Senate votes to block funds for Guantanamo closure

Yet another fine example of political expediency. They whine and bitch about Gitmo but when it comes time to shut it down they curl up into the fetal position and cling tenaciously to their hopes of re-election. This country needs term limits...badly.

Analyst said:

It wasn't between you and RH - otherwise you'd have sent a PM. You posted it on a public board...so I'd suggest not doing so if you can't take the criticism.

Click to expand...

You can criticize my joke all you want -- again, I won't lose any sleep.

Analyst said:

You know what I'm saying, you just choose to ignore it.

Click to expand...

ditto.

I'll use simple words.

Obama made campaign promises.

Thus far, he is making strides toward putting many of them into effect.

Click to expand...

I will champion him and be happy I voted for him when he makes good on his promises. Likewise I will denigrate him for his failures.

Anyone who voted for him thinking that all he had to do was be put into office and everything he promised would instantly materialize is an idiot.

Click to expand...

This is about a man making a campaign promise and for one reason or another is unable to follow through. Its that simple. You simply want to tip-toe around the issue with excuses rather than to do the unthinkable and acknowledge the obvious failure. Excuses are like assholes, everyone's got one.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Two words, EPIC FAIL for Obama and good for America. I am shocked personally at the 90-6 vote against closing GITMO, Given the attacks on the last admin during the war by many of these senators on GITMO.

What made them take this stand? Did they see a light? Political seat stability reasons?


One thing we can say for sure. Is Obama failed here. And I for one am glad that this did not pass. Yes I wished for Obama to fail here.

Click to expand...

What is odd about this whole issue is the question why would Democrats go back on their promises to a whacked out constituency and even vote before a plan to close Guantanamo was ever presented.

Could this perhaps be a Democrat strategy to allow cover for Obama from once again backtracking on a campaign pledge? Could this be a pre-emptive politically designed effort to protect Obama from himself?

His speech today was offensive in the extreme and further divides the nation and angers the OTHER side with its warped and slanted message regarding the previous Administrations efforts to protect and defend.

Obama claims he is cleaning up a mess; that is a lie; he is CREATING a HUGE mess.

He also lied when he claimed that Gitmo is a recruiting tool for terrorism; there is no credible analysis to support such farcical partisan rhetoric.

goldendog said:

So from the Republicans standpoint the only option is Gitmo?

There are many high security prisions here in the US that are close to towns that are economically depressed and are perfectly capable of holding such prisioners securely as they do with murderers and rapists and other people who certainly want to do bad things to our country.

Click to expand...

The correct standpoint regardless of political affiliation is the honest recognition that these terrorists cannot be brought into the US and stand trial under the evidentiary rules of criminal courts.

There is little evidence that can be used to prevent some of the most dangerous thugs from being released so that they can commit more terrorism which many of the previous released have already done.

These thugs were picked up in Afghanistan and Iraq during fights or having been captured at terrorist training camps; there is no "criminal" evidence therefore, in order to KEEP them from committing future terrorist acts, they are kept "indefinably" in places like Gitmo.

Only in the naive emotionally hysteric minds of Liberals can one believe that these thugs should be brought to our shores and given Habeas Corpus rights in a criminal court of law.

The reason Obama had to retract his previous position on tribunals is because he has been slapped with REALITY; something the Community Organizer and inexperienced naive campaigner never concerned himself with while denigrating the previous administration.

The previous administration GETS this; the current one still wallows in ignorance and denial to this REALITY.

The depth to which Liberal Democrats were willing to sink themselves in such naive hyper partisan BS is patently offensive and serves as a constant reminder why we are a divided nation and should give Obama and his fellow asinine hyper partisan hack Democrats NO quarter EVER.

Wow, getting all that out makes me feel much better. :2wave:

Analyst said:

Proof?

Click to expand...

Only the obtuse won't acknowlege the given. Read the article, his party rebuked him.

Follow the logic bus...

Proof?

Click to expand...

So wait. You wan't me to prove that politicians are looking out for thier own ass instead of Obama's in this GITMO thing, but you wont even acknowledge he wants to close GITMO? :lol:

I'll post where I wish, and say what I wish. How dare you insinuate I don't have the right? And I didn't state any particular person was a hack. If you don't like it, perhaps it's YOU who should go elsewhere.



So, what you're really saying, is you have no proof of any of your assertions whatsoever. Got it. Thanks!

Edit: I'm not a fan of Obama, I'm merely pointing out that you'll use any excuse to bash him. I judge him on the merits of his individual decisions.

Click to expand...

Right. good idea, play obtuse. that makes the most sense for you. :lol:



Seriously. Obama campaigned on closing GITMO, his own party rebuked him. Since I bring it up, it must be I am "bashing him". Please.


I suggested you go elsewhere for your own good, as it seems this thread has upset you. I don't care where you post. Just don't whine when you get exactly what you give friend.

if you don't like the attitude I am giving you. Don't cry about "hacks" and me daring to bring up an issue about a political figure, on a political debate forum. It's just silly.

tlmorg02 said:

I think they should just send them back from whence they came. If they are killed by their own, so what. If they are not guilty, there should be nothing to fear. If they are, have the tribunals and execute them. Because, you know rehabilitation works so well, and we cannot even afford to keep domestic prisoners in prison. It is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

They cannot be; no other nations, even their own, want them. What do you propose; just dumping them on the beach of these countries in the dark of night?

The last thing we should be is release these thugs back into the world to commit unthinkable atrocities.

Gitmo should become the world's prison for terrorists; it would serve as a constant reminder that the world will no longer bury its head in the sand about how to deal with these creeps and opposite to the lies expressed by Obama, serve more as a disincentive to terrorism than a recruiting tool.

The recruiting tool for more terrorists is the idiotic rhetoric coming from the US President "post turtle" declaring that we will not detain indefinitely terrorists offshore, will never torture them and instead provide them with civil rights they wish to deny others.

You can't be more idiotic than the current Democrats infesting the halls of US power these days.

scourge99 said:

ditto.

I will champion him and be happy I voted for him when he makes good on his promises. Likewise I will denigrate him for his failures.

This is about a man making a campaign promise and for one reason or another is unable to follow through. Its that simple. You simply want to tip-toe around the issue with excuses rather than to do the unthinkable and acknowledge the obvious failure. Excuses are like assholes, everyone's got one.

Click to expand...

You presume much. I never once claimed, nor would I, that he succeeded in this case. If you need me to acknowledge that to see my point..well, so be it, but it seems pretty obvious that it didn't happen in this case.

Your assertion was that his campaign promise now goes to the heap of unfulfilled promises. I disagree with your assertion, and propose that by it's very nature a campaign promise is something the candidate will endeavor to make happen, but there's simply no certainty in it actually coming to pass no matter how badly he may want it to. The President doesn't have the power to make anything he wants to occur actually happen - which is a good thing, and by design.

I look for consistency. He said he will make strides toward this happening, and he did. That's consistent.

Analyst said:

You know what I'm saying, you just choose to ignore it.

I'll use simple words.

Obama made campaign promises.

Thus far, he is making strides toward putting many of them into effect.

Anyone who voted for him thinking that all he had to do was be put into office and everything he promised would instantly materialize is an idiot.

Does that make it more clear to you?

Click to expand...

Proof?


Where is the transparency?

Gitmo is still open.

etc. etc.


Which ones is he keeping. I'll wait. :lol:

Laila said:

Question. I have always wondered this.

If they are found innocent, and was tortured or abused [either physically or mentally] by US. Would they get compensation and/or be able to sue US?
And who would they sue? US Government or a specific person? Or the person doing the torturing?

Click to expand...

Once again, to make such comments suggests complete ignorance about why these people are being detained in the first place; there IS no evidence.

Good lord, are the nations citizens so uninformed by the media that they cannot begin to comprehend the purpose of Gitmo?

Let me paint a picture for you; when our troops went into Afghanistan and Iraq they captured non-uniformed enemy combatants. Some were trapped at Al Qaeda training camps, some were captured in fire fights etc etc etc. No one collected any evidence of these individuals actually blowing someone up or shooting someone; our troops are a little busy shooting back to be collecting evidence; therefore, they are declared non-uniformed enemy combatants and kept offshore in a military prison where they can be held INDEFINATELY.

They are not uniformed military combatants who were fighting for their countries therefore; Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. They were not criminals in the traditional sense because of the nature of the FACTS surrounding their capture.

Now do you get it? Obama still doesn't but then; I am hardly surprised because his incompetence dealing with reality is only exceeded by his vast ego.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Only the obtuse won't acknowlege the given. Read the article, his party rebuked him.

Follow the logic bus...

So wait. You wan't me to prove that politicians are looking out for thier own ass instead of Obama's in this GITMO thing, but you wont even acknowledge he wants to close GITMO? :lol:

Right. good idea, play obtuse. that makes the most sense for you. :lol:

Seriously. Obama campaigned on closing GITMO, his own party rebuked him. Since I bring it up, it must be I am "bashing him". Please.

I suggested you go elsewhere for your own good, as it seems this thread has upset you. I don't care where you post. Just don't whine when you get exactly what you give friend.

if you don't like the attitude I am giving you. Don't cry about "hacks" and me daring to bring up an issue about a political figure, on a political debate forum. It's just silly.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't I acknowledge he wants to close Gitmo? His first attempt was refused. That's as obvious as your evasions.

Nice try. I knew you'd couch your phrases to try and get a rise out of me, since it's obvious that you can't substantiate your words.

See, I wasn't asking you to substantiate the article..I was asking you to substantiate your own words, which you clearly can't do.

As for being upset...well, I've not flung rhetoric or insults your way, but you've flung plenty in my direction. I wonder who's upset? :lol:

As this has degenerated, as a gentleman I will bow out of this conversation with you at this point. I'll leave snippets of your veiled insults for you to ponder at your liesure.

Only the obtuse ...Follow the logic bus... play obtuse..Just don't whine...Don't cry

Click to expand...

goldendog said:

Name one attack within the US that was stopped since the second attack on our country on 9-11?

Click to expand...

Can you name one that has occurred? Do you wallow in the profound denial that terrorists are NOT trying to commit even more heinous events than 9-11? Do you live in an alternate universe?

goldendog said:

Remember the first attack on our nation was the WTC attack in 93?

Click to expand...

Remember that Clinton was in charge?

goldendog said:

Do you think torturing people to desperately find Cheney's dream link that Saddam was tied to 9-11 is good sound policy?

Click to expand...

Do you believe in using farcical hysteric filled emotion and hyperbole to support your obvious ignorance regarding the FACTUAL events that occurred post 9-11?

goldendog said:

Was it good policy for Bush and Cheney to allow this second attack to happened after being warned repeatedly?

Click to expand...

Are you this uninformed to think that ANYONE knew and predicted the events of 9-11 would occur?

It is a vast lie to suggest that anyone even believed such and event would occur; OR it is the incredible after the fact second guessing that serves nothing but play to a divisive hyper partisan lie in an effort to impugn those you disagree with politically.

goldendog said:

Remember Clinton caught and put the bombers and planners of the first WTC attack in prison?

AN AMERICAN PRISON??? Not one in Cuba.

Click to expand...

I guess you have difficulty distinguishing the vast difference between the perpetrators of the first attack which did not involve them dying and the fact that they committed their crime on US soil where EVIDENCE was gathered and presented and the terrorist non-uniformed enemy combatants picked up in the battle fields of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Or perhaps you do know, but willfully ignore it to make such asinine emotionally filled hyper partisan divisive arguments filled with hyperbole and speculation for purely partisan political purposes.

:roll:

Analyst said:

Why wouldn't I acknowledge he wants to close Gitmo? His first attempt was refused. That's as obvious as your evasions.

Nice try. I knew you'd couch your phrases to try and get a rise out of me, since it's obvious that you can't substantiate your words.

See, I wasn't asking you to substantiate the article..I was asking you to substantiate your own words, which you clearly can't do.

As for being upset...well, I've not flung rhetoric or insults your way, but you've flung plenty in my direction. I wonder who's upset? :lol:

As this has degenerated, as a gentleman I will bow out of this conversation with you at this point. I'll leave snippets of your veiled insults for you to ponder at your liesure.

Click to expand...

So a "Gentleman" calls people "hacks" and attacks posters for "bashing Obama" on a political forum? :roll:




Bye! :2wave:

goldendog said:

If there was any substantial proof what so ever that attacks were twarted or information was obtained through torture that help to twart such attacks then Lord Cheney would have had that information out long ago..

Click to expand...

I guess you missed the news where Cheney has requested the Obama administration to de-classify and release that information but was refused. Hardly surprising based on your emotional hyper partisan uninformed rhetoric.

goldendog said:

By the was if that lady sitting next to Richard Reid on that plane wouldn't have blown out his match then we would be talking about yet another Bush/Cheney blunder.

They played ZERO roll in twarting Reids attempts to take that plane down.

The passengers of that plane saved themselves

Click to expand...

I guess you missed the part that Reid was a British Citizen and the part where this was a failure of another countries security systems and that the flight originated in Paris France. DUH! :doh

I guess you also missed this;

“…is currently serving a life sentence in the United States for attempting to destroy a commercial aircraft in-flight by detonating explosives hidden in his shoes. According to al-Qaeda operative Mohammed Mansour Jabarah (who was captured and interrogated in Oman in 2002), Reid was a member of al-Qaeda and had been sent on the bombing mission by Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, a senior member of the organization.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)

You need to READ more and become informed before spouting such uninformed emotion filled hyper partisan hyperbole.

Alex said:

My concern here is not that the closing of Guantanamo was stopped by Congress, this may only be a bump in the road. I say that because the senators that I heard speak about their votes stated that they were against the funding because they did not get a plan for the closing by the administration. The closing could still happen after this plan is received by Congress.

That is the issue as I see it. The Obama administration issued an executive order to close the detention center without a real plan. Obama caused the problem he now has to deal with. I think this shows a lack of knowledge and experience on an issue that a President needs to be very knowledgeable on.

Click to expand...

I want to address this mistaken belief and assertion because I am seeing this a lot lately:

The Obama administration issued an executive order to close the detention center without a real plan.

Obama didn't do this; his executive order was to assemble a "study" group to find out HOW he can close Gitmo, not actually closing it. No decision was made then, no decision has been made yet and no one has proposed what steps are to be taken to actually close it.

This is more of the substance-less posturing one can expect from naive and inexperienced Democrat politicians who are obviously beyond their "peter principle."

The Obama Orders: A Quick and Dirty Analysis - Brookings Institution

then still a draft—“require an immediate review of the . . . detainees still held at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to determine if they should be transferred, released or prosecuted.” The Washington Post reported that “Officials will review the cases of the . . . prisoners who remain . . . to decide who can be released and who can be put on trial.” While literally true, this reporting rather overstates the severity of the choice Obama’s poses for each detainee.

Obama’s order is not, in fact, a blunt instrument; in fact, it actually doesn’t do all that much. It is careful to preserve all options for each detainee. It does not require any detainee’s release or transfer. It does not require any detainee’s prosecution. It does not preclude the eventual use of military commissions or some other alternative trial venue. And, critically, it does not preclude the continued non-criminal detention of certain—perhaps many—current Guantánamo detainees.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

So a "Gentleman" calls people "hacks" and attacks posters for "bashing Obama" on a political forum? :roll:

Bye! :2wave:

Click to expand...

I was calling out lies, rhetoric, and grandstanding for what they were. And I will continue to do so.

I used the word "hack" to illustrate an example, not as an insult to anyone specific - if the shoe fits, you put it on your own foot. I admit it may not have been the best word choice.

However, this is in contrast to your insults, which were clearly directed at me - and the snippets above were only one post's worth.

Analyst said:

I was calling out lies, rhetoric, and grandstanding for what they were. And I will continue to do so.

I used the word "hack" to illustrate an example, not as an insult to anyone specific - if the shoe fits, you put it on your own foot. I admit it may not have been the best word choice.

However, this is in contrast to your insults, which were clearly directed at me - and the snippets above were only one post's worth.

Click to expand...

I only gave you what you gave me sailor.....


the fact that Obama was rebuked by his own party, is a valid topic. You accused me of looking for an excuse to bash him. infered I was a hack. I threw it back in your face. You then stated you were leaving and taking your ball with you.....


AKA I thought you were bowing out?


Would you like to continue the discussion or are you leaving? Make up your mind friend.... Keep in mind, I can play this any way you like. Your call. :rofl

Just speaking to the OP, I didn't realize that that was the plan. I think I misunderstood. I thought that the plan was to transfer them one at a time, according to trial dates... once trials were resolved, then they'd bring in the next. I didn't think they were transferring every inmate at the same time. No wonder the senate voted it down.

Gitmo, for all its disgrace, needs a gradual shutdown, mostly surrounding the completion of inmate trials.

Orius said:

Just speaking to the OP, I didn't realize that that was the plan. I think I misunderstood. I thought that the plan was to transfer them one at a time, according to trial dates... once trials were resolved, then they'd bring in the next. I didn't think they were transferring every inmate at the same time. No wonder the senate voted it down.

Gitmo, for all its disgrace, needs a gradual shutdown, mostly surrounding the completion of inmate trials.

Click to expand...

I can see and appreciate that.


I do think however, Obama thought this would pass no muss no fuss, and the rebuking by his own party, will be an eyeopener for him...


I will give him credit, in that, as far as this national security stuff, he has been more willing to adapt to what is needed a couple times as the facts present themselves.


I hope he is more pragmatic, than first thought.

On the other side. I think this will hurt his effort with the europeans whom he asked to take some of the detainees. If we are rightfully not willing to take them, how can he expect europe to do the same?

Truth Detector said:

I guess you missed the news where Cheney has requested the Obama administration to de-classify and release that information but was refused. Hardly surprising based on your emotional hyper partisan uninformed rhetoric.



I guess you missed the part that Reid was a British Citizen and the part where this was a failure of another countries security systems and that the flight originated in Paris France. DUH! :doh

I guess you also missed this;

“…is currently serving a life sentence in the United States for attempting to destroy a commercial aircraft in-flight by detonating explosives hidden in his shoes. According to al-Qaeda operative Mohammed Mansour Jabarah (who was captured and interrogated in Oman in 2002), Reid was a member of al-Qaeda and had been sent on the bombing mission by Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, a senior member of the organization.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)

You need to READ more and become informed before spouting such uninformed emotion filled hyper partisan hyperbole.

Click to expand...

I guess while being in such haste to force non-truth down people's thoats while ignoring the reality of things you failed to read the post where it was touted that Bush and Cheney in some way twarted the "shoe bomber". Therefore it should be added to the long long list of attacks that Bush and Cheney twarted which we all know, except you, that is a total lie.

All you have to do is read the thread before you post. Try it? It will help you become more informed before spouting such uninformed emotion filled hyper partisian hyperbole.

You know the truth is that if lord Cheney had proof of his successes he surely would have had it out prior to Obama becoming president.

Cheney is sadly desperate..

Orius said:

Gitmo, for all its disgrace, needs a gradual shutdown, mostly surrounding the completion of inmate trials.

Click to expand...

This rhetoric baffles me; what part of Gitmo was a disgrace? Was it the three meals a day? Was it providing prayer rugs and Korans to the prisoners? Perhaps you were thinking that it is disgraceful allowing them to exercise and have medical care and a proper diet?

I am always confused when people spew such hyperbole when they OBVIOUSLY have an odd definition of what would be disgraceful.

:roll:

Truth Detector said:

This rhetoric baffles me; what part of Gitmo was a disgrace? Was it the three meals a day? Was it providing prayer rugs and Korans to the prisoners? Perhaps you were thinking that it is disgraceful allowing them to exercise and have medical care and a proper diet?

Click to expand...

It was the hot-and-cold running water, as well and the indoor toilet facilities.

goldendog said:

I guess while being in such haste to force non-truth down people's thoats while ignoring the reality of things you failed to read the post where it was touted that Bush and Cheney in some way twarted the "shoe bomber". Therefore it should be added to the long long list of attacks that Bush and Cheney twarted which we all know, except you, that is a total lie.

Click to expand...

My “non-truths?” Is that even a word? The only one spewing nonsense here is your desperate hyper partisan rhetoric.

My comments were directed towards your farcical assertion which was:

Originally Posted by goldendog
By the was if that lady sitting next to Richard Reid on that plane wouldn't have blown out his match then we would be talking about yet another Bush/Cheney blunder.

Did you not make the above farcical claim? I am doubtful that you could even comprehend your own emotional outbursts let alone anything connected to the truth, REALITY or the facts.

goldendog said:

All you have to do is read the thread before you post. Try it? It will help you become more informed before spouting such uninformed emotion filled hyper partisian hyperbole.

Click to expand...

What a trite commentary based on the fact that you cannot even comprehend your own typed words; see above.

goldendog said:

You know the truth is that if lord Cheney had proof of his successes he surely would have had it out prior to Obama becoming president.

Click to expand...

Once again, your naiveté is only exceeded by Obama’s and the Liberal Democrats playing partisan politics regarding this issue.

The REASON the Bush/Cheney administration did not release this information while they were in charge is because they didn’t want to WEAKEN our national security by telling our ENEMIES how we operate.

Good lord, no wonder morons like Obama, Pelosi and Reid can get elected in this country.

goldendog said:

Cheney is sadly desperate..

Click to expand...

The only desperation here are your emotion filled uninformed notions about terrorism and the divisive asinine assertions by the idiots running things in Washington these days.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

I only gave you what you gave me sailor.....

the fact that Obama was rebuked by his own party, is a valid topic. You accused me of looking for an excuse to bash him. infered I was a hack. I threw it back in your face. You then stated you were leaving and taking your ball with you.....

AKA I thought you were bowing out?

Would you like to continue the discussion or are you leaving? Make up your mind friend.... Keep in mind, I can play this any way you like. Your call. :rofl

Click to expand...

The topic itself is valid, I agree. Nothing wrong with it, though I question it's overall usefulness.

I didn't realize this was a game to you. If so, you don't seem to follow any rules that I can discern, except what's convenient for you.

Anyone with reasoning skills sees through your smoke screens.

I fail to see how what I "gave out" has any resemblance to your responses. Yours are laden with insults, mine point out the assertions which you've utterly failed to support.

You won't admit that you took the part of that article that turned you on, restated it by adding your own :spin: of rhetoric and grandstanding, and then spat it out here and referred back to it as if everything that you posted was true, and part of the article. You conveniently ignored and continue to ignore the portion of the article I quoted earlier in this thread.

You don't seem interested in even defending your position. All you've really done is evade, insult, and dissemble.

You seem to refuse to argue in a fair manner. There's nothing wrong with admitting when you are wrong, or when someone else is right (as I did with the hack comment and agreeing the topic is valid).

And, if you'd like to be taken seriously, apologize for the needless insults and stop hurling them.

"Your call."

Goobieman said:

It was the hot-and-cold running water, as well and the indoor toilet facilities.

Click to expand...

Those evil bastards! :rofl