Stunning. In one breath you say he isn't a king, and in the very next you castigate congress for not rolling over to every whim he has...He needed congress and the republican fear machine was quite successful.
What kind of slippery language is this? Remember what specifically? Lay it out, and don't give me that "I have before" crap. This is a filler line meant to muddy the conversation and leaving you an out.We cannot pretend we don't remember the events, or that there were not factors that influenced what happened.
Bull! all one has to do is read your arguments. You clearly think that those in custody in Gitmo are there in error, and innocent, if not all, then enough that you don't think they should be there in the first place...Here is a good example of that, just read the progression of the thread...However, gitmo wasn't on my lst.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-u...detainees.html (Obama Releasing 1/3 Of Gitmo Detainees)
There are others, all the way back through the argument, you have expressed views that if not explicit in calling for the close of Gitmo, then on the broader argument of whether of not the entire endeavor is just. All you are doing is playing semantics. It is highly dishonest at best.
That's your opinion. And even with all the information that is known, rightly, or wrongly in the end you don't have a say anymore than I do, and that burns you up.As the silly notion of cutting and running, it misses the point that both were an overreaction to begin with, that was ill conceived and did more harm than good.