Finally, an opponent takes the gloves off against Obama

[spence]

Obama wasn't forced, I think he looked at the situation (i.e. nobody wanted to take any of the inmates still there regardless of their threat level) and had no other options.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama wasn't forced, I think he looked at the situation (i.e. nobody wanted to take any of the inmates still there regardless of their threat level) and had no other options.

-spence

So what was Obama thinking when he said (as he was looking for votes during the campaign), that he'd close Gitmo? He said the existence of Gitmo was an embarassment, and he criticized Bush for using Gitmo.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what was Obama thinking when he said (as he was looking for votes during the campaign), that he'd close Gitmo? He said the existence of Gitmo was an embarassment, and he criticized Bush for using Gitmo.

Not closing Gitmo is far from an endorsement. Obama was simply hamstrung by bad Bush policy he inherited.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not closing Gitmo is far from an endorsement. Obama was simply hamstrung by bad Bush policy he inherited.

-spence

Spence, you're really talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

So according to you, it was bad for Bush to use Gitmo. But it's brilliant for Obama to continue using it, because it's the smartest possible option. It was bad when Bush used Gitmo, awesome for Obama to use it.

Do I have that right?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you're really talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

So according to you, it was bad for Bush to use Gitmo. But it's brilliant for Obama to continue using it, because it's the smartest possible option. It was bad when Bush used Gitmo, awesome for Obama to use it.

Do I have that right?

No.
Gitmo wasn't great, but maybe needed after 9/11....
Now, it is a bitch to close b/c not all are suitable for release, and no country wants them.... it is definetly not brilliant or awesome. I think he's stuck and made a stupid promise....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No.
Gitmo wasn't great, but maybe needed after 9/11....
Now, it is a bitch to close b/c not all are suitable for release, and no country wants them.... it is definetly not brilliant or awesome. I think he's stuck and made a stupid promise....

"Gitmo wasn't great, but maybe needed after 9/11.... '

I didn't hear any Democrats saying that when Bush was in office. All I heard was that Bush was the second coming of Atilla The Hun for opening Gitmo. Then Obama descended from the heavens, declared that Gitmo was antithetical to American values. Yet, Gitmo is still there.

If any liberal feels that Gitmo is an unfortunate necessity in a screwed-up world (which is the truth), they should also feel like they owe Bush an apology. Because Bush used Gitmo for the same reason you just cited, and for that, he caughgt a lot of heat from folks on your side of the aisle...

"b/c not all are suitable for release, and no country wants them..."


Like Spence, you are using that to justify the fact that Obama is continuing to use Gitmo. But why don't you also concede that very same reason is justification for Bush opening up Gitmo in the first place?

Here's how this conversation is unfolding...

Bush: We can't keep these terrorists anywhere else, so I'll put them in Gitmo.

Liberals: Booo! War criminal! Impeach Bush! Hate crime! Murderer!

Obama: I'm going to close Gitmo...

Liberals: Yeah!

Obama: We can't keep these terrorists anywhere else, so I'll put them in Gitmo (note the similarity between this statement and Bush's statement)

Liberals: OK, sounds good!

It's OK for Obama to use Gitmo to keep these terrorists, but Bush was a monster for doing the same exact thing?

RIJIMMY, I don't often agree with you, but you are one very thoughtful person. In this case, it seems to me that Bush and Obama did the same exact thing. One guy gets villified for it, the other gets worshipped.

RIJIMMY, let me put it this way...please tell me the difference between Bush's use of Gitmo, and Obama's use of Gitmo. Because Bush caught a lot of heat for his use of Gitmo. In my opinion, Obama is using Gitmo the same exact way, and he gets a pass.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

RIJIMMY, let me put it this way...please tell me the difference between Bush's use of Gitmo, and Obama's use of Gitmo. Because Bush caught a lot of heat for his use of Gitmo. In my opinion, Obama is using Gitmo the same exact way, and he gets a pass.

How many have been added to the detaines under this administration? I ask b/c I just don't know... it does change that argument for 'using' and being 'stuck with'

and yes, I agree he was pandering, we aren't all blind idealogs on the left Jim........

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Like Spence, you are using that to justify the fact that Obama is continuing to use Gitmo. But why don't you also concede that very same reason is justification for Bush opening up Gitmo in the first place?

This doesn't make any sense.

Records seem to indicate that the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were released. Hell, people were just scooped up...Accounts of recidivism are small, but probably to be expected.

It appears like of those who are left they're either people of little threat that no country will take, or some genuinely dangerous folks that nobody wants to bring in the US, probably because the evidence against them is pretty weak.

It's a wart that Obama inherited and there's no easy solution.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No.
I think he's stuck and made a stupid promise....

BINGO! He was pandering to the people who wanted it closed. Then, when he realized he wasn't going to be able to deliver on that and other promises he made, instead of just saying "maybe I was wrong to make that promise", he makes up lame excuses to deflect the blame.

I think he sucks as a President.