• 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!

Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture

SO "betrayus" is now in vogue for the kook leftists. :roll: the hypocrisy is sickening.

Just checking on this: does this mean that every time Coulter opens her mouth and says something stupid, I can blame all of you on the right and talk about how you sicken me?
 
First Posted: 05-26-09 09:08 AM | Updated: 05-26-09 11:36 AM

In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture

So here we have the Republicans favorite General endorsing The Presidents plan to close Gitmo. In fact he says "I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."
I'm curious to hear what the torture deniers have to say about this Four Star General's comments reguarding closing Gitmo and His Endorsment of President Obama?

Do they still support this troop?

First off, there is no Obama PLAN as of THIS date. The argument that there is a plan is speculative at best.

That stated Petraeus did not endorse ANYTHING because there is NOTHING to be endorsed. But let is examine what he DID say:

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

In other words, things that are in line with the GENEVA CONVENTION. But the case of the prisoners at Guantanamo are not under these conventions as they are NON-UNIFORMED ENEMY COMBATANTS. What part of this do Liberals continue to NOT understand.

Secondly, there is NOTHING in the above statement endorsing anything that hasn’t ALWAYS been endorsed and even part of the Bush Administrations guidance. This is about how the MILITARY handles prisoners of war and its detainees.

Abu Ghraib was an example how some will break this code and subsequently be prosecuted for it.

"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

Let’s be clear; closing it in a RESPONSIBLE manner. Nothing new here and in line with comments made by Bush during his Presidency.

But let me emphasize, Petraeus is NOT talking about the detainees when he argues for observing the Geneva Conventions. They do not represent uniformed soldiers of Governments who are “party” to the Conventions and therefore do not fall under them.

So what this article represents is an enormous red herring for the quacks hysterically trying to claim that Bush/Cheney are war criminals and that the US was criminally negligent in its use of “enhanced” interrogation methods that do NOT meet the definition of torture by the Geneva Conventions OR the United Nations.
 
I prefer that he took some time to carefully examine the issue before taking action. Beats the hell out of flying by the seat of our pants as a nation.

But of course, your comments are purely your opinion and do not relate to how the Bush Adminstration actually worked. :2wave:
 
Yet he kept it open and his administration eluded that the existence of GITMO and the interrogations taking place their were essential to our national security and removing these things would create a gaping hole of vulnerability for us.

Actions speak louder then words. Obama will realize that soon enough if he fails to take action.

I find the bolded part amusing; as if Obama will suffer political ramifications for not implementing the radical Left wings agenda. What are they going to do, fire him? Elect a Republican? :rofl
 
Absolutely. Now that Petraeus is endorsing Obama's closure of Gitmo, is he still going to be looked at as "Betrayus" by Moveon.org?

Let's be clear here, Petraeus did not endorse ANYTHING and there is no PLAN as of this date to CLOSE Gitmo.
 
It's not only Patraeus (R's 2012 "dream candidate")who endorses Obama's plan, but it's also the former Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, current Defense Secretary Gates, current Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Mullen....... current and past top military officers.....

Looks like "close air support" with lots of "fruit salad" supporting Obama.

They've all come out within this past week in support of Obama closing GITMO.
 
Just checking on this: does this mean that every time Coulter opens her mouth and says something stupid, I can blame all of you on the right and talk about how you sicken me?

If you wanna look ridiculous, sure. There's a big difference between forcing a relationship between a single pundit and the entire party and seeing a correlation between a driving economic and activist force within a party.

By Gibberish's own account...3 million. 1 Anne Coulter does not equal 3 million moveon loons.
 
Sorry the Rev got my wound up with his ignorant over generalizations.
My thoughts are that they will no doubt praise him for his endorsement. Though while condemning him for his previous decisions, thank him for finally coming around.

MoveOn is a ludicrous group of individuals.

I am always amused when Liberals suffer from selective outrage over Conservatives "ignorant" over generalizations but then thank their own for much the same rhetoric.

But rather than support your claims with facts to counter Reverend, you would rather engage in insulting personal attacks than credible debate; this would pretty much define hypocrisy.

:roll:
 
If you wanna look ridiculous, sure. There's a big difference between forcing a relationship between a single pundit and the entire party and seeing a correlation between a driving economic and activist force within a party.

By Gibberish's own account...3 million. 1 Anne Coulter does not equal 3 million moveon loons.

Moveon does not represent the left as a whole, or even a large part. It's basically a lobbying organization, with a few other things thrown in. It is no more the voice of the left, than Coulter is the face of the right. Like I suspect most left wing people, I agree with MoveOn sometimes, disagree sometimes. Like many left wingers, I was pissed at the General Betrayus comment.
 
Just checking on this: does this mean that every time Coulter opens her mouth and says something stupid, I can blame all of you on the right and talk about how you sicken me?

That depends; I am sure your notions about what constitutes stupid are much different than mine.

But rather than farcically branding an obviously highly intelligent woman as being stupid, why not debate her claims and show where they could be stupid?

:2wave:
 
It's not only Patraeus (R's 2012 "dream candidate")who endorses Obama's plan, but it's also the former Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, current Defense Secretary Gates, current Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Mullen....... current and past top military officers.....

Looks like "close air support" with lots of "fruit salad" supporting Obama.

They've all come out within this past week in support of Obama closing GITMO.

What Obama plan is there? Please share it with us because I have not seen a "plan" yet.

And if there is no "plan", how can all these people you quote agree with it?
 
That depends; I am sure your notions about what constitutes stupid are much different than mine.

But rather than farcically branding an obviously highly intelligent woman as being stupid, why not debate her claims and show where they could be stupid?

:2wave:

What is "farcical" is that I said when she said something stupid, not that she is stupid, and you twisted that to mean something else.
 
Moveon does not represent the left as a whole, or even a large part. It's basically a lobbying organization, with a few other things thrown in. It is no more the voice of the left, than Coulter is the face of the right. Like I suspect most left wing people, I agree with MoveOn sometimes, disagree sometimes. Like many left wingers, I was pissed at the General Betrayus comment.

My point is that it is highly influential. It is also relevant how moveon reacts to this development as it is a signal of how the most extreme leftists are prone to behave.
 
I haven't seen MoveOn praise Petraeus yet but of course if he now is in agreement with what MoveOn feels is right then of course they would.

Would you find yourself a hypocrite if you found yourself praising someone for agreeing with you even if you previously attacked them for their previous stance?




they essentially called him a traitor. It's a matter of degrees.


Read the add:


http://cdn.moveon.org/pac/content/pac/pdfs/PetraeusNYTad.pdf


Is this man who they called a liar, now telling the truth, only when he agrees with thier agenda?


F those kooks.
 
MoveOn.org no more represents the Dem party than Fox represents the Repub party.
That doesn't stop Democrats from claiming that Fox is the official mouthpiece of the GOP. Stop being so disingenuous.

General Petraeus is just the latest military leader to back yet another of Obama's decisions. :2wave:
On those other occasions, it was because Obama was acting exactly like Bush. But in this case, it's because anyone can make a mistake now and then -- even Petraeus.
 
I realize that Conservatives have trouble adapting to changes...even positive changes...but try not to let your unconscious defense mechanism deny thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable to you...like Patraeus speaking the truth. The OP is not about the left dissagreeing with Patraeus during the surge, and agreeing with him now. Right now the man whom the right put on a pedestal as the most "brilliant military mind alive" agrees with Obama, and not with you. And righties can't squirm out of that reality with the "you didn't agree with him in 2007" defense.




What are you babbling about? :lol:


Read the move on ad. They are a bunch of hypocrites.



Either way. Patreaus may agree with obama that "gitmo should be closed". but where are the meat and potatos?
 
There are roughly 28 million registered Democrats in this country. MoveOn represents about 3 million of them. They are hardly the spokesmen for "the left".

What does Moveon.org thinks have to do with Petraeus endorsing Obama? Does what StormFront thinks dictate who those on the right should and should not embrace?




Hey man, aren't you one of the ones who claim Limbaugh speaks for all conservatives?
 
What is "farcical" is that I said when she said something stupid, not that she is stupid, and you twisted that to mean something else.

My point is the same; here is my correction:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector
That depends; I am sure your notions about what constitutes stupid are much different than mine.

But rather than farcically branding an obviously highly intelligent woman STATEMENT as being stupid, why not debate her claims and show where they could be stupid?


Happy now? :2wave:
 
How did a thread on Gitmo and Petraeus become a thread on MoveOn? Ah yes, our right wing friends need to change the subject to something they are more comfortable with.
 
A Plan? Are you seriously saying that you do not see evidence of a plan?

Lets take a look at Gitmo. The order is pretty specific: it will be closed within a year. The prisoners cases will be reviewed and decisions will be made based on the circumstances of the cases, and other factors like the likelihood that the nation of origin will accept them. Those that are retained in custody will do so, most likely in a supermax prison, where they will eventually be brought to trail from crimes that we can prove they have committed .... in accordance with the principals of our constitution.

I suppose that is not quite as simplistic as the 'off with their heads', or 'throw the lot of them into the Ocean,' but it marks a sharp break with 'secret' tribunals under which prisoners were convicted by evidence that they could not see and had no chance to refute. It also marks a sharpe break from the political pressure to 'find' the prisoners guilty under those conditions, conditions that were repeatedly struck down by our Supreme Court.

You may not like the plan, but not liking a plan and not having a plan are two entirely different things.
 
Last edited:
But of course, your comments are purely your opinion and do not relate to how the Bush Adminstration actually worked. :2wave:

It's your paranoia that led you to believe that this was a critique of the Bush administration. It was a critique of those on the far left that felt Obama should have released prisoners from Gitmo on January 21, and have been critical that he has not yet done so.
 
Last edited:
I find the bolded part amusing; as if Obama will suffer political ramifications for not implementing the radical Left wings agenda. What are they going to do, fire him? Elect a Republican? :rofl

This is exactly what I was critiquing, I have no respect, WHATSOEVER, for far leftist groups like Moveon.
 
Just checking on this: does this mean that every time Coulter opens her mouth and says something stupid, I can blame all of you on the right and talk about how you sicken me?

Sorry the Rev got my wound up with his ignorant over generalizations.

My thoughts are that they will no doubt praise him for his endorsement. Though while condemning him for his previous decisions, thank him for finally coming around.

MoveOn is a ludicrous group of individuals.





My bad, I did not realize you all considered yourselves "kooks"..... Thought i made a distinction there. You all incorrectly infered "all".... :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom