• 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

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.

Umm, it could be that how Petreaus was treated was one of the biggest scandals last year and the two are now permanently tied together...

Or it could be because we still trust in Petreaus's opinions and so there is really nothing to discuss here except how those who don't trust in his opinions feel about it. :shrug:

Why are you so uncomfortable talking about it if they don't really speak for you?
 
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.




Sounds like you have the outline for a plan, Do you have a link to Obama's plan? Thanks.
 
Umm, it could be that how Petreaus was treated was one of the biggest scandals last year and the two are now permanently tied together...

Or it could be because we still trust in Petreaus's opinions and so there is really nothing to discuss here except how those who don't trust in his opinions feel about it. :shrug:

Why are you so uncomfortable talking about it if they don't really speak for you?

Or, it could be that the various political parties simply want to make Petreaus and his successes 'ours'. I have no doubt that if Afghanistan implodes, that failure will 'theirs'

An interesting tidbit, unless GEN PEtreaus lied to me and about a thousand other officers, he doesn't vote. He views his duty as to his country and to provide the Natioanl Command Authority (read President and key staff) with non-politicized military assessment and decisions within the framework of the limitations he is given. The 'political' fights he gets into are only the ones that relate to his ability to impliment sound and effective war plans.

Very few commander have his charisma, drive, toleration of dissent, and ability to focus a team in such an effective manner. We, as a nation, are more fortunate than you can imagine.

Had he not stepped in when he did, the military and the civilian officials were ready to slit each others throats over the blame for the failure in Iraq. Had that fight erupted, there would almost certainly have been constitutional considerations.

He is literally THE right man at the right time. We are truly fortunate for his leadership.
 
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.

Why don't you do everyone a HUGE favor and post a link that details all this out in the executive order Obama signed that put together a TEAM to EXAMINE HOW to close Gitmo within a year.

Then while you are at it, please tell us how this translates to a plan to actually close Gitmo and where Obama has NOT already reversed himself on several of his campaign "claims/promises."

I look forward to seeing EVIDENCE of this "plan." But just to be sure we are all on the same page; here is what a plan means:

Main Entry: plan !plan
Pronunciation: \ ˈplan \
Function: noun
Etymology: French, plane, foundation, ground plan; partly from Latin planum level ground, from neuter of planus level; partly from French planter to plant, fix in place, from Late Latin plantare - More at - floor, plant
Date: 1706
Results

1. a drawing or diagram drawn on a plane: as a. a top or horizontal view of an object b. a large-scale map of a small area

2 a. a method for achieving an end b. an often customary method of doing something : procedure c. a detailed formulation of a program of action d. goal aim

3. an orderly arrangement of parts of an overall design or objective

4. a detailed program (as for payment or the provision of some service) - pension plan


Again, a plan is not speculative rhetoric, a campaign pledge or an executive order establishing a commission to study something to formulate a plan.

:2wave:
 
Or, it could be that the various political parties simply want to make Petreaus and his successes 'ours'.

It's not "ours". It's his and the Republican party's successes. The democrats spent so many years preaching messages of defeat in desperate attempts to get elected that they missed the "ours" bus a long time ago.
 
Why not try the White House web site? barrackobama.com? You tell me.





Sure.


uhm



NO PLAN.....



Hannibal%20I%20Love%20It%20When%20a%20Plan%20Comes%20Together%20A-Team_small.gif



That wasn't hard. And I did all the work. :lol:
 
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.

Perhaps it is not my “paranoia” but rather your lack of clarity? :2razz:
 
Why don't you do everyone a HUGE favor and post a link that details all this out in the executive order Obama signed that put together a TEAM to EXAMINE HOW to close Gitmo within a year.

Then while you are at it, please tell us how this translates to a plan to actually close Gitmo and where Obama has NOT already reversed himself on several of his campaign "claims/promises."

I look forward to seeing EVIDENCE of this "plan." But just to be sure we are all on the same page; here is what a plan means:

Main Entry: plan !plan
Pronunciation: \ ˈplan \
Function: noun
Etymology: French, plane, foundation, ground plan; partly from Latin planum level ground, from neuter of planus level; partly from French planter to plant, fix in place, from Late Latin plantare - More at - floor, plant
Date: 1706
Results

1. a drawing or diagram drawn on a plane: as a. a top or horizontal view of an object b. a large-scale map of a small area

2 a. a method for achieving an end b. an often customary method of doing something : procedure c. a detailed formulation of a program of action d. goal aim

3. an orderly arrangement of parts of an overall design or objective

4. a detailed program (as for payment or the provision of some service) - pension plan


Again, a plan is not speculative rhetoric, a campaign pledge or an executive order establishing a commission to study something to formulate a plan.

:2wave:

Well, I can do that right after you show me Bush's detailed plan as well.

However, as a porfessional military officer who has made a few plans, I can tell you that evidence of a plan, and certainly a deliberate decision making process, is moving on gitmo.

I certainly cannot provide you with THE operations order for teh changes in Afghanistan, but I can gleen that the center of gravity is securing Kabul and key cities in the country through the elections. That our soldiers are being shifted to locations either in, or next to, remote population center from which to conduct operations and build relationships with the indigenous population, and that we are shifting a great deal of our kinetic focus into advisory roles for systems (hence Gates's call for more civilians) and security forces (more advisors).

I also think that GEN McKiernan's resistence to these changes got him the boot.

I of course cannot provide you with a copy of these plans or the inner workings of the decision to fire McKiernan, but I am fairly certain that this doesn't mean there is not plan or deliberate decision making going on.

Tell you what, you prove to me that no one in the Obama administration is conducting any planning on this one. Can you?

You got any documents from white house staffers saying, "Obama, he's just talking! There is no plan!!!"

Figure it out.
 
Why not try the White House web site? barrackobama.com? You tell me.

I have been to the site and it contains little substance and nothing specific. perhaps you can help find this proverbial "plan" which I cannot seem to locate? :cool:
 
My bad, I did not realize you all considered yourselves "kooks"..... Thought i made a distinction there. You all incorrectly infered "all".... :2wave:

You said:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
SO "betrayus" is now in vogue for the kook leftists

That looks to imply that the left are kooks. I fully admit there are kooks on the left, and on the right. I have also repeatedly complained that we should not hold all of the left, nor the right, responsible for those kooks. I find it sad when you, or anyone, decides to dodge an issue by bringing up something one of those kooks does.
 
Well, I can do that right after you show me Bush's detailed plan as well.

However, as a porfessional military officer who has made a few plans, I can tell you that evidence of a plan, and certainly a deliberate decision making process, is moving on gitmo.

I certainly cannot provide you with THE operations order for teh changes in Afghanistan, but I can gleen that the center of gravity is securing Kabul and key cities in the country through the elections. That our soldiers are being shifted to locations either in, or next to, remote population center from which to conduct operations and build relationships with the indigenous population, and that we are shifting a great deal of our kinetic focus into advisory roles for systems (hence Gates's call for more civilians) and security forces (more advisors).

I also think that GEN McKiernan's resistence to these changes got him the boot.

I of course cannot provide you with a copy of these plans or the inner workings of the decision to fire McKiernan, but I am fairly certain that this doesn't mean there is not plan or deliberate decision making going on.

Tell you what, you prove to me that no one in the Obama administration is conducting any planning on this one. Can you?

You got any documents from white house staffers saying, "Obama, he's just talking! There is no plan!!!"

Figure it out.

So in other words, you cannot provide the "plan" to close Gitmo because it does not exist. Thank you for admitting there is NO plan and therefore Petreaus cannot possibly endorse Obama's plan because there isn't one.

In addition, this is just a LOT of speculation on your part.

Thank you for clarifying this for us; it helps advance the debate in a productive manner and refutes the premise of the threads author.
 
A lot of people are saying that Guantanamo is the best place for Muslim prisoners because it is all geared towards Muslims. They have certain times and places for prayer and they are given courtesies that US mainland prisons don't give.

The weather is gorgeous and all your fellow prisoners are the same religion. Why would they want to go somewhere else? It seems it would solve everything if they just stayed where they are and everybody got over it. Nobody wants them.
 
It's not "ours". It's his and the Republican party's successes. The democrats spent so many years preaching messages of defeat in desperate attempts to get elected that they missed the "ours" bus a long time ago.

tell you what jall, having been a part of the process of turning that burning ship around, there was very little 'Republican' support for Petreaus.

Had the Republicans continued to support GEN Casey, whom Bush promoted for some reason, we would no longer be in Iraq.

GEN Petreaus fundamentally changed the way we did business in Iraq, and this business about it being democrat and republican is about as far wide of te mark as you can get.

From GEN Petreaus, who was asked about the differences between the then candidates, his response was telling, "There is only a certain amount of room that either candidate has for manuever in theater. Whichever is elected, the resulting policies will likely look largely the same."

His point being that, even if the order were given to withdrawal, that would still take several years to be done orderly, and that efforts to professionalize and stabilize Iraq could not simply be abandoned without catastrophic costs that neither man would likely bear.

He was right. Not the Republican or the Democrats.
 
So in other words, you cannot provide the "plan" to close Gitmo because it does not exist. Thank you for admitting there is NO plan and therefore Petreaus cannot possibly endorse Obama's plan because there isn't one.

In addition, this is just a LOT of speculation on your part.

Thank you for clarifying this for us; it helps advance the debate in a productive manner and refutes the premise of the threads author.

It is speculation based on what has been released in the press and was in Obama's last speech.

Again, detailed plans about sensitive issues are not exactly posted on the internet, nor should they be. That they aren't doesn't mean that a plan doesn't exist.

Did you see the orders that changed Iraq? I did, they are nevertheless classified and I cannot release them to you.

Must not be a plan then?

Ahem, still waiting for the Bush plan. I would hate to think that we HAD NO PLAN for eight years and gitmo happened without any coherent thought process whatsoever. (Which may have been the case when you peel the onion back anyway).
 
Last edited:
tell you what jall, having been a part of the process of turning that burning ship around, there was very little 'Republican' support for Petreaus.

Had the Republicans continued to support GEN Casey, whom Bush promoted for some reason, we would no longer be in Iraq.

GEN Petreaus fundamentally changed the way we did business in Iraq, and this business about it being democrat and republican is about as far wide of te mark as you can get.

From GEN Petreaus, who was asked about the differences between the then candidates, his response was telling, "There is only a certain amount of room that either candidate has for manuever in theater. Whichever is elected, the resulting policies will likely look largely the same."

His point being that, even if the order were given to withdrawal, that would still take several years to be done orderly, and that efforts to professionalize and stabilize Iraq could not simply be abandoned without catastrophic costs that neither man would likely bear.

He was right. Not the Republican or the Democrats.

Yet, his vocal opposition was from democrats. I do love to read these fairy tales you create in an effort to diminish the sordid behavior of the democrats toward Petreaus by making it seem as if Republicans were doing the same. Entertaining. Really.
 
Umm, it could be that how Petreaus was treated was one of the biggest scandals last year and the two are now permanently tied together...

Or it could be because we still trust in Petreaus's opinions and so there is really nothing to discuss here except how those who don't trust in his opinions feel about it. :shrug:

Why are you so uncomfortable talking about it if they don't really speak for you?

It was hardly the biggest scandal of last year. it was a week long at best scandal, and the add was pretty much universally condemned. End of story.

Now some one both you on the right respect, and alot of us on the left respect(we are not pinko commie fascist America hating fags all the time you know), says something you on the right disagree with, and you all go after an old add that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
 
It is speculation based on what has been released in the press and was in Obama's last speech.

Again, detailed plans about sensitive issues are not exactly posted on the internet, nor should they be. That they aren't doesn't mean that a plan doesn't exist.

Did you see the orders that changed Iraq? I did, they are nevertheless classified and I cannot release them to you.

Must not be a plan then?

What a laughable argument you attempt; but the TRUTH is that there really is no Obama "plan" as of this date to close Gitmo therefore, contrary to the false premise of the thread, Petreaus was not "endorsing" said non-existent plan because it does not currently exist.

Am I correct or not?
 
It was hardly the biggest scandal of last year. it was a week long at best scandal,

Well that right there highlights a fundamental difference in how the left and the right think about the treatment of our military heroes...
 
You said:



That looks to imply that the left are kooks. I fully admit there are kooks on the left, and on the right. I have also repeatedly complained that we should not hold all of the left, nor the right, responsible for those kooks. I find it sad when you, or anyone, decides to dodge an issue by bringing up something one of those kooks does.




Read it again... I spelled out which specific leftists I was refering to. Those would be the Kook leftists....


There are kook righties as well just so you know.


You now are building a strawman. I have clearly explained where you failed to comprehend my very clear statement brother. :mrgreen:
 
Yet, his vocal opposition was from democrats. I do love to read these fairy tales you create in an effort to diminish the sordid behavior of the democrats toward Petreaus by making it seem as if Republicans were doing the same. Entertaining. Really.

Well, considering GEN Petreaus simply ignored it, much the same way democrats have moved beyond the catigation of those who said, "Heh, ummm, torture is a bad thing!", and were called traitors and worse for daring to say that when it happened.

Even McCain took flak from his party for making that distinction.

What is clear is that, before GEN Petreaus, we were doing the wrong things, we were failing, and after GEN Petreaus briefed the facts in his usual professional manner the majority of both parties got behind them.

Again, dredging this up is about making GEN Petreaus 'ours'. From his own mouth, he is neither. He is America's.

Sorry that doesn't help either party. I am sorry he didn't come along sooner and have to pull us back from the brink before thousands died needlessly, but he came alongwhen he did and he survived the purging of generals under Rumsfeld. Thank God.

By the way, Rummy still fully claims the Republican party as his own.
 
Back
Top Bottom