March 29, 2010
Support for closing Guantanamo has dropped 12 points in the last 14 months.
It's down to 39 percent, and it's no mystery why. It's one thing to speak about it in the abstract during the campaign, quite another actually to release or relocate the detainees.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
114 comments:
They need someplace to put the Taxed Enough Already people. Those libs sure are funny about things that actually work. They only like using them against people though.
I recall this was your first challenge to Obama's truthfulness. It seems like a daily challenge now. He just does't tell very much truth.
This is obviously racism and racist opposition to closing Guantanamo. Violent racism also. Klan-like, also. Also, they spit on me while calling me names. The dirty racists. Racists.
How many Club Fed releasees (?) have been killed engaging in their old pursuits? How many have been caught again?
Just might have something to do with it.
WV "nexesses" What Ann and Meade were doing in public about this time last year that made all the 20 year olds yell, "Get a room!". (right after saying to each other, "Why don't they act their age?").
On the bright side, that's only half as much drop as Obama himself has taken in the polls in the same timeframe. ;)
We used to joke about piss-poor planners as managers. The running joke was they were always going, "Fire!......ready, aim".
Obama, with all that "management experience" he brought to the WH, is one of those, too (maybe the 1st clue was hiding his chairmanship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?).
He should close it, and open it again 30 minutes later as "Camp Snugglebunnies."
traditional guy,
here is a list of challenges to Obama's honesty:
Obama’s dishonesty
and you voted for the empty suit who sold your that snake oil. Yes, "It's one thing to speak about it in the abstract during the campaign, quite another actually to release or relocate the detainees. ", and it refers to you too ... don't scold him, you're to blame as much as that empty suit ...
One nice thing that Obama has done for his opponent in 2012 is give him a ready-made campaign.
Whoever it may be can just recycle all of Obama's speeches, verbatim, and they're as timely as ever. (Just substitute the word "Bush" with "Obama").
I know this is a politically biased video but BO now knows how true it is
PS Mr. President, with all due respect, skip the "Mission Accomplished" moment.
oh c'mon. any ugly political process that takes a lot of time drops in the polls.
as soon as its closed, americans will be overwhelmingly happy about it.
Oh good lord, danielle, that's stupid even for you.
In case anyone cares, Christian's do not have militias. And a fundamentalist is part of any group that believes parts of the scriptures so strongly, that they will ignore other parts of the scriptures just as strongly. That is why any judging by a Christian Church follows a rule that finally makes it up to the entire Church where reason and understanding is more valued than legalistic stubbornness. Christians also let the weeds grow up along with the wheat so as not to pluck up hard to judge wheat. These Michigan dudes sound like an adolescent paintball team gone wild. I doubt they attended a Christian church.
danaielle,
The vast majority don't really care one way or another. It is only the lowly do gooders and save the terrorist types who care. And of course the lawyers who make kachingos.
"Camp Snugglebunnies."
I like it!
"as soon as its closed, americans will be overwhelmingly happy about it."
Perhaps, but likely in the way you are glad your 16 year old is finally out of the house...but driving your car. What could go wrong?
Danielle...I agree with you. If we just surrender to all comers , then we will not have anymore attacks from enemies. Then you can protect us, right?
I think it makes more sense to stop killing innocent Afghanis before we worry about the ones living comfortably on a Caribbean island for free. I'm not even convinced they would choose to go home. What do we do if they refuse to leave?
Even if they closed it, there are several detainees who'd be held indefinitely without trial at whatever new facility is established. In time, that prison would have the same stigma as the current one does. So why close it?
So much of what is important to people on both sides in having their guys in office. Policy is trivial.
For Democrats, just for example, as long as it their guys keeping prisoners infinitely without trial and torturing them for information, it's fine. Nothing to see here. Ir in Iraq. Or in Afghanistan. Or concerning the exploding national debt. Or with regard to the cratered economy.
JUST WAR tradition doesn't even recognize any rights for pirates and terrorists.
If no legitimate country can claim them, they should have no rights whatsoever.
Obama gains nothing politically by actually closing Gitmo, so it won't happen. He'll have Axelrod mention it from time to time just to assure the base that he's sincere about wanting to close it.
They're cheap dates, so it should work.
So that's 12% who were merely political opportunists. How many of the remaining 39% are danielles and how many are objectively anti-American, and what's the overlap?
Kirby -- I'd disagree with that. Just War Tradition is very Catholic and one thing Catholics definitely get right is the absolute dignity of every human being, even baby-killing terrorist fuckwads.
I would agree that terrorists and pirates have far, far fewer rights.
Hello, all!
I'd like to get your views about rainy days. Do you have a few minutes to spare?
Here's a good comparison between pirates and terrorists.
I don't really care about Guantanamo Bay, it can be open or closed--they just need to do SOMETHING with those people that keeps them from killing again.
What burns me up is all the stuff Obama said about Guantanamo Bay during the campaign. Now that he's in charge of it, he can't think of anything better to do than keep it open, because figuring what to do with those people is so difficult. But he doesn't have the class or the integrity to admit that his campaign criticisms were simple-minded and wrong.
Notice that since he's been President he's opted for a take-no-prisoners approach of assasination from drones. And I don't really have a problem with that. But I have to wonder about those progressives who voted for Obama on the understanding he would shut that place down. Which is the greater violation of human rights and due process, progressives? Why can you kill people by remote control, but it's unconscionable to keep them alive in Cuba?
And that's ALWAYS been the problem with the progressive objections to Guantanamo Bay since 2001.
Life is never so much about the questions asked of you, but more about the questions that you ask.
Nancy Pelosi:
We have to empty Gitmo first before we find out what's in it.
Ooops!
Oops they really are dangerous terrorists!
Democrats mugged by reality again.
you people know that even your beloved W wanted gitmo closed, right ? and W knew exactly what the charges were against all of them ... so Ralph L, are you counting W among the anti-American ?
oh, and looking forward to seeing the pics come out of your RNC chairman at Voyeur West Hollywood ! that will be *hilarious.*
Steele is such a clown. serves the repubs right for the tokenism.
Well there are reasons NIMBY sometimes is a very smart position to take.
That's why support for closing it has dropped.
No one who wanted it closed ever asked what they were going to do with the occupants, did they?
c'mon, JAL. no onee has ever escaped from a maximum security prison.
Oh danielle ... yoo hooo
Your lib left newsfeed is out of date.
Learn to check your sources more carefully.
What a weak and laughable effort, Danielle. Below trite, and wholly unmemorable.
Thus the change of subject.
Hey girl -- where do you live?
<6 seconds
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/28/us/six-escape-from-maximum-security-prison.html?pagewanted=1
Not to mention that no one had flown large airliners with live passengers and crews into a couple of the tallest buildings in the world, the headquarters of the most powerful military on earth or a farmer's fallow field on purpose before, either.
The "reality-based community" encounters actual reality.
wv: idaug. I confess.
You will notice Obama will spend most if not all of his political capital on programs that re-distribute wealth. That is what interests him and drives him the most. He comes to life when he is demonizing one of the big parts of the capitalist system.
Everything else, including foreign affairs, is somewhat boring to him. Just watch- you'll see I am right.
We need to ask ourselves why these terrorists hate us, right, Danielle?
Is it because our stupid, overly privileged coke user of a president refuses to close down a torture chamber?
Or has that changed?
Seven:
Be more precise. You left out "Ivy League educated" coke user of a president".
Please read:
http://www.lamag.com/featuredarticle.aspx?id=22631
________________
Of course public opinion has changed. The press stopped harping about it (along with Iraq, the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, etc...) as soon as the "right" people (i.e. Democrats) were in charge.
"Tragic aging hippie" sounds like one of Trooper's sock puppet ID's. He loves the hipsters.
Obama needs to close down Health Care Reform. It is clearly a recruiting tool for the terrorists of the Tea Party.
The left needs to ask itself why Obama continues to crater in the polls. Why does most of America hate you?
I notice how mum Eric 'Steadman' Holder has gotten on the whole matter. He was lip flappin' a year ago about closing this "national nightmare" gitmo. As he is fighting for his political life on KSM, he has gone completely quiet on Gitmo. Why is that liberal democrats? Any idears?
obama's poll numbers are not cratering. he's polling about the same as your dear sweet reagan after his first year in office.
there are going to be a lot of whinny posts here when obama is sworn in for his 2nd term.
ha ha, he does look like stedman !
AJ
Everything else, including foreign affairs, is somewhat boring to him.
He seems bored all the time. You're prediction might pan out, I'm trying to think of what else he gets excited about.
One time he got all excited about the price of arugula.
holder wasnt the point man on gitmo. it was greg craig, who left the WH. i havent heard much about it since craig left.
Danielle -- The Reagan comparison is laughable. What is Obama doing that Reagan did to keep any of his campaign promises or help the economy rebound?
Here's another question. If economics is based on unalterable facts and Reagan used lower taxes and free market principles to help turn the national economy around, what do you suppose will happen as a consequence of Obama raising taxes and using grossly statist principles?
I know you are dumb and trite, so think real hard.
Hey -- what happened to the nobody-has-ever-escaped-from-a-maximum-security-prison song?
squirrel!!!111!11
(Talking Points Glitch.)
holder wasnt the point man on gitmo.
Naaahh, he was just the one left to figure out what to do with the dudes down there. So he decided to try KSM in NYC after he had consulted about this minor move with his wife.
"Here honey, put KSM on trial in Tribeca .... That'll be just fine. They'll get used to the idea after a while."
And I thought this was Obama's grandiose plan anyway.
No?
Who is running this show?
Only a few people have escaped from a maximum security prison. Only once was the World Trade Center annihilated by terrorists who want to destroy our country. These recessions don't come around very often and they never last for more than a decade.
Hope, baby. Hope and change!
JAL -- What with Gitmo still open and the United States still in Iraq and Afghanistan and these terrorists infinitely jailed without rights or trials, I think Dick Cheney is still running the show.
Hope, change, and Cheney!
obama's poll numbers are not cratering. he's polling about the same as your dear sweet reagan after his first year in office.
And about the same as George Bush after eight years in office. :)
Here's another question. If economics is based on unalterable facts and Reagan used lower taxes and free market principles to help turn the national economy around, what do you suppose will happen as a consequence of Obama raising taxes and using grossly statist principles?
But our resident liberals invariably will claim that the recession was really Bush's fault, that the Democrats running Congress at the time, those preventing Fannie/Freddie reform, and our Noble Leader had no culpability for the recession, and that the "Stimulus" package actually saved the economy from a deeper recession.
Of course, as inflation picks up, and the employment rate continues to stagnate (recreating Carter's misery index), the refrain won't change, except that the stimulus wasn't big enough, and deficits of the magnitude expected through Obama's potential eight years don't matter.
I think though that the reality is going to be that if Obamanomics works as well as Reaganomics, then Obama's popularity will rebound like Reagan's did, but if it doesn't, then he can expect Carter's popularity instead. I think that most here don't expect Keynesian economics to work here (never has, never will), but I am sure that we will have some of our resident liberals (AL, Jeremy, etc.) posting to the contrary (or just trying to change the topic).
The right-wing blogospehere sure has become addicted to daily opinion polls, as if they don't know that such polls are mostly just a tool for propagandists.
What's more of concern to me was witnessing the reactions thoughout the right-wing blogosphere to the FBI rounding up some alleged right-wing Christianist terrorists and apparently foiling a terrorist attack on this nation. Some of the "heavies" of the right-wing blogosphere sound rather sympathetic to right-wing Christianist terrorists allegedly plotting treasonous violence against America.
I realized the right-wing blogosphere is a bunch of jack-offs some time ago, but now I'm starting to question their patriotism.
The right-wing blogospehere sure has become addicted to daily opinion polls
Hilarious. Yeah, these opinion polls mean nothing. Votes don't mean anything, either. Those are just opinion polls. The important thing is whatever Glenn Greenwald bloviates over the course of five single-spaced pages in eight-point font. Right, Loaf?
I also love how Loaf swears -- swears -- that he isn't a rabid leftist, and then lauds Glenn Greenwald. In the same comment.
It may be news to Seven, but Obama never campaigned as a soft-on-terrorism candidate. He camapaigned as someone who would fight the War on Terrorism more intelligently, and he he particularly emphasized the failed Bush foreign policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bush's own White House's assessment of his Pakistan foreign policy declared it a failure and Bush startd adopting Obama's campaign ideas about Pakistan (which Ann Althouse ridiculed when Obama stated them in a Democratic Party debate) in the last days of his administration.
Loaf -- Did Obama promise to close down Guantanamo Bay or didn't he? If he did, why is it still open?
Tick tock...
I think that the opposition to Club Gitmo was always more politically than reality based. Those who were pushing closing it so hard never really were able to answer the hard questions. But, then again, no one forced them to either.
Sure, esp. early on, there were some who probably should not have been there. But over the years, if they could safely be sent somewhere, and were not a threat to us, then they were probably sent somewhere. So, by the time that Obama came into office, most of the detainees there were hardened terrorists whom we would better execute than release.
The problem all along is that Club Gitmo was really a good idea. Where else could you put terrorists where they would be safe, but extremely unlikely to escape? Middle Eastern males, typically wearing traditional garb, are unlikely to get very far on a military base where many of the Marines there are armed. And if they did get off the base, then what? Swim to Miami? And the Cubans would as likely shoot them as welcome them - assuming they could even get across the heavily patrolled border between Cuba and Gitmo.
I frankly don't think that the Obama people really had thought this through before the election. Rather, they just said what the left wanted to hear. Now, though, they are in charge, and are realizing that the Bush Administration was really right.
The trial balloon about putting the detainees here in Illinois was really funny.
So Obama did invade Pakistan? Fly to Teheran for talks? I must have missed that.
Obama's campaign promsise about how all these countries that hate the United States were going to love us...I'd forgotten about that gem.
How's that working out for us, leftists? How are we getting along with Iran and Venezuela these days? I won't mention Great Britain, France, or Israel.
Built a couple of more SuperMax facilities like the one in Florence, Colorado and you can talk about closing Gitmo.
Costs A billion dollars? Maybe more.
I wonder if those Caucasian activists who bombed the Moscow subway had ties to the Michigan militia? If those Caucasians in Michigan are found guilty, they should be sent to Gitmo.
I wonder if the news last week about the Saudi Arabian plot to blow up oil fields involved a couple "RELEASED" from Gitmo had a part in this? Probably not, the media didn't get it out too much, it was more important to talk about events in DC that never happened...sigh.
Built a couple of more SuperMax facilities like the one in Florence, Colorado and you can talk about closing Gitmo.
Costs A billion dollars? Maybe more.
Economic "stimulus" from a Democrat's point of view.
I was just trying to read a hilarious article in the NYT about stimulating the economy by creating good well paying jobs and creating a lot of infrastructure. Of course, the author glossed over how he thought that his noble plans would be paid for, and how that might, just might, affect the economy.
So, yes, a new SuperMax is one idea. But is that really the best thing to do in the midst of a recession with government spending already massively out of control, and deficits guaranteed to beggar our great-grandchildren?
It may be news to Seven, but Obama never campaigned as a soft-on-terrorism candidate. He camapaigned as someone who would fight the War on Terrorism more intelligently, and he he particularly emphasized the failed Bush foreign policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Yeh, and that is probably why his Justice department has hired maybe seven attorneys who had represented Gitmo terrorists. Fighting terrorism more intelligently by co-opting the attorneys representing the terrorists.
If you want to know why Gitmo, all you have to do is try and remember what the aftermath of 4 cells hijacking airplanes and crashing 3 of them into buildings.
Up until then the suicide bomber had not touched us here in our own soil. The idea of painting a suicide target, here on US soil, must have seen inconceivably suicidal at that time.
Sorry if you think I overused the word suicide, but its meant to highlight the extremely dangerous nature of this enemy.
Some seemed to have forgotten that.
It's nice to have plans but as of late it seems that the best laid plans are causing our current president's approval rating to resemble a residential speed limit sign.
Wait a sec, Barry O from Chicago is a lying SOB?
Look! Michigan Militia! Over there!
I think Our President has grown so fond of killing terrorists that he wants to recruit more.
The Obama administration has to relocate the Gitmo terrorists, else there won't be enough cells to hold the true terrorists - people who don't buy the mandated ObamaCare health "insurance".
Gabriel--
I pretty much agree. I am agnostic on Guantanamo. My concern was the reports of torture and as far as I am concerned, waterboarding is torture. But otherwise, we need to hold these peeple someplace.
But I agree -- what really burns me up is the naked cynicism of the Obama Adminsitration on items such as this.
Not to mention trickydick Cheney who would vacation there...beach chair, front porch of the quanset hut, little drink with umbrellas...
"hey can you get them to scream a little louder"
Peter V. Bella said...
They need someplace to put the Taxed Enough Already people. Those libs sure are funny about things that actually work. They only like using them against people though."
peter the asshole speaks. any proof there professor? any facts? just more of your chicago bullshit?
I realized the right-wing blogosphere is a bunch of jack-offs some time ago, but now I'm starting to question their patriotism.
I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.
• We are Americans, We have the right to participate and debate any administration.
So don't YOU EVER discuss my patriotism, Loafing Oaf.
Ann opines: It's one thing to speak about it in the abstract during the campaign, quite another actually to release or relocate the detainees.
I love Ann's posts on all things related to Terrorism, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I just wish she would write more about her personal experiences with the wounded soldiers and their families.
I just wish she would write more about her personal experiences with the wounded soldiers and their families.
I agree completely, she and Medea Benjamin could do a "Blogging Heads" section on it...OH WAIT.
This WAS a variant of the "Chicken Hawk" argument right?
I just wish she would write more about her personal experiences with the wounded soldiers and their families.
Your very popular blog talks about all of your fine humanitarian work.
Right?
President Bush's would, but he's too humble.
SevenMachos,
Just War theory comes out of Augustine, who is generally more associated with Protestantism (Luther was an Augustinian monk, and his denomination -- that is, what came to be called Lutheranism -- is associated with a revival of Augustinian thought).
It's something to discuss, but I think the problem with terrorists is that they target civilians, and have no sense of proportion or limits in terms of what they are willing to do to achieve their ends.
From what I've read, since they abide by no laws, and do not abide by the Geneva Convention, they can just be killed without any allowance for any rights of any kind.
At any rate, that's the classic tradition, but perhaps more recent laws disallow this. I don't think they should, though.
I think if someone is a terrorist or a pirate we should just kill them without any big to-do or moral qualms.
Southern Man dont need you around anyhow....
your info on the pres. app. rating must be last weeks'.... He is totally on the rise now
The not so funny thing is the ever present law of Unintended Consequences....as it applies to Liberal "Good Intentions."
The Evil and hated Boooosh, went to war with the “Evil-Doers.” Now not all Evil-Doers chose Death Before Dishonour, and some were captured. Now under current International Law, these Evil-Doers were eligible for on-the-spot execution, as “Illegal Combatants.” Now the Evil Boooosh’s Evillllll Brain-Washed Imperialist Minions (EBBWIM) didn’t necessarily want:
1) To kill prisoners; and
2) Forego valuable Intelligence; and
3) Put up with all the Liberal caterwauling about executing, legally the Evil Doers.
So they were captured, and held…at Gitmo.
And all the Liberals caterwauled about that. So now the Liberals are in charge. No more can we send Illegal Enemy Combatants to Gitmo….but what to do with them? Well two things:
1) We have the EBBWIM, the EOBWIM’s, ship them to Bagram…it’s not Gitmo, it’s not subject to US law. Sure their treatment may be worse there, but now “no laws” are being broken; and
2) Now we use Predator strikes, and when it’s possible to capture, we don’t….because we have no acceptable, to Liberals, alternative to killing them, e.g., Gitmo.
So now the US KILLS the Illegal Combatants, which is legal, but is it any more “moral?” I don’t think so, but I’m a wingnut.
To me it’s the consequence of good intentions….no more evil Gitmo, so instead we just kill you. Wow, that’s certainly much, much better…..
Opus One Media: So, are you in favor of closing Gitmo on the promised schedule or are you for keeping it open? Do you have an opinion?
Southern Man dont need you around anyhow....
your info on the pres. app. rating must be last weeks'.... He is totally on the rise now
Your poll data is so YESTERDAY...ObamaCare remains UNDER ATER, POTUS split at 46/46 Approval....
But thank you for playing.
So if the health care polling is split, that means the conservative half wins!
Modern Just War Theory, however arises from the work of Michael Walzer. It is an attempt to frame just and unjust wars and justice and injustice IN wars, in much the same way, but without the overtly Catholic basis. Its devotees, and I count myself as one, tend towards Just and Unjust Wars, rather than Augustine for inspiration.
Garage: No, if the polling data is split it means that a massive rejiggering of an entire portion of our economy rammed through by a single party is a coin flip. Just the way we want to live, right? A coin flip.
NIMBY
Castro's Backyard Is Better.
Guantanamo is absolutely not Auchwitz. Hell, it is not Abu Gharib. Scores of visitors go in and out of the place to inspect it all the time. The alleged abuses that happened there were limited, mostly involved excessive interrogation, and were stopped years ago. It is a prison on a shall naval base. This symbolism of closing it is just cheap symbol--well actually not very cheap at all. We spent hundreds of millions building the damn thing--so let's run it. Building new Super Max facilities for these detainees in the states would cost hundres of millions and would ironically be far less humane than Gitmo.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government's role in health care too far,....
Obama's approval rating was 47%-50% — the first time his disapproval rating has hit 50%. (emph. Added)
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-29-health-poll_N.htm
So keep telling yourself, that Obama's popularity continues to rise....hey if it keeps your warm at night, who am I to say?
I forgot to make it clear last night that I am absolutely content to have Guantanamo where it is inhabited by those who inhabit it, assuming our guys and gals who do the tending get home frequently and are well taken care of.
Yos said...
and you voted for the empty suit who sold your that snake oil. Yes, "It's one thing to speak about it in the abstract during the campaign, quite another actually to release or relocate the detainees. ", and it refers to you too ... don't scold him, you're to blame as much as that empty suit ...
Your declaimer of moral purity is sort of neglectful of noting that voters were confronted with choosing between Obama and McCain, or casting a meaningless symbolic vote for the likes of Ron Paul..the equivalent of voting "present".
Neglectful or forgetful...particularly of the fact that the treacherous McCain was a major player in undermining Bush's GITMO policy. Who called for it to be closed before Obama did. And also that no enemy combatant be interrogated beyond what the Army field manual allowed a E-3 in the field accepting surrender to ask.
And wrap the whole thing in JOhn McCain's patented fig leaf of Bipartisanship that McCain has lurched forth with many times in the past after meeting with the editorial board of the NY Times or apearing on CNN.
And McCain voted for and championed Obama's bailouts, loved the idea of cap and trade 'to save the Earth", and on top of that a 500 billion bailout that would give that money to people that bought a bigger mansion than they could afford. And was a huge fan of globalization, free trade with China, and was pushing for War with Iran...
"Don't blame me, I voted for the bipartisan guy who has called himself a war hero for 30 years" is akin to those old signs the last gen had up saying "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts!"
What I do blame is the Dems and a complicit media for giving voters Obama instead of Hillary. And I blame Republicans for 7 wasted years where they did little but push Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy, massive pork spending for DC insider - then gave us McCain&Dingbat instead of Romney/Jindal or Thompson/Hutchinson.
And I blame Romney for being a pandering dork and Fred Thompson for failing to have any fire or passion.
Joe --
Regarding kill versus capture. I recall back in 2002 I worked with a guy who was a former Special Forces guy (more of a support/communications type than a true battlefield guy, though he spent time) who later became an infantry officer. He said back then his concern was that if the issue of what to do with these illegal combatants or whatever they are properly called was not figured out, the result would be "Rule 556" -- that people would be killed and not captured.
Given the Predator program and some of the recent actions (such as the Somalia attack) it seems the Admninistration prefers killing to capture. Dead terrorists tell no tails but file no habeus petitions.
Politically can you complain? I won't and I doubt any republican will. The ACLU is complaining loudly and I assume the left is not too happy, but as Obama is their guy, will keep that quiet for now. I do recognize three concerns however:
1. But killing top guys you could have captured you lose intelligence
2. Unless you do a Mossad in Dubai sort of thing, you have "collateral damage" which will get played up among the Moslems and anti-American types in Europe
3. You may give the enemy an incentive to fight to the end rather than surrendering.
"I don't really care about Guantanamo Bay, it can be open or closed--they just need to do SOMETHING with those people that keeps them from killing again."
Of course, you don't know if they've killed anyone to begin with.
"You will notice Obama will spend most if not all of his political capital on programs that re-distribute wealth."
Of course Obama's policies are redisbributing wealth...in the same direction as did Bush's policies...from citizens to corporations, from bottom to top!
Robert Cook: There is no money to be had from the bottom, alas. You can redistribute all you want downstream, but it will be back with the rich in no time. The bottom brackets have no energy, no motivation, no zing to them. They will piss the money right back to the rich. Doesn't take long, look at Russia.
Of course, you don't know if they've killed anyone to begin with.
Uuuuu'uuuuum Sorry to pop your Progressive Bubble, but by-and-large we do, or at least we know they were shooting at us.
The guys at Gitmo weren't rousted from their beds at four AM, and shoved in the Black Maria, by the Brown-Shirted Goons. They were CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD, by US troops...weapon(s) in hand.
So sorry, Bob Cook, we can say with a great deal of certainty that these folks are NOT innocents, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"There is no money to be had from the bottom, alas."
As long as billions in taxpayer dollars continue going to the big banks and financial institutions, and to the arms merchants and affiliated industries, (mercenaries, etc.) who profit big time through our wars, there's money to be had from the bottom.
"The guys at Gitmo weren't rousted from their beds at four AM, and shoved in the Black Maria, by the Brown-Shirted Goons. They were CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD, by US troops...weapon(s) in hand."
You're simply repeating tales others have told; you don't know that, because we don't know that.
Given that the previous administration lied about WMD to take us into an illegal war, I don't believe shit they say about anything related to their ongoing crime, (now Obama's crime).
Of course Obama's policies are redisbributing wealth...from citizens to corporations, from bottom to top!
Uuummm.
How about "redistributing it to his cronies?"
Look at where the "stimulus" money went. Certainly does not appear to be red-blue color blind.
So President Barely gets to lie about closing it down, doesn't and I don't hear the mewling of leftists anywhere. Fuckers.
Given that the previous administration lied about WMD to take us into an illegal war, I don't believe shit they say about anything related to their ongoing crime, (now Obama's crime).
You're simply repeating tales others have told; you don't know that, because we don't know that.
Post a Comment