeased that Obama has continued these policies. There's no outrage because it was expended like 10 threads ago.

[Orr, G.]

The outrage is with the human excrement that established them.

The disappointment with Obama is what caused too many centrist and progressives abstain from the polls last November and let the sewage of Republicans regain the House, so this type of action does have an effect, after all.

Yup.

Obama's actions (or lack thereof) often leave me feeling disappointed, depressed, disenfranchised. I won't make the mistake of letting that keep me from the polls in the future, however. The price we pay is too great.

[Claverhouse]

His initial promise fulfilled it's main purpose; actually carrying it out was always secondary.


Besides, not closing the place gives him more ammunition for the next election, since he can blame a/ The Republicans, b/ Bush, c/ Congress, d/ The Democrats' obstructionalists, e/ State legislators, f/ The inmates, or whomever is nearest, for stopping him from carrying out his promises the first time by providing opposition.


By 2017 or 2021 it will be someone else's problem.

[Kolga]

I'm outraged. About this, about his (until recently) defense of DOMA, about the wimpy-ass way he handled health care reform, about a lot of things.

But it's a DAMN sure bet that McCain would've fucked people like me over harder, faster, and longer, had he been elected. And it's a DAMN sure bet that the Republican candidate in 2012 is going to be made of the same cloth - spouting social conservative platitudes and dogwhistles, making promises to continue attacking health care, medical services for women, equal rights for gays and lesbians, and many many other issues that are important to me. All the while promising corporations and Wall Street that he or she will let those entities bend me over and fuck me up the ass without lube.

I'm outraged that Obama hasn't done enough, and has reneged on promises. But anyone on the Republican party side isn't going to even promise to do any better in terms of the things that matter to me. And there have been things that Obama's accomplished that I agree with that a Republican president, especially John McCain, wouldn't have attempted.

So, I don't know exactly what you're expecting - we're supposed to be so disappointed that Obama is the middle-of-the-road Republican in Democrat's clothing we all knew he was that we'll shift our vote to a right-wing Republican?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Is there any debate here?

Or is it just a crap-fest on the straw man of what some think "the left" is like?

Complete with the projection of "Obama worship"?

Yes, Obama should be closing Gitmo. It's difficult because of the untenable position he was put in by the idiotic former Chief Executive and his staff. Difficult, but he should have found a way to do it.

Sorry the left was not shouting it from the rooftops the way you'd like.

You're free to start an actual debate on the topic without poisoning the well from the start, you know.

[Max the Immortal]

*Looks at timestamps*

Looks like the story was only a few hours old (if that) when the OP started this thread. It has kind of a "Why haven't you already denounced this thing that you're hearing about just now?" vibe.

[Captain Amazing]

The plan to transfer them to prisons in the US or try them in the US courts was blocked by Congress, so what's the president supposed to do with the people there?

[Smapti]

Am I disappointed? Yes.

Am I surprised? No.

Will I vote for Obama next year? You bet your sweet bippy.

[elfkin477]

His initial promise fulfilled it's main purpose
Getting himself elected? :p

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Obama, just like every politician that ever runs for office and wins, fell victim to realpolitik. This is just another further example of why you should never take a politician at his word when he runs for office. A campaign promise is exactly that, something that he need not follow up on once the campaign is over.

More's the pity. I had hoped that he would follow through on that particular promise, but only a great fool would expect it.

[fumster]

I don't think I have a particularly worthy opinion on either side, but I guess I thought there'd be a little more outrage from the pansy side of the fence.Yeah, because real men like to torture naked prisoners.

I am really pissed off at Obama about this, just as I was at his slowness in getting rid of DADT. On the other hand, he did get the latter done in such a way that it's pretty much a non-issue. I hope he does the same with GITMO.

I don't understand the OP's logic though. He's outraged that the left is not more outraged against a position that he opposes. Does that mean he would support the left if it pilloried Obama over this?

"Yeah, I'm with you guys for denouncing Obama on a position that I agree with him".

No one on the left has changed their mind and thinks that now that Obama is in it's OK to keep people in GITMO without status as either a POW or criminal. Compare that with the deficits, which somehow became an issue the day Obama was sworn in.

[fumster]

Obama, just like every politician that ever runs for office and wins, fell victim to realpolitik. This is just another further example of why you should never take a politician at his word when he runs for office. A campaign promise is exactly that, something that he need not follow up on once the campaign is over.

More's the pity. I had hoped that he would follow through on that particular promise, but only a great fool would expect it.I really respect the fact that you don't have a "straight ticket" set of viewpoints. I wish more people were like that.

[Sage Rat]

Have you been paying any attention to this topic over the past 2 years? Plenty of SDMB members are displeased that Obama has continued these policies. There's no outrage because it was expended like 10 threads ago.
While I'll grant that the OP is doing little more than going "Nah nah" and not really seeking a debate, it's worth noting that there was something like 6 years of constant, continued, heated wrath directed at Bush for policies like this on the board. The number of threads which made up this number was far greater than 10, and probably involved nearly everyone who is replying against the OP.

It is a pretty clear turnaround to be vociferous for so long and so steadily, just to be able to have one brief moment afterward where you go, "Now, Mr. President, we'd really rather you didn't do this." And then be passively unhappy. As the people who constitute his power base, you're fairly tacitly allowing him to do this.

[Der Trihs]

While I'll grant that the OP is doing little more than going "Nah nah" and not really seeking a debate, it's worth noting that there was something like 6 years of constant, continued, heated wrath directed at Bush for policies like this on the board. The number of threads which made up this number was far greater than 10, and probably involved nearly everyone who is replying against the OP.

It is a pretty clear turnaround to be vociferous for so long and so steadily, just to be able to have one brief moment afterward where you go, "Now, Mr. President, we'd really rather you didn't do this." And then be passively unhappy. As the people who constitute his power base, you're fairly tacitly allowing him to do this.And what exactly are we to do? You are confusing resignation and contempt with acceptance; judging from Obama's performance, it appears that America has become evil and corrupt beyond redemption. After 8 years of Bush and a a huge backlash against him, the best we can get is someone perhaps slightly less amoral and right wing than Bush was. It appears that what someone said in another thread is true; that the best you can hope for in a President is one who pretends to disapprove of torture then does it anyway.

So why even try? America is behaving vilely, and will continue to behave vilely, and no protest or argument will change that in any way except for the worse.

[Sage Rat]

And what exactly are we to do?

Is there a massive, ongoing protest outside of the Whitehouse against his treatment of foreign prisoners? Is there weekly news denouncing his regime as torturers and thugs? Is there any particular reason not to continue hammering away at the government for what they are doing?

This is tacit acceptance. There's simply no getting around it. If you truly cared, you'd be out there doing your best to force him to do what you elected him to do. Make him feel like he's going to get booted from office in two years if he doesn't follow through on his promises and he'll start looking at the problem a lot harder.

[Der Trihs]

Is there a massive, ongoing protest outside of the Whitehouse against his treatment of foreign prisoners? Is there weekly news denouncing his regime as torturers and thugs? Was there when Bush was in office? No. Most people didn't care then any more than they care now.

Is there any particular reason not to continue hammering away at the government for what they are doing?Because it will make no difference.

This is tacit acceptance. There's simply no getting around it. If you truly cared, you'd be out there doing your best to force him to do what you elected him to do. Make him feel like he's going to get booted from office in two years if he doesn't follow through on his promises and he'll start looking at the problem a lot harder.And? "Boot him from office", and you'll just get another interchangeable right wing thug, who'll do just what Bush did and what Obama is doing. You are recommending that we do the same exact thing that got us Obama in the first place. He's made it quite clear he doesn't care in the slightest what he was "elected to do", just like the rest of the Democrats have.

[Little Nemo]

Not a single mention of the OP's "pansy side of the fence" remark?

For the record, Obama is wrong. He should close down the detention centers at Guantanamo Bay.

And I'd totally go down on the Constitution.

[Der Trihs]

Not a single mention of the OP's "pansy side of the fence" remark? Right wingers always talk like that. They have pretty much the same definition of "manliness" that a serial killer uses.

[Marley23]

Did I miss something while I was away?
Evidently you did. Shortly after getting elected Obama said the prison would be shut down by the end of 2009. That didn't happen: the public and Congress were initially supportive but nobody wanted to take the first step, particularly given the horrifying possibility of prisoners being put in a jail in the same state as you. :eek: No further movement was made and the prison still exists. The outrage is very old news at this point.

Here's a fairly recent thread on the subject. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=591653) Here's a slightly older one. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=568938)

[Shodan]

IOKIADDI, as ever.

Bush does it? "He should be impeached/turned over to the Hague for prosecution/burned at the stake."

Obama does it? "Well, it's too bad, but I am voting for him anyway. And it's Bush's fault."

The only reason the Usual Suspects cared about Gitmo was to try to get a Republican out and a Democrat into the White House. Now that it has achieved that purpose, they no longer care. All that stuff about human rights is a smokescreen.

OK, some of the more floridly insane use Gitmo to fulminate on the EEEEEBILSS of the US and so on, but you can't debate what should be medicated.

Business as usual on the Left.

Regards,
Shodan

[Rune]

Obama should clearly have had the lot executed and closed Gitmo first thing he did on entering office. US workers shouldn’t have to work and pay tax so that terrorist scum can sit around and scratch their asses in sunny Cuba. So yes, Obama Fail.

[Gyrate]

IOKIADDI, as ever. Way to ignore pretty much every response in this thread but to be fair, when you live in an echo chamber it's hard to hear what anyone outside it says.

Personally I'm furious about the continued use of Gitmo. But I'm stuck agreeing with Der Trihs about the realistic options: in a choice between the well-intentioned but ineffectual candidate and the actively malevolent one, I'll go for the ineffectual one. If the Dems put up a genuinely leftwing candidate with balls in 2012, my vote will likely go that way. But they won't, and I sure as hell am not going to vote for someone further right.

I'm also bewildered by the "pansy" reference in the OP. What are you, in junior high in 1983 or something?

[Bartman]

Well I for one am pissed. And for the record I am not a Democrat. I'm a registered Republican that leans Libertarian. Gitmo is a stain on our country and the sooner it is closed and the prisoners regularized as either prisoners of war or placed in the criminal justice system the better.

But I have to say, so far Obama is doing fairly well on his promises. According to the Obamameter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/), out of 500 promises made he has kept 134 and broken 38, with the others being "compromised," "stalled," or "in the works." An 80% rating isn't bad. And it really isn't bad when you consider he inherited two intractable wars and the worst economy in nearly a century.

Is he what I would like in a president? Not really. But really there is little doubt in my mind that he has been better than McCain would have been. I have some hope Obama may be able to close Gitmo eventually. Just like he was slow on DADT and DOMA. And I have no trust at all anymore in the Republican party on civil rights issues. For all the party's worship of the constitution, they seem to forget the bill or rights, excepting the second amendment of course.

[John Mace]

Not a single mention of the OP's "pansy side of the fence" remark?
See post #21.

A agree with Doors on this. I never expected him to be able to do this. Bush set up Gitmo, and Congress isn't going to let Obama shut it down.

[Gyrate]

I never expected him to be able to do this. Bush set up Gitmo, and Congress isn't going to let Obama shut it down.The real question is whether Obama ever expected to be able to do this. Was he stymied by realpolitik or rescued by it?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

The real question is whether Obama ever expected to be able to do this. Was he stymied by realpolitik or rescued by it?

I wish to believe that every politician believes that he will at least attempt to follow through on what they promise, so barring further evidence I'll say that he was stymied by it. The cynic in me says that he simply used that as a way to garner votes and had no intention of following through, but I've been working hard at stifling that instinct.

[Marley23]

I wish to believe that every politician believes that he will at least attempt to follow through on what they promise, so barring further evidence I'll say that he was stymied by it. The cynic in me says that he simply used that as a way to garner votes and had no intention of following through, but I've been working hard at stifling that instinct.
Based on his background and other statements, I do think he wants it shut down. It sucks that more shortsighted political considerations have made that impossible but I guess most people never gave a crap about this issue - they said they wanted the prison shut down when their neighbors said it, but as soon as they realized the prisoners had to go somewhere it turned into a classic NIMBY issue. It's probably within Obama's power to release all of them, but that would be political suicide and a security problem. Even getting trials for these people has been absurdly difficult.

[John Mace]

The real question is whether Obama ever expected to be able to do this. Was he stymied by realpolitik or rescued by it?

I don't know if he expected to be able to do this, but I think he would if he could.

But I've griped about this over and over on this board. People often think the president is like a king and can just do whatever he wants. Congress holds the purse strings, and has the power to tell the president what to do. The president of the US isn't even like the president of a company. Congress has the real power, as it should.

[Chief Pedant]

Yeah, because real men like to torture naked prisoners.

I am really pissed off at Obama about this, just as I was at his slowness in getting rid of DADT. On the other hand, he did get the latter done in such a way that it's pretty much a non-issue. I hope he does the same with GITMO.

I don't understand the OP's logic though. He's outraged that the left is not more outraged against a position that he opposes. Does that mean he would support the left if it pilloried Obama over this?

"Yeah, I'm with you guys for denouncing Obama on a position that I agree with him".

No one on the left has changed their mind and thinks that now that Obama is in it's OK to keep people in GITMO without status as either a POW or criminal. Compare that with the deficits, which somehow became an issue the day Obama was sworn in.
The Pedant is relatively apolitical, actually. I'm cynical of all mankind; Jew and Gentile alike; pansy-ass liberals and paranoid right wingers, and spenders of all ilk, be they do-gooders via social programs or do-gooders via military might.

This particular action by Mr Obama is remarkable in light of his campaign promises. One cannot fault a predecessor for this. If a predecessor establishes a summer camp for raping women, and one runs on a campaign to stop it, it's not much of a defense to perpetuate the camp and then plead that the last guy started the mess.

However my contempt in this instance is not so much for Mr Obama as it is for the naivety of the voters who actually thought due process in American courts is the right alternative for Gitmo. It reflects a remarkable innocence about terrorism, and a fundamental non-comprehension that on occasion bad people need to be shot where you find them instead of bringing them due process. When your principles don't allow that, there isn't any alternative except permanent incarceration without due process.

I'm not really debating that here; I'm just surprised that there hasn't been more outrage over this very practical decision. When Mr Bush made his ridiculous foray into Iraq and Afghanistan, there was plenty of outrage (Including from me, as it happens. You cannot fix Islamic societies with military invasions.). And when Mr Obama campaigned to close Gitmo, my sense was that the support for the promise followed from a core belief it was obviously correct to do so and that to not do so would reduce a leader to the moral status of...well, of Mr Bush. I haven't found the response to maintaining Gitmo commensurate to the prior outrage.

[John Mace]

I'm not really debating that here; I'm just surprised that there hasn't been more outrage over this very practical decision. When Mr Bush made his ridiculous foray into Iraq and Afghanistan, there was plenty of outrage (including from me, as it happens). And when Mr Obama campaigned to close Gitmo, my sense was that the support for the promise followed from a core belief it was obviously correct to do so and that to not do so would reduce a leader to the moral status of...well, of Mr Bush. I haven't found the response to maintaining Gitmo commensurate to the prior outrage.

What do you want Obama to do, since Congress isn't going to allow him to close Gitmo.

Any outrage, such as there is, should be directed at Congress.

[Marley23]

This particular action by Mr Obama is remarkable in light of his campaign promises.
This does highlight the question in your OP: where have you been the last couple of years? He's been in office for about 26 months now.

One cannot fault a predecessor for this.
Yes, one can: his predecessor created a situation that Obama couldn't resolve on his own.

However my contempt in this instance is not so much for Mr Obama as it is for the naivety of the voters who actually thought due process in American courts is the right alternative for Gitmo.
I disagree. But now I'm wondering why you're criticizing his supporters when you appear to support what he's doing.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Is anyone other than John Mace actually reading the article before posting?
"The new executive order doesn't change the legal authority for detention at all," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. "It simply provides additional reviews for individuals who have been found by the habeas courts to be lawfully detained under the laws of war."
The executive order is simply a restatement on paper of what we've been doing all along without bothering to write it down. Oh, and...
...recent legislation now makes it extremely difficult to transfer any detainee out of Guantanamo Bay even if he is believed to be no threat, and it is unclear how the administration will confront that congressional barrier.
I guess I thought there'd be a little more outrage from the pansy side of the fence.
I guess the real question is why the people on the douchebag side of the fence are feigning outrage at the lack of outrage on the pansy side.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

The Pedant is relatively apolitical, actually.I suspect that you actually believe this, which makes me a little sad for you.

[John Mace]

I guess the real question is why the people on the douchebag side of the fence are feigning outrage at the lack of outrage on the pansy side.

I believe the proper terminology is: "assholes" and "pussies".

[Tom Scud]

I believe the proper terminology is: "assholes" and "pussies".

The "pussies" are the ones who think the super-powered ultra-Terrorists will be able to spirit themselves out of supermax prisons and DESTROY AMERICA, right?

[MsWhatsit]

Well, I am outraged and continue to be outraged that Gitmo is still open and will apparently remain so for the foreseeable future. If you guys could just page me any time I need to express my outrage for the benefit of an outrage denier, that would be super, thanks.

[Gyrate]

However my contempt in this instance is not so much for Mr Obama as it is for the naivety of the voters who actually thought due process in American courts is the right alternative for Gitmo. It reflects a remarkable innocence about terrorism, and a fundamental non-comprehension that on occasion bad people need to be shot where you find them instead of bringing them due process. You do know that the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were not captured on the battlefield but rather were handed over by political allies and locals looking to cash in on our "money for Al Qaeda, no questions asked" policy, right? The reason that we've let so many go without charge already is because there was no reason for them to be there in the first place. You are basically advocating a "shoot 'em all and let Allah sort them out" system of justice.

[Tom Tildrum]

Here's Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/08/guantanamo/) on yesterday's order. He contends that despite Congress' actions restricting the transfer of Gitmo prisoners, Obama should be faulted for (a) having requested preventive detention powers from Congress before any other Congressional action had taken place, and (b) never having articulated any actual plan to close Gitmo (Greenwald views the one proposed plan to move the prisoners to continued detention in a supermax prison in Illinois as essentially a continuation of Gitmo rather than a closure).

[Jack Batty]

I propose that from now on, any President who does something that people who voted for him don't like, he be immediately impeached and the White House burnt to the ground.

Think of all the construction jobs we'd create ... if we had to rebuild the White House every other week.

[marshmallow]

Obama's actions (or lack thereof) often leave me feeling disappointed, depressed, disenfranchised. I won't make the mistake of letting that keep me from the polls in the future, however. The price we pay is too great.

What's the Matter with Kansas? indeed.

[CoolHandCox]

From article:
President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there.

Two things that can be separated from Gitmo. (1) The executive use of [pre-charge] indefinite detention. (2) Military Commissions. Both of these infer the detainees are being held under the Law of Armed Conflict/Law of War. While Obama has made things better, it's essentially the same paradigm as it was under Bush.

So, if they leave Cuba for Kansas, but those two things don't change...it's not really any different. This just confirms the war modality, and not a move toward criminal.

[Captain Amazing]

Two things that can be separated from Gitmo. (1) The executive use of [pre-charge] indefinite detention. (2) Military Commissions. Both of these infer the detainees are being held under the Law of Armed Conflict/Law of War. While Obama has made things better, it's essentially the same paradigm as it was under Bush.


Congress has said they're not allowed to be tried in civilian courts, though, so again, what do you want him to do? And, in fact, the same statement that said that the President is going to start up military commissions again, also said that the President is going to try to get the law banning them from being tried in civilian courts repealed:

In recent months, some in Congress have sought to undermine this process. In December, Congress enacted restrictions on the prosecution of Guantanamo detainees in Federal courts. The Administration opposes these restrictions as a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to Executive authority to select the most effective means available to bring terrorists to justice and safeguard our security. The Executive Branch possesses the information and expertise necessary to make the best judgment about where a particular prosecution should proceed, and Congress's intrusion upon this function is inconsistent with the long-standing and appropriate allocation of authority between the Executive and Legislative branches. . . .

Military commissions should proceed in cases where it has been determined appropriate to do so. Because there are situations, however, in which our federal courts are a more appropriate forum for trying particular individuals, we will seek repeal of the restrictions imposed by Congress, so that we can move forward in the forum that is, in our judgment, most in line with our national security interests and the interests of justice.

Again, what do you want the President to do?

[gonzomax]

Obama should honor his promises. He said he would close Gitmo and he has not.

[Raygun99]

How do you suggest he would accomplish that?

[CoolHandCox]

Congress has said they're not allowed to be tried in civilian courts, though, so again, what do you want him to do? And, in fact, the same statement that said that the President is going to start up military commissions again, also said that the President is going to try to get the law banning them from being tried in civilian courts repealed:

Veto the legislation. Release the detainees. Bush released 500 detainees. I understand the remaining ones are more "difficult," but it's an option money and diplomacy can solve.

And honestly, I don't mind them being tried in the military courts. However, there are some that will not be tried, but just detained and left for the next President.

Again, what do you want the President to do [re: Congress enacted restrictions on the prosecution of Guantanamo detainees in Federal courts]?

Veto it. Or he's just talk. (It was packaged in legislation that makes veto unlikely, but it's always an option for the President if the matter is serious enough).

[Captain Amazing]

What do you want him to do going forward, given that it wasn't vetoed? A number of detainees already have been released, but releasing most of the rest isn't a very realistic option, given who they are.

[Dumbguy]

However my contempt in this instance is not so much for Mr Obama as it is for the naivety of the voters who actually thought due process in American courts is the right alternative for Gitmo. It reflects a remarkable innocence about terrorism, and a fundamental non-comprehension that on occasion bad people need to be shot where you find them instead of bringing them due process.Never really understood this POV. Our court system handles people like Dahmer, a guy who cut up the corpses of his victims and fucked and ate the pieces, then put the leftovers in the freezer so he had something to fuck and eat later when the fresh bits ran out. In the pantheon of evil douchebag assholes, these guys don't really seem to be in the major leagues even for recent history, considering the last century brought us the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, and Nickelback.

Or to put it in the appropriate parlance, if you're really that afraid of a bunch of dipshit dirt farmers on the ragged fringe of the world, I think you're a pansy.

[CoolHandCox]

What do you want him to do going forward, given that it wasn't vetoed? A number of detainees already have been released, but releasing most of the rest isn't a very realistic option, given who they are.

There were over 10 pieces of "Gitmo" legislation last year; all were signed into law by the President. The one we are talking about was the most stringent (the defense appropriation bill). Just quickly, most of the legislation deal not with what the Executive can or cannot do, but with how he can use the money appropriated to him (ie, here's the money, but you can't use it to bring detainees into the US). In effect the same thing, but slightly nuanced.

However, it does appear to be limited to the Department of Defense ["None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this [defense authorization bill] for fiscal year 2011 may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and (2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense"]. The detainees are under military control, the DoD cannot use the money to bring the detainees into the US. So, one alternative, get the DoJ to use their less restricted appropriated money to do it. Congress will argue they meant the Executive in its entirety, of course.

Or, next year, since you won't veto, issue a Bush-like signing statement that says the detainees are under the control of the military and telling me what I can and can't do with the money you're giving me is an unconstitutional infringement on my Executive powers. You give me the military money, or you don't. And then just use the money to bring them into the US for trial.

[flickster]

The plan to transfer them to prisons in the US or try them in the US courts was blocked by Congress, so what's the president supposed to do with the people there?

Note - that was a Congress overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrat Party

[Der Trihs]

Note - that was a Congress overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrat Party
And?

[xenophon41]

And?

Well, it proves the hypocrisy of every liberal in the world when a politically risk-averse center right Democratic Congress works against a plank in the campaign platform of their newly elected moderate Democratic President.

Simple.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Again, what do you want the President to do?

I"m going to go out on a limb here, and suggest what many on the right would like Obama to do:


Fail.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Well, it proves the hypocrisy of every liberal in the world when a politically risk-averse center right Democratic Congress works against a plank in the campaign platform of their newly elected moderate Democratic President.

Simple.

More to the point, I would say it proves their fear that they will be painted (come next election time) as a bunch of terrorist releasing, soft on crime, dangerous loonies.

The attack ads would write themselves.

[Chief Pedant]

Perhaps I could review what I thought happened (from the article in the OP link):

"President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security...
The announcements, coming more than two years after Obama vowed in another executive order to close the detention center, all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy...
(But) activists on either end of the debate over closing the prison cast the announcement as a reversal.
'It is virtually impossible to imagine how one closes Guantanamo in light of this executive order,' said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. 'In a little over two years, the Obama administration has done a complete about-face'...
The administration argues that it has the legal authority to continue to hold all of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay under the laws of war."

John Mace and others want to know what Mr Obama should have done, particularly given the recalcitrance of the current congress to close Gitmo. Umm...first of all, I thought those bozos just showed up 1 January of this year, so it's not clear to me that using the current Republican House as an excuse is anything other than a totally lame attempt to give Mr Obama a bye on this issue. Second, is it the case that if he waited too long his only option is to sign an Executive Order perpetuating something he once maintained was immoral and inappropriate? I guess that had not occurred to me. I sorta thought when he said he'd close Gitmo he meant he'd close Gitmo. If it takes an Executive Order to perpetuate it, wouldn't that mean without said Order it would not get perpetuated?

I get it that there's a little outrage from the most extreme left, but I'm more than a little surprised at the pitiful defenses of Mr Obama presented here and elsewhere. Perhaps I've mis-remembered how hot an issue it was, and how soundly Mr Obama thumped opponents who thought his thinking was a titchy-bit simplistic and pansy-assed-ly naive.

I get it that candidates cater to the naive and dull as well as the starry-eyed. No matter how often it happens I'm still amused (and bemused) there isn't a more strident complaint from the gullible when it turns out to be bs.

[John Mace]

John Mace and others want to know what Mr Obama should have done, particularly given the recalcitrance of the current congress to close Gitmo. Umm...first of all, I thought those bozos just showed up 1 January of this year, so it's not clear to me that using the current Republican House as an excuse is anything other than a totally lame attempt to give Mr Obama a bye on this issue. Second, is it the case that if he waited too long his only option is to sign an Executive Order perpetuating something he once maintained was immoral and inappropriate? I guess that had not occurred to me. I sorta thought when he said he'd close Gitmo he meant he'd close Gitmo. If it takes an Executive Order to perpetuate it, wouldn't that mean without said Order it would not get perpetuated?

Not just the current Congress.

He has to keep it open because he has no other choice. He can't even just let these guys go, as there are some that no country will grant entry to.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Note - that was a Congress overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrat Party
Whatever "the Democrat Party" is, it isn't represented in the US Congress.

[Der Trihs]

I get it that there's a little outrage from the most extreme left, but I'm more than a little surprised at the pitiful defenses of Mr Obama presented here and elsewhere. The only defenses I see are from right wingers like yourself, who are looking for an excuse to keep these people imprisoned forever. What I see from the Left is anger and disgust.

You are engaging in psychological projection; in this case, projecting the President-worship and utter moral bankruptcy of the Right onto the Left.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

The only defenses I see are from right wingers like yourself, who are looking for an excuse to keep these people imprisoned forever. What I see from the Left is anger and disgust.

You are engaging in psychological projection; in this case, projecting the President-worship and utter moral bankruptcy of the Right onto the Left.

A lot of conservatives, I'd say most conservatives can tell you a lot they didn't like about the Bush administration. Look at the Pat Buchanan type paleocons for instance-they have opposed free trade and the Iraq War tooth and nail. And how are we morally bankrupt? Being wrong is different from being morally bankrupt-I would say Democrats are wrong on a lot of issues but they are not morally bankrupt.

[Chief Pedant]

Not just the current Congress.

He has to keep it open because he has no other choice. He can't even just let these guys go, as there are some that no country will grant entry to.

Well sure he can let them go. He can even pardon them all, for goodness' sake.
I'd bet everyone could be released into Pakhtunkwa or, for that matter, into the United States.
He could also prosecute each and every one of them inside our legal system, realizing that some would get off despite being very bad people.

The problem is that they are naughty people who cannot be prosecuted to successful conclusions the way we'd like, and we don't have a reasonable option other than permanent--or indefinite--incarceration. That's why it was naive and silly--ignorant, maybe?-- for Mr Obama to promise to close Gitmo, and why it's naive and silly to have believed him, but...

I'm surprised at the lack of outrage. (And no; for those of you anxious to project upon me a position I do not take--I'm not outraged. I'm just surprised.)

My impression at the time was that this was a litmus test for the decency of Obama and the evidence that Change from the Evil Empire was coming.

[John Mace]

Well sure he can let them go. He can even pardon them all, for goodness' sake.
Let them go where? Dump them into the ocean?

I'd bet everyone could be released into Pakhtunkwa
Where the hell is that? And cite?

or, for that matter, into the United States.
Oh, please.


He could also prosecute each and every one of them inside our legal system,
Hard to do if Congress withholds the $$ to do so.

The problem is that they are naughty people
No, many are not. Many were just turned in for ransom.

who cannot be prosecuted to successful conclusions the way we'd like, and we don't have a reasonable option other than permanent--or indefinite--incarceration. That's why it was naive and silly--ignorant, maybe?-- for Mr Obama to promise to close Gitmo, and why it's naive and silly to have believed him, but...
Politician promised to do something he can't. News at 11.

I'm surprised at the lack of outrage. (And no; for those of you anxious to project upon me a position I do not take--I'm not outraged. I'm just surprised.)

My impression at the time was that this was a litmus test for the decency of Obama and the evidence that Change from the Evil Empire was coming.
Seems to me you are reveling in the lack of outrage. But whatever. Most of us realize that politics is the art of the possible. Obama can't undo all the shit that Bush did.

[Captain Amazing]

I'd bet everyone could be released into Pakhtunkwa or, for that matter, into the United States.
He could also prosecute each and every one of them inside our legal system, realizing that some would get off despite being very bad people.


He can't. Putting aside Coolhandcox's theory of how the President can get around it, which I don't think will work, the law doesn't allow him to try them in our legal system, or release them into the US. This is putting aside the fact, that, for a lot of them, it would be remarkably stupid to release them in the United States.

[gonzomax]

Gitmo is a big disappointment. It does not piss me off enough to reach outrage. He needs to prosecute some bankers . Then I would feel a lot better.
Note of course the liberals indicate they are unhappy with Obama sometimes. Many have different things that they are unhappy with.
But when the Shrub was pres. the rightys were all in line backing him up and making excuses.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Gitmo is a big disappointment. It does not piss me off enough to reach outrage. He needs to prosecute some bankers . Then I would feel a lot better.
Note of course the liberals indicate they are unhappy with Obama sometimes. Many have different things that they are unhappy with.
But when the Shrub was pres. the rightys were all in line backing him up and making excuses.

Yes! Let's not prosecute terrorists who have killed America citizens and plotted mass terrorist attacks but prosecute a bunch of bankers! Class warfare, baby!

[Euphonious Polemic]

Yes! Let's not prosecute terrorists who have killed America citizens and plotted mass terrorist attacks but prosecute a bunch of bankers! Class warfare, baby!

Would this include Abdul Razakah, Yusef Abbas, Hajiakbar Abdulghupur, Saidullah Khalik and Ahmed Mohamed?

Are they bad men? Did they kill American citizens?

[Revenant Threshold]

Yes! Let's not prosecute terrorists who have killed America citizens and plotted mass terrorist attacks but prosecute a bunch of bankers! Class warfare, baby! Except that by and large Gitmo means a lack of such prosecutions, also. It's a holdup for such prosecutions; if your desire is to see justice done against those who have harmed or planned to harm American citizens, if you want prosecutions, then your goal should be to shut it down, too.

[Der Trihs]

He could also prosecute each and every one of them inside our legal system, realizing that some would get off despite being very bad people.And how do you know they are "bad people"?

The problem is that they are naughty people who cannot be prosecuted to successful conclusions the way we'd like, and we don't have a reasonable option other than permanent--or indefinite--incarceration. Yes we do; we can let them go. But of course, that would admit that we were in the wrong from the beginning, and we can't have that. Who cares if a bunch of people spend the rest of their lives in a cell, as long as it protects our collective ego to keep them there.

Yes! Let's not prosecute terrorists who have killed America citizens and plotted mass terrorist attacks but prosecute a bunch of bankers! Class warfare, baby!This country needs some class warfare that's from the bottom up, instead of just the constant class warfare from the top down.

And we aren't prosecuting any "terrorists" in the first place, assuming these people are guilty of anything at all, much less terrorism. We are just keeping them imprisoned without recourse, probably for the rest of their lives unless we decide to just quietly murder them.

But whatever. Most of us realize that politics is the art of the possible. Obama can't undo all the shit that Bush did.
So, what then? Do you want us to keep them there for the rest of their lives?

[gonzomax]

Yes! Let's not prosecute terrorists who have killed America citizens and plotted mass terrorist attacks but prosecute a bunch of bankers! Class warfare, baby!

You do know the majority of the people in Gitmo were turned in by neighbors for reward money. These were not battlefield fighters. However if you believe they are then I am sure you would not object to a full trial in an American court.
The bankers brought the world economy to its knees. what they did was greedy and disastrous. They deserve to have a day in court.

[Gyrate]

You do know the majority of the people in Gitmo were turned in by neighbors for reward money. He would if he'd bothered to read post #47. Maybe he'll get it the second time around?

[Little Nemo]

Yes! Let's not prosecute terrorists who have killed America citizens and plotted mass terrorist attacks but prosecute a bunch of bankers! Class warfare, baby!I'm all in favor of prosecuting terrorists. It's been ten years. Let the trials begin.

How long do you think we should keep somebody in prison if we don't have enough evidence to convict them of any crime?

[Chief Pedant]

Let them go where? ...

Seems to me you are reveling in the lack of outrage. But whatever. Most of us realize that politics is the art of the possible. Obama can't undo all the shit that Bush did.
Pakhtunkwa is the former Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. I'm almost positive Mullah Omar or his friends have rooms for Gitmo rejects. Essentially my way of saying that if you are outraged enough at indefinitely holding people you can't take to trial, you send 'em back to the woods. It's a total strawman to pretend the problem is "no one will take them." BS. But if you decide that's also not do-able, so to speak, well that's the point of not scamming the masses in the first place that you are going to close Gitmo, right?

I agree Mr Obama can't undo what his predecessor did. Nor will his successor be able to undo Mr Obama's failures. I was surprised at the lack of outrage on the part of the pansy side; not at his inability to do what he pretended--or thought-- he could do. The shoot-'em-up side was kind of vilified for detaining these guys without due process, and Mr Obama made a fair amount of hay out of promising change for that sort of rights deprivation.

My OP is not about the reality of politics. I just thought there'd be a larger sense of betrayal by those cheering on the notion of closing Gitmo a couple of years back. That's all.

[Der Trihs]

I was surprised at the lack of outrage on the part of the pansy side; not at his inability to do what he pretended--or thought-- he could do. "Pansy side"? Again? How pathetic.

And I doubt that you are "surprised at the lack of outrage" since it's a lack that exists only in your imagination.

My OP is not about the reality of politics. I just thought there'd be a larger sense of betrayal by those cheering on the notion of closing Gitmo a couple of years back. That's all.What more do you expect, assassins? The "pansy side" is enraged and contemptuous towards Obama. Unlike the grovelers of the tough guy side that obsessively toadied to their chosen one Bush.

[Gyrate]

Three "pansy" references from the OP and we're only on page 2. This is getting to be like Le Jacquelope and his obsession with balls.

[Little Nemo]

No doubt the bed-wetting references are next.

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall the wikileaks release showed that Obama had been actively trying to find places to send these people, even up to the point of trying to bribe other countries to take them.

It seems that Obama has put forth a good faith effort to keep his promise. I'm still disappointed that he didn't get it done, but comparing him to Bush is ludicrous.

[Revtim]

*Looks at timestamps*

Looks like the story was only a few hours old (if that) when the OP started this thread. It has kind of a "Why haven't you already denounced this thing that you're hearing about just now?" vibe.Yeah, that's what I thought too when I saw this. Funny how desperate that looks, isn't it?

Sort of reminds me of when people make a post like:

"Can you give an example of X?
<crickets>
HA! I thought not!"

as if somehow people can reply to the question before it's even done being written, let alone submitted.


Oh, and if it makes the OP feel any better, consider me outraged. Well, as outraged as I can be when something I dislike greatly happens that doesn't surprise me much.

Obama is still in my "disappointing friend" category and not in the "deadly enemy" column with the GOP, so he'll likely still get my vote.

[John Mace]

Pakhtunkwa is the former Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. I'm almost positive Mullah Omar or his friends have rooms for Gitmo rejects. Essentially my way of saying that if you are outraged enough at indefinitely holding people you can't take to trial, you send 'em back to the woods. It's a total strawman to pretend the problem is "no one will take them." BS. But if you decide that's also not do-able, so to speak, well that's the point of not scamming the masses in the first place that you are going to close Gitmo, right?
Oh, please. Pirating people into a country against the will of the established government isn't the solution. Mullah Omar isn't part of the Pakistan government.

My OP is not about the reality of politics. I just thought there'd be a larger sense of betrayal by those cheering on the notion of closing Gitmo a couple of years back. That's all.
Well, sorry to disappoint you. Like most of us said... we weren't naive enough to think he'd be able to snap his fingers and make the world a better place.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Pakhtunkwa is the former Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. I'm almost positive Mullah Omar or his friends have rooms for Gitmo rejects. Essentially my way of saying that if you are outraged enough at indefinitely holding people you can't take to trial, you send 'em back to the woods. It's a total strawman to pretend the problem is "no one will take them." BS.

So the Chinese Uyghurs who have been determined to be not enemy combatants , and whose detention Judge Ricardo Urbina declared as unlawful and ordered to set them free in the United States... We should send these men to Pakistan?

You really have judged them guilty haven't you? A trial is just too inconvenient foe you hmmmm?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Well, sorry to disappoint you. Like most of us said... we weren't naive enough to think he'd be able to snap his fingers and make the world a better place.

Projection. Republicans idealize and idolize their leaders, and cannot admit they do anything wrong. They then expect the same should be true of Democrats.

[Chief Pedant]

"Pansy side"? Again? How pathetic.

And I doubt that you are "surprised at the lack of outrage" since it's a lack that exists only in your imagination.

What more do you expect, assassins? The "pansy side" is enraged and contemptuous towards Obama. Unlike the grovelers of the tough guy side that obsessively toadied to their chosen one Bush.
Now see here, Mr BedWetter-associator ;) : There is a distinct lack of outrage, is there not?

From John Mace, e.g.:
"Politician promised to do something he can't. News at 11.
Like most of us said... we weren't naive enough to think he'd be able to snap his fingers and make the world a better place."

As to taking offense at my "pansy" slur, may I suggest that I broadly divide the two extremes in US politics into the "Shoot first, and then see if there is any left to ask questions" gun-toting low-IQ goobers, and the "Let us not judge our fellow man; perhaps his terrorism and piracy are from a misspent youth or unfortunate circumstance" hand-wringing over-thinking pansies.

I'm all for ridiculing the right wing. It's just not the target here. Perhaps the problem is that pansies don't know how to express outrage or something. On this issue, John Mace being exhibit A for a pitiful response, they've just rolled over and lost their zeal. "News at 11," indeed.

Some people call 'em like they see 'em. I call 'em as they are. Except the "bedwetting" thing. That was a joke in reference to Little Nemo's complaint above. As a past bedwetter, I'm deeply hurt by the use of that clinical condition as a slur. I'm off to HR right now to report it.

[Chief Pedant]

So the Chinese Uyghurs who have been determined to be not enemy combatants , and whose detention Judge Ricardo Urbina declared as unlawful and ordered to set them free in the United States... We should send these men to Pakistan?

You really have judged them guilty haven't you? A trial is just too inconvenient foe you hmmmm?

Apparently, a trial for some of them is too inconvenient for Mr Obama. Which is the point you keep missing. As to where they should go: Perhaps they should stay at Gitmo, which is why Mr Obama should not have issued an executive order to close it within a year, or promised anything at all about it. On the other hand, if a Uyghur finds himself in a lawless area of Afghanistan or Pakhtunkwa, sure; I'd send him back to wherever I found him if I had taken the position that he can't be at Gitmo, and we must give him due process. If that's my position and I can't give him due process, off he goes to wherever the jeep picked him up.

But of course I didn't promise to close Gitmo nor give due process to warriors for any cause. I think I'm OK with indefinitely holding certain enemy combatants at Gitmo with occasional reviews. Not the point of this OP, obviously. The point of the OP is to wonder why there isn't more outrage at Mr Obama over crapping out on what I thought was a fairly passionately-held marker for Change.

[ralph124c]

Gee-another "promise" by Obama broken?
Do you see a pattern here?:eek:

[Jack Batty]

Yes. The right wing exclaiming "Broken Promises!" as every partisan has screeched since Washington was elected.

[Chief Pedant]

Oh, please. Pirating people into a country against the will of the established government isn't the solution. Mullah Omar isn't part of the Pakistan government.


Sigh...see; I don't think there is a good solution, although the parts of Pakistan where the Taliban hang out aren't all that governed. Another story. I think I sorta lean to Gitmo and some sort of half-assed indefinite detention with occasional reviews and no real due process of the kind that would get you off. Cuz even if due process gets you off, if there was no where to go before, there's still no where to go, right?

But--follow me here--: I did not promise to close Gitmo to the cheers and votes of my pansy-side friends sweeping me in to bring Change.

I am not debating my crappy solutions. I am wondering why there is so little outrage from the pansies at Mr Obama crapping out on his (more or less) ironclad guarantee to close Gitmo within a year.

[Gyrate]

But--follow me here--: I did not promise to close Gitmo to the cheers and votes of my pansy-side friends sweeping me in to bring Change.

I am not debating my crappy solutions. I am wondering why there is so little outrage from the pansies at Mr Obama crapping out on his (more or less) ironclad guarantee to close Gitmo within a year.Okay, now you're just doing it to wind me up.

The question's been answered. Why are you still wondering?

[John Mace]

There's nothing "pansy" about wanting to close Gitmo, btw. Most of us who wanted it closed, still do, and for good reason. We should never have done things that way in the first place.

If you want some outrage from liberals, wait until the next election. If we're still fighting in Afghanistan then the way we are now, the shit is going to hit the fan.

[El_Kabong]

The point of the OP is to wonder why there isn't more outrage at Mr Obama over crapping out on what I thought was a fairly passionately-held marker for Change.

Because for someone to self-declare as a liberal instantly and forever makes them a liar and a hypocrite, of course. But why do you even care? The outcome (keeping the Guantanamo prison open in perpetuity) apparently is what you want, so what difference does a lack of outrage by what you insist on calling 'pansies' make to you?

[Really Not All That Bright]

There's nothing "pansy" about wanting to close Gitmo, btw. Most of us who wanted it closed, still do, and for good reason. We should never have done things that way in the first place.
This. I don't really give a shit about the prisoners. The ones that are left are generally going to be treated far worse by their own governments if they're sent back then they are at Gitmo.

What irritates me is the hysteria of the people who don't want Gitmo closed - and that includes the Democratic congresscritters who voted against the closure.

What the fuck do you think will happen if we stick them in regular American jails? That they'll spread the message of radical Islam throughout the prison system? Hell, it might cure America's drug problem.

[CoolHandCox]

This. I don't really give a shit about the prisoners. The ones that are left are generally going to be treated far worse by their own governments if they're sent back then they are at Gitmo.

What irritates me is the hysteria of the people who don't want Gitmo closed - and that includes the Democratic congresscritters who voted against the closure.

The appropriations bill that prevents the DoD from transferring detainees into the US expires in a few months (Sep. 30). Write your representative (https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml) and tell them that you are wholly against any restrictions that prevent Guantanamo detainees from being transferred to the US and/or tried in US federal courts. Be civil, but outraged. Get your friends to write, too. Get the whole board to write.

What the fuck do you think will happen if we stick them in regular American jails? That they'll spread the message of radical Islam throughout the prison system? Hell, it might cure America's drug problem.

They will be shanked? Or they will be held in isolation...like they are now.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The appropriations bill that prevents the DoD from transferring detainees into the US expires in a few months (Sep. 30). Write your representative (https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml) and tell them that you are wholly against any restrictions that prevent Guantanamo detainees from being transferred to the US and/or tried in US federal courts. Be civil, but outraged. Get your friends to write, too. Get the whole board to write.
Technically speaking, I don't have a representative. I'm not a US citizen. Plus, "my" congresscritter is one of the Tea Party freshmen.

[Chief Pedant]

There's nothing "pansy" about wanting to close Gitmo, btw. Most of us who wanted it closed, still do, and for good reason. We should never have done things that way in the first place.

If you want some outrage from liberals, wait until the next election. If we're still fighting in Afghanistan then the way we are now, the shit is going to hit the fan.
Or you could vote in some more conservative goobers and give me a chance to make fun of them and their supporters for a bit. I really miss ridiculing Mr Bush and his various wars on things, be it terrists or the unedumacable left behind.

[Jack Batty]

So basically, you're just not happy unless you're pissed off at ... something.

See. This is why we can't have nice things.

[marshmallow]

If you want some outrage from liberals, wait until the next election. If we're still fighting in Afghanistan then the way we are now, the shit is going to hit the fan.

You mean they might...blog? :eek:

[Susanann]

Wake me up when we are out of Afghanistan and Iraq. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yeah, whats up with Afghanistan and Iraq? Do we still have troops over there? Why?

[Little Nemo]

Technically speaking, I don't have a representative. I'm not a US citizen. Plus, "my" congresscritter is one of the Tea Party freshmen.I'm currently between Representatives. My last one was caught sending topless pictures of himself over the internet.

[Susanann]

Wake me up when we are out of Afghanistan and Iraq. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Never endling wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, gitmo, trading with communist china, moving American jobs and American factories to asia, not protecting our borders against illegal immigrants, gas and food prices going higher and higher, Big Brother government intrusion into our personal lives via Homeland Security/TSA/Patriot Act, trillion dollar deficits, bailing out banks and rich corporations,etc, etc etc..........

There is not a dimes worth of difference between george bush and obama.

obama is bush-3.

[Ravenman]

That's a great conservative slogan: Don't vote for Obama, he governs like US!