Now, the President could provide the prisoners with large amounts of feathers and wax… Hmm…
… and you get blamed for your failures in proportion to the extent to which the electorate believes, amongst other things, the problem was your fault in the first place, and the validity of your excuses for failing. I read heaps of complaint on these boards from Democrats who think Obama has not done enough to close Gitmo. The complaint is not to the same level as it was against Bush because he is more to blame. It’s that simple.
You are deliberately avoiding any sense of proportion because it is the only way your arguments can pretend to have a shred of validity.
Of course the problems with Guantánamo were created by Bush, but anyone taking voluntary control of a situation has to, after a time, it is your problem and it doesn’t matter who caused it. Blaming only works in elections, no so much for the POWs.
A mess you knew you were going to accept, is yours.
My argument is the Geneva convention.
The OP reeks of confirmation bias, all I have to say.
It’s not obvious from your post that you understand what the OP is about.
If Obama can make killing Americans with no due process cool, Guantanamo at least has people that are alive. Barely, but still.
At least it would give them something to do.
It’s not obvious from your post that your reading comprehension is at least at 6 y.o.
OP points to the apparent or real contradiction of bitching about G-mo when Bush the lesser was in, but now with Barry at the helm it’s now fine.
Then the two traditional defenses:
a) At least he tried
b) It was a campaign promise.
Neither of whoch make sense for such a central issue. If G-mo is a cancer in the souls of the US and Obama is a top level constitutional scholar, then he either lied (because even a quick reding of Geneva shows POWs aren’t criminals per se) or he droppped the ball like it was made of poisonous lava.
My point (for all presidents, particularly my own country’s) is that saying “I didn’t create this problem” is the lamest of excuses when the problem was public, discussed and part of your everyday campaign.
Tell me which if any of the following facts you disagree with re Gitmo:
1/ Bush stuffed up
2/ Obama stuffed up
3/ Bush’s stuff up was worse than Obama’s
4/ The left bitches about Bush’s stuff up
5/ The left bitches about Obama’s stuff up
6/ The left bitches less about Obama’s stuff up than Bush’s.
Then we can talk more.
Very good post.
Speaking of not listening to what others have said, it is true that Obama failed to close Guantanamo on the one year timeline he originally laid out. It is also a fact - which you seem to gloss over - that Congress stepped in and passed a law, with strong Republican and Democratic support, that prevents the closure of Guantanamo. It is currently illegal to shut down the prison. I disagree with that law, but you seem to be inclined to skip over this fact in order to call Obama a liar or an incompetent.
You’re not happy with anyone on “the left” that are satisfied with Obama.
You’re also not happy with anyone on “the left” who are unhappy with Obama.
You’re not happy with anyone on “the left”.
Do you seriously not know who “he” referred to in my post and the post to which I was responding?
Would it have helped if I had written “He” ? (note the capitalization…just in case you need to be spoon fed)
The “he” refers to Obama. You were in essence saying to John Mace that Obama gets off easy because Obama is a Democrat. I responded with about as much clarity as was in your post that it does not make sense that John Mace would rush to Obama’s defense on a partisan basis, because John is not a Democrat or a liberal. Therefore, you should not insinuate that John’s view that Congress holds a great share of the responsibility for keeping Guantanamo open is a position held because of partisanship.
Way to accelerate things with the snark, though.
I was glad when Obama said he was closing Gitmo. In retrospect I wish he had communicated with congress on what support he would or wouldn’t get before he formally announced it.
IMO the point isn’t Gitmo open or closed, but America as actively promoting a sense of justice in the world , even in regards to terrorism.
The idea that we would scoop up anybody even accused of helping terrorism and imprison them for years with no process in place to determine innocence or guilt is abhorrent. Gitmo can stay open as long as we have a process in place to determine whether there is any evidence to hold someone. This also needs to be something open to the scrutiny of international law. Terrorism is a world threat, not just a US threat.
Completely agreed, 100%.
But of course. Every Democrat wanted to close G-mo went Bush was in, but since Obama’s proposal could’ve meant bringing some of the POWs into the US, then NIMBY kicked in, big time.
There is a plethora of hypocrisy on both sides.
As guilty as Obama is, he’s not the only not rhe guiltiest.
While I don’t doubt there is widespread hypocrisy in Washington, it surprises me on this this point that people who clamored for the closing of Gitmo in fact ended up voting to leave it open. Or are you confusing talking heads, dopers, and journalists with Congress?
For me, the left hasn’t bitched about Gitmo because the alternative was so much worse. Would McCain/Palin have closed Gitmo, OP?
Personally I’m a helluva lot more worried about the way the current Republican candidates are falling over themselves in order to portray themselves as willing to start a war with Iran.
Obama isn’t perfect, but at least he isn’t gung-ho about starting WWIII.
It doesn’t literally prevent the closure, it just prevents the DoD from moving alien detainees into the US and makes it a bit tougher to send them to other countries.
For completeness, there’s nothing stopping Obama from trying all of them using the military commissions Obama signed into law for this exact purpose. However, Obama does not plan to try at least 40 of the detainees; he’s just going to detain them. The option to try them using the legal system Obama helped create is there, but he’s not going to. Why? Because he doesn’t have to, because he’s using the logic you can just detain them indefinitely. That seems very contrary to the promise he made to “close” Gitmo.
Probably not. And after they didn’t the left would still be bitching to high heaven.
The OP isn’t about Gitmo being closed (I DON’T WANT IT CLOSED!) It’s about the hypocrisy of the American left. Had Mccain won and not closed it, there would not be the overall silence that there is about Obama not closing it.