If there’s silence, it is only because you have put your fingers in your ears and started chanting “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA”
Fictional as it may be on this issue.
cough
And why is it that sports fans are so silent about Jeremy Lin and Tim Tebow? I don’t read the newspapers, watch TV, go on the Internet, or talk to anybody, but I would think that people would be excited about those two athletes. But every time I don’t listen to people, it is like they aren’t saying anything about Lin or Tebow. Why aren’t sports popular anymore?
Must be Obama’s fault.
Why don’t you take your handy dandy alternate universal device for spin, then come back to this one with some cites?
So what exactly was the point of your post #74?
I said Bush was more to blame than Obama, you then appeared to argue with me, but now you are agreeing 100% that Bush is more to blame than Obama.
And why did you post at #88:
Yet now you agree 100% that the left does bitch about Obama’s stuff up in relation to Gitmo.
It’s almost as if you are in reflexive furious disagreement with those who dispute the OP, and don’t stand back and stop to think that actually overall you agree with them.
That Obama could not have been ignorant.
There can be no doubt that Prez 43 is more to blame than Prez 44.
I was refering to the OP’s statement as to the left’s silence.
[/QUOTE]
Aside from agreeing with your previous post, it is my position that the left-wing defense of “he inherited it” or “he didn’t fully know” don’t fly with me, even though they do not mean he is more or equal to blame than Bush.
So, what you figure is, that the Presidential candidate for the opposing party gets all the top secret briefings? Warts and all? So, if he loses, he still knows everything? You think?
I figured that the higly-praised constitutional scholar whom we were told was intelligent and knowledgeable knew things that were openly discussed in the media about a topic that was very important to his campaign and that were part of the key treaties about human rights and humane treatment of POWs.
Once again, Guantánamo and the POWs were a big part of the campaign, it wasn’t a broken STOP sign in Peru,NE.
I see. So, given the total openness and candor of the Bush administration, there is no excuse for Obama not knowing everything of any importance about Guantanamo or its captives? Got that about right, do I?
Yeah. No. Sorry.
It’s not about the hypocrisy of the American left, it’s about the pragmatism of the American and worldwide left.
I remember watching 9/11 happen on TV.. I remember Dick Cheney positing that if Kerry was elected the danger was apparently that “we might get hit again”.
Quite frankly, if America elects another Republican as President, I won’t care if bad things happen to you. You’ll have earned it.
If you think that American Democrats hate Republicans then you have no idea how much they are hated by the rest of the world, including (especially) your current allies. And if you morons attack Iran for no reason then you’re on your own.
What I want to know is: why hasn’t anyone responded to the OP yet? There are literally no posts in this thread apart from the OP. Is it because the left are too afraid to admit their hypocrisy?
I haven’t seen the op come back to his thread, so why should anyone respond? 
Actually, I think it doesn’t really count unless ALL of us do it.
I’ll do it one more time, so pay attention. Maybe you can get a friend to help you read and also a lawyer so you can sue you first grade teacher.
-
The thread is about the Left, Gitmo, and Obama. So even if Bush personally castratated every G-mo prisoner using blunt scissor, anally raped at least 5 memeber of the close family using a PS3, and then kicked a lotof puppies; it doesn’t matter for this particulat thread.
-
The “everything of any importance” is simply a couple a neurotransmitters not working well up there in Luciville. I’m sure there are lots of technical details he couldn’t know.
HOWEVER, 97% of the problems with prisoners and Guantánamo were -pay attention now- publicly discussed all over the media several times, starting before Obama ran for Prez. Things like the difference between a criminal and a POW or the difference between a POW and an unlawful combatant are basic stuff in Humanitarian Law. He made promises that he was told publicly several times he couldn’t. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is from 04 and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is 06, the Administrative Review Board is 05. The solution is a complicated one, but I find it impossible to believe that Obama didn’t know the basics. He knowingly made an unkeepable electoral promise (like everybody else in the world).
So, all the legal scholars with any valid credentials in this subject, they were unanimous in their opinion? You seem to imply this without actually stepping over on it, so I’ll put it to you, just for the sake of clarity. Would be a remarkable thing in legal history, that sort of uniformity. Unprecedented, even?
We do? And you base this certainty on the Bush administration record for transparent clarity?
I have no idea where you took the “unanimous” from. Maybe you’ve been hearing about Anonymous lately and were confused.
Unless you are claiming that the Bush administration controlled absolutely all media (tv, radio, print, web) and all the people that advised Obama on this subject and secretly wrote all the Geneva conventions backwards in time and only unveiled the fact that there were POWs in Guantánamo on January 2nd 2008, you don’t make sense.
No, you miss one vital point: the OP alleges the left bitched about Gitmo when Bush was president but not now. And as you agree, the left do bitch now. Heck, much as the OP probably wouldn’t say so out loud, even he would have to admit that some of the left is still bitching. So it can actually only be about proportionality. How bad Bush’s behaviour was, compared to how bad Obama’s is, matters enormously for this particular thread.
I think you know that, really. Why else do you keep going on and on about how bad you see Obama’s broken electoral promise being? You are trying to talk it up, while trying not to talk about how bad Bush’s behaviour was (you tried to shut the topic down altogether, see above).
The reality is that Bush’s behaviour was appalling while Obama’s behaviour amounts (you admit) to not much more than making an electoral promise he couldn’t keep, which you admit everyone does. The difference between them is so stark that your continual attempts to play up the latter are embarrassing. And in that context, you do not need to assume hypocrisy to explain the left’s diminution in bitching about Gitmo, which is what the OP assumes.
What more do I need to do? The OP has been completely resolved, the left is bitching.
My extremely minor points are
a) If you’re going to defend Obama on the not-kept-promise, don’t sell the guy short by saying “he didn’t know”; he knew.
b) Don’t defend him by saying “he inherited it”, it’s a lame excuse.
I won’t say more.
I agree with PkBites in that the left is not bitching hard enough about this. Obama has options, they are just unpopular ones. His failure to stick to his principles on this issue has changed my opinion of him for the worst.
Congress declares it illegal to bring Gitmo detainees to the US? No problem, just write a presidential signing statement that it’s in the National Security interest of the US to close gitmo and bring them anyway. There is a very good case to be made that the continnuing existence of Gitmo is effectively a propaganda tool that can be used for terrorist organisations, so the security angle is perfectly legit. Bush used signing statements to start this whole mess, I have no problem with Obama using signing statements to end it.
Once the prisoners are on US soil, they clearly are under constitutional jurisdiction and have to be tried or released. Do it! if some who are guilty are released, thats the price you pay for having a judicial system with a presumption of innocence.