• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats drop funds to close Gitmo

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Democrats drop funds to close Gitmo
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats are refusing to pay for President Barack Obama's plan to relocate prisoners from the Guantanamo detention facility where enemy combatants are being held.
Obama has signed an executive order to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by early next year. But the Pentagon has yet to come up with a plan on where to put the 240 or so prisoners. Between 50-100 are likely to be sent to the United States.

No lawmaker wants the accused terrorists in their backyard.

House Democrats unveiled a $94.4 billion war funding bill Monday and it had no money for the relocation plan.

Democrats drop funds to close Gitmo

Can't really blame a congressman not wanting to be responsible for this -- but, if closing Gitmo is "the right thing to do" then don't you suppose you should vote to do it, regardless of the consequence to your political career?

Or, is the preservation of personal and partisan political power more importan than "doing the right thing"?
 
Can you imagine how pissed off the DailyKooks/movealong.org leftists are right about now. :lol:
 
Democrats drop funds to close Gitmo

Can't really blame a congressman not wanting to be responsible for this -- but, if closing Gitmo is "the right thing to do" then don't you suppose you should vote to do it, regardless of the consequence to your political career?

Or, is the preservation of personal and partisan political power more importan than "doing the right thing"?

I think instead that closing Gitmo is the right thing to do, but finalizing things until a working, good plan on how to do it is finished, is not a good idea. Obama has asked for a three month extension, and that might have something to do with this.
 
Closing Gitmo sounds all well and good, until folks get confronted with the reality of having to put the detainees somewhere, or, better yet, set them free within the United States. Then Gitmo doesn't seem like such a bad idea after all.

Liberal ideology is no match for NIMBY. Such is the strength of liberal principles.
 
They are looking at the polls and seeing that closing GITMO isn't really that popular.

IE
CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 22-26, 2009. N=973 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"As you may know, for the past seven years the United States has been holding a number of suspected terrorists at a U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Based on what you have heard or read, do you think the U.S. should continue to operate the prison, or do you think the U.S. should close the prison and transfer the prisoners somewhere else?"

Continue Operate-47%
Close-44%
Unsure-9%

IOW not in my backyard is in play and if its pushed that 47% become 60% in no time.


/

Barring Antarctica or something Guantanamo is the best place to keep them.
They are isolated form the world. They are surrounded by Marines. The entire base is ringed with landmines and Cuban Soldiers....etc./
 
Last edited:
I'm not really surprised in the least. The Democrats are big on mouth, and small on wisdom. They're probably finding out now that it ain't so easy to carry out emotionally ill-conceived, silly left-wing notions.
 
Obama has asked for a three month extension, and that might have something to do with this.
How does he "ask" for an extension, when it was his Executive Order that set the deadline in the first place?
 
Can you imagine how pissed off the DailyKooks/movealong.org leftists are right about now. :lol:

After this decision, I'm sure they are throwing in the towel on Obama and fleeing to Republicans :roll:
 
After this decision, I'm sure they are throwing in the towel on Obama and fleeing to Republicans :roll:
Strawman, try something intelligent.
 
If needed, money could be transferred later—without a politically difficult vote.

Let's read the entire article, shall we?
 
I knew at least one person would take that seriously .... :doh
Then you a poor communicator, look at your post.
 
If needed, money could be transferred later—without a politically difficult vote.

Let's read the entire article, shall we?



IOW the Demcorats are looking to sidestep responsibility.
They do not want their names to be attached to a vote which probably in the end will go badly for them.
BUT they will spend other people's money on it.

What a shock.
 
Last edited:
Democrats drop funds to close Gitmo

Can't really blame a congressman not wanting to be responsible for this -- but, if closing Gitmo is "the right thing to do" then don't you suppose you should vote to do it, regardless of the consequence to your political career?

Or, is the preservation of personal and partisan political power more importan than "doing the right thing"?

I guess the democrats in office do not really believe those Gitmo detainees are poor innocent shop keepers,barbers, farmers and sheep hearders rounded up by mean ol evil American soldiers and marines with nothing else better to do than to harass poor innocent Iraqis.
 
How does he "ask" for an extension, when it was his Executive Order that set the deadline in the first place?

Interestingly enough, I take this from a link you posted in another thread: Officials: Gitmo court system likely to stay open

Almost immediately after taking office, Obama suspended the tribunal system and ordered a 120-day review of the cases against the 241 men being held at the Navy prison in Cuba. That review was supposed to end May 20. But two U.S. officials said Saturday the administration wants a three-month extension.

The actual mechanic of how he would ask for that extension, or who would grant it, I dunno.
 
Umm, not exactly, the funding is still there...

Guantanamo surfaced as well in a closed-door meeting Thursday of the House Appropriations defense panel, which now expects to recommend next week that the relocation language be stricken from a pending $83.4 billion war funding request for Iraq and Afghanistan.

[...]


President Barack Obama, who within days of taking office, signed an executive order directing that the facility be closed as soon as practicable and no later than one year.

The appropriations dispute now grows directly out of that decision and includes $30 million for Justice to implement the president’s order and review the status of those detainees held at the facility.

No special authorization is required for the Justice request. By comparison, the Pentagon chose to wrap its $50 million share in language giving the department broad authority to use the funds to relocate detainees, carry out military construction projects “not otherwise authorized by law” and transfer money to federal agencies to help dispose of the prison population.

“We’ll leave the money in and drop the language,” said one Republican lawmaker familiar with the deliberations. “It’s not fully done but that’s where we’re going.”


Dems struggle with Gitmo politics
 
Closing Gitmo sounds all well and good, until folks get confronted with the reality of having to put the detainees somewhere, or, better yet, set them free within the United States. Then Gitmo doesn't seem like such a bad idea after all.

Liberal ideology is no match for NIMBY. Such is the strength of liberal principles.

You are mistaking "liberal principles" with the spineless majority of Democrats of who very few are actually "liberal".
 
You are mistaking "liberal principles" with the spineless majority of Democrats of who very few are actually "liberal".
Then why do they vote liberal?
 
I think instead that closing Gitmo is the right thing to do, but finalizing things until a working, good plan on how to do it is finished, is not a good idea. Obama has asked for a three month extension, and that might have something to do with this.
Hmm.
So, would you then say that The Obama made a promise that He had no idea how He would keep?
 
Last edited:
Then why do they vote liberal?

They don't. That is the problem with Democrats these days. Just as there has not been a true Republican party with true Conservative principles since Goldwater....there hasn't been a true Democratic "liberal" principled party since I don't even know when.
 
Let's read the entire article, shall we?

I knew someone would take the bait. I even though it might be you.

As aleady said:

IOW the Demcorats are looking to sidestep responsibility.
They do not want their names to be attached to a vote which probably in the end will go badly for them.
BUT they will spend other people's money on it.
What a shock.

Now, there's that other dicussion you need to involve yourself in....
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...t-banning-assault-weapons.html#post1058003457
 
They don't. That is the problem with Democrats these days. Just as there has not been a true Republican party with true Conservative principles since Goldwater....there hasn't been a true Democratic "liberal" principled party since I don't even know when.

Excellent point.

Politicians these days seem more concerned with poll number than principles. This Gitmo stunt is a really good example.
 
Closing Gitmo sounds all well and good, until folks get confronted with the reality of having to put the detainees somewhere, or, better yet, set them free within the United States. Then Gitmo doesn't seem like such a bad idea after all.

Liberal ideology is no match for NIMBY. Such is the strength of liberal principles.
Now that we are no longer sweeping up the streets of Iraq with a net we don't need gitmo. God forbid we should use a military or public prison within our borders to hold them before trial, like any other criminal.

How many detainees have we added since... let's say, July 2008?
 
Back
Top Bottom