LET 'EM ROT! CAN'T GO BACK NOW!

5/7/2009 11:49:42 PM

I would say that you can't just release people willy-nilly into the US. I'd like to send em back where they came from. And if the countries won't take them, then, and here's an idea, USE DIPLOMACY!!! The whole world loves Obama. I'm sure we can work something out.

5/8/2009 12:11:44 AM

Willy Nilly

5/8/2009 12:20:01 AM

^^apparently that's been tried and only a few countries were willing to take a handful. not to mention, a number of the detainees were from yemen (ie where we wont' send them back for fear of human rights violations). and obviously this isn't being done "willy nilly" as you say. in fact, he's doing almost exactly what you suggest. so what's the problem with obama's approach so far? oh right, he's a democrat.

5/8/2009 11:12:30 AM

Quote :

"so what's the problem with obama's approach so far? oh right, he's a democrat. "

No the problem is, candidate Obama was running around saying "Close GitMo!" "Close GitMo!"

...and no one in the love-lorn press asked him what he planned to do with all of the prisoners. And now we see, too late of course, that he had no real plan. Thanks a lot press.

5/8/2009 8:25:11 PM

And yet Gitmo's cheerleaders still refuse to accept responsibility for even getting us into this mess to start with. So much for all that "personal responsibility" talk.

Perhaps if they'd have just listened to those objections over things like "determining if there is any evidence to hold these people in custody," we wouldn't be having this problem right now.

Nah.

5/8/2009 9:18:28 PM

BUSH AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE GREAT BIG POOPYHEADS!!!1

Q (Rational Person #1): Okay, we get it. So, what's Obama's plan for Gitmo detainees/terrorists?

A (Left-Wing Loon et al): *Crickets*

Q (Rational Person #1): Well?

A (Left-Wing Loon et al): POOPYHEAD! FUCK BUSH! RAWR. . .RAWR, RAWR!!!1 *Crickets*

5/9/2009 1:23:12 AM

Behold, personal responsibility at its finest. Rely on somebody else to clean up your messes.

5/9/2009 1:33:07 AM

I'm pretty sure that part of what makes something a mistake is that it's not inconsequential to clean up.

5/9/2009 1:50:43 AM

I think Obama will have everything "clean[ed] up" by next "Cinco de Cuatro" (sic).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_OWAs0aIU

I think it falls right after Neveruary.

Good thing Obama didn't have to speak "Austrian" (sic).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c

PS: At least "dumb Bush" could speak Spanish.

5/9/2009 2:06:32 AM

Quote :

"Q (Rational Person #1): Okay, we get it. So, what's Obama's plan for Gitmo detainees/terrorists? "

A: Criminal trials. They've been good enough for terrorists in the past in the US. They are good enough here. Even a modified Military-Criminal Trial.

But enough of this secret military commission shit where they won't even give the defendants legal pads to write motions on, because, uhhhh, they have to write a motion to request a legal pad.

5/9/2009 9:20:16 AM

^ Yeah, but. . .

Obama, in Reversal of Campaign Pledge, May Use Military Commissions

http://tinyurl.com/chdtzu

And I meant where are detainees/terrorists going to be held when/if Obama closes Gitmo? In addition, Colin Powell said if it were up to him, he would close Gitmo on day one--if Gitmo is so bad, why hasn't Obama closed it already?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aW992-5zNg

5/9/2009 6:26:46 PM

Quote :

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military said on Saturday its troops had shot dead a 12-year-old Iraqi boy suspected of throwing a grenade at them, and said it believed insurgents were paying children to help them. Iraqi police in Mosul said the boy, who had sold sweets in the street, was shot more than once in the head. -Reuters, Sat May 9, 2009 "

What? Obama's military shooting children? Why wasn't this youngster brought back and put into our criminal justice system?

Didn't Obama criticise our military policy.....

Quote :

"We've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

5/9/2009 10:50:18 PM

Has the conjunctive form of "and" suddenly gone out of style? Because it seems fairly obvious from the context that the statement is intended to imply, "killing civilians [due to indiscriminate air bombing]."

There's plenty of very good reasons to criticize Obama, but this has to be one of the more retarded ones I've heard lately.

5/9/2009 10:52:46 PM

^
Think again.

Obama has to face the sad tragedies and responsibilities of war with these terrorists. During the election, attempting to shame Bush via unavoidable results of war, it was easy to throw around emotional statements about killing civilians.

Just because we've changed presidents, stories like this 12 year old mercenary are not going to magically disappear. Obama made a mistake blaming the US military for the horrors of war in his quest for the White House.

Will Obama flip-flop? Will he make excuses now when hismilitary has to do distasteful things?

5/9/2009 11:08:30 PM

Once again, context.

The original statement, with one minor addition:

Quote :

"We've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and [therefore] killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

Do you see how this naturally flows into the meaning?

Despite all his tripe (and there's plenty of it), I doubt even Obama is dumb enough to think that civilian casualties are entirely avoidable (save for not getting involved in elective wars to start, but I digress...) It is patently obvious from this statement that it is meant to imply that we conduct air raids as opposed to raids on the ground due to a lack of manpower, and hence incur higher civilian casualties as a result. You pretty much have to break the conjunctive form of "and" over your knee for your alternative reading to work.

5/9/2009 11:20:03 PM

Well even if I allow you to torture his language, take out and re-insert your own words....his on-the-ground military which is sufficient now that he is president..is still killing plenty of civilians.

Democratic president Truman was probably the worst offender when it came to the atomic air-raiding of civilians in order to preserve US military lives. But that strategy is apparantly no-good anymore according to Obama. In order to legitimately kill civilians, we must have plenty of soldiers on the ground.

5/10/2009 10:43:00 AM

Look, I'm not even going to bother to argue language with you, since it's obvious that you simply want to abuse it to make a cheap political point. (Emphasis upon "cheap," since there are far better points to be made about Obama than this one.)

Are you seriously going to argue that we would case as many civilian casualties by ground raids as we do by air strikes? Not zero - as many.

Well?

5/10/2009 12:35:34 PM

^ "Well," just so long as Obama continues to fight the "rise of privacy" on the high seas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMoTkIfw0vs

5/10/2009 9:21:08 PM

^ He did vote for warrantless wiretaps and telecom immunity, you know...

5/10/2009 10:01:41 PM

5/10/2009 10:03:53 PM

I PEED THIS FAR

5/10/2009 10:51:30 PM

Quote :

"Well?"

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of things with which to disagree with Obama. He is acting more and more like Bush every day. But now he has a complacent press on his side.

This lack of critical inquiry into his doings, a cooperation in the burying of his marxist philosophy, his disregard for the Constituion and individual liberty, and the failure to show Obama's complete ineptitude in protecting the country is very dangerous for us all.

5/10/2009 11:24:25 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously going to argue that we would case as many civilian casualties by ground raids as we do by air strikes? Not zero - as many."

It's a tough call, actually. But, if we resorted solely to ground operations, then the number of deaths of US servicemen would skyrocket. Can't really have that, now can we?

Quote :

"apparently that's been tried and only a few countries were willing to take a handful. not to mention, a number of the detainees were from yemen (ie where we wont' send them back for fear of human rights violations). and obviously this isn't being done "willy nilly" as you say. in fact, he's doing almost exactly what you suggest. so what's the problem with obama's approach so far? oh right, he's a democrat."

No, the problem is, as was stated before, that he has been all about closing gitmo with a fucking plan in place. It's almost like we are back in 2003 when dubya is planning on invading Iraq, frankly. And, I am more than willing to bet that there is more diplomacy that can be done to get these people back into their HOME countries.

5/11/2009 7:46:18 PM

Obama reverses course on alleged prison abuse photos

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/prisoner.photos/

Flippity-floppity, Election Day's on its way!

Seriously, though, it's amateur hour at the White House.

5/14/2009 12:58:14 AM

Obama said to be open to taxing health benefits

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to taxing health care benefits, something he campaigned hard against while running for president, according to senators who met with him Tuesday. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., raised the issue with Obama during a private meeting with the president and other Democratic senators and later reported the president's position: 'It's on the table. It's an option.' The White House said later that Obama did not want to go that route."

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/5265810/

For God's sake, can anything Obama says be believed?

6/3/2009 1:13:01 PM

nope

6/3/2009 1:19:20 PM

^^ and thank goodness. It is frustrating that Obama fibbed on the campaign trail (so much for being that "new kind" of politician), but its definitely a good idea to end the special treatment that health benefits have under current tax law.

If we eliminate the tax advantage of health benefits, many employers will likely stop offering health insurance as part of their compensation packages and instead give their workers higher salaries. This means people will be free to choose from a variety of plans and not just the ones their employers pick for them. This was all part of McCain's health care plan that Obama criticized.

Of course, now that I've thought about it for a second, Obama's plan has an additional wrinkle that McCain's did not that may make this a bad idea. Obama promises to have a "public alternative" plan that will be able to choose. If that plan is as cheap and great as Obama and the Democrats make it sound, then my bet is that lots of people will sign up for this plan that would not do so otherwise if tax benefits are taxed. From Obama's perspective that's probably a good thing, so I'm surprised no one predicted that Obama would reverse his pledge.

But, the bad news is that more people on the public plan will be mean health care takes up an even larger piece of the federal budget. As if deficits were not already high enough!!!

Of course, if all the fears among Republicans about Obamacare are correct (denied procedures, more bureaucracy, etc etc) then people will flee from the public alternative as fast as they can to the private insurance companies. So maybe it wont be such a bad idea after all. Policy is really fucking hard to make. Glad it aint my job.

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ``]

6/3/2009 1:25:35 PM

^ I guess "fibbed" sounds better than just plain lied, huh?

6/3/2009 1:31:38 PM

The bad thing about taxing healthcare is that it was only PART of the mccain plan. The other, which seems to be left out by O, is providing a tax credit.

6/3/2009 1:41:33 PM

^^ i don't know that he lied. He reversed positions. Sometimes he clearly has lied (like when he said that his position on Iraq had not changed since 2002), but I have no idea if this is the case now.

eyedrb Indeed. McCain also wanted to eliminate the barriers of purchasing health insurance across state lines. More competition typically = lower prices and higher quality. I think all of these elements would have made insurance easier to afford for everyone. In this sense, its shame he didn't get elected.

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ``]

6/3/2009 1:43:19 PM

eyedrb now I think I see what you're saying. Since Obama is not providing a tax credit, private insurance will possibly more expensive under Obama's plan than under McCain's plan. You're right about that. And I don't think we will ever see that tax credit because I think this entire movie about making private plans relatively more expensive than the public one Obama will put out.

Like I indicated earlier, I think this move is to primarily get more people to sign up for Obama's public alternative insurance plan, which is supposed to be cheaper than most private options. The bad thing about that is that it will probably worsen the current budget situation.

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ``]

6/3/2009 1:52:10 PM

I agree socks. I think having more people dependent on washington gives them more security/power.

It will be interesting for sure. Im hoping they will not make it illegal to NOT accept the govt insurances as it is what Ill try to do.

6/3/2009 1:55:20 PM

Quote :

"'On health care, John McCain promises a tax credit,' an announcer says in one of Obama's new ads, over images of families examining their bills. 'But here's what he won't tell you: McCain would make you pay taxes on your health benefits, taxing your health care for the first time ever, raising costs for employers who offer health care so your coverage could be reduced or dropped completely. You won't find one word about it on his Web site.'"

Quote :

"[Obama] called McCain's plan 'so radical, so out of touch with what you're facing, and so out of line with our basic values.'"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27020325/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9PIN03qGjg

6/3/2009 2:11:19 PM

Nationalized insurance will cost insurance worker jobz.

6/3/2009 2:21:54 PM

Quote :

"Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."

--President Barack Obama

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/10/flashback_obama_says_detainees_dont_deserve_miranda_rights.html

Obama Administration Says Some Detainees Overseas Are Being Mirandized -- and Bush Did It, Too

Quote :

"'It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent,' Hoekstra said. 'Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up.'"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/obama-administration-says-some-detainees-overseas-are-being-mirandized.html

6/11/2009 8:51:37 PM

^
The Messiah never contradicts himself... You're gonna get hit by lightning!

6/12/2009 10:29:42 AM

I don't think a 2003 interview counts as a "flip flop" and I don't think it's a problem giving some of the prisoners miranda rights either.

6/12/2009 10:37:33 AM

I'm shocked.

6/12/2009 11:11:11 AM

I too hate justice and truth.

6/12/2009 11:16:08 AM

this is fucking ridiculous, reading terrorists Miranda rights. I wonder what's next, dropping them off in Bermuda?



OH WAIT...

6/12/2009 11:19:56 AM

Quote :

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government."

--Barack Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

Grassley Urges White House to make Transparent any Ethics Waivers and Recusals

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley is pushing the Obama administration to make public the waivers and recusals it has issued to former lobbyists across the federal government. Late yesterday he wrote to the director of the Office of Government Ethics asking him to use his statutory authority to gather all waivers and recusals and make them public in a timely manner."

Quote :

"During his campaign for president and the first months in office, Obama gave statements that he would bring unprecedented ethics and transparency rules with him to Washington. In Iowa, Obama gave a speech saying that the days of corporate lobbyists setting the agenda in Washington are over. As president, he then issued an Executive Order that prohibits former lobbyists from serving in his Administration, or recuse themselves from work they did as a lobbyist. The Executive Order included a loophole that allowed former lobbyists to obtain a waiver or recusal from this revolving door ban. Following the Executive Order, White House staff said the use of the waiver or recusal would be limited and transparent. However, to date, there is no one place taxpayers can go to find all the waivers and recusals issued former lobbyists by the White House and federal agencies."

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=161504

Obama's Not-So-Open Government

Quote :

"[1] One of the most important litmus tests, in my mind, is the number of White House aides who are authorized to speak to reporters on the record. That currently amounts to only a handful of people, pretty much all of whom see their primary goal as sticking to talking points, spinning and delivering pithy sound bites. There should be dozens of people willing and able to actually explain to reporters what's going on inside the White House. [2] The White House Web site's much-vaunted blog is mostly window dressing, rather than window. (With some notable exceptions, including the participation of Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's chief economic adviser, and the live streaming of a few select White House meetings.) [3] Press Secretary Robert Gibbs apparently considers his role as primarily defensive and treats questions like things that need to be fended off, rather than engaged. [LOL!] The result has been a race to the bottom in the briefing room, where substantive queries are often a waste of time, and Gibbs instead yuks it up with the (mostly) boys in the front row. (Politico's Patrick Gavin documents the press room hilarity, as reflected by the 600 instances of laughter reflected in the transcripts of Gibbs's briefings so far -- or more than 10 per day.)"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/obamas-not-so-open-government.html

Flippity-floppity, Election Day's on its way!

6/12/2009 10:06:40 PM

Quote :

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon--everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1UTuYyACSA

Quote :

"No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons."

Quote :

"And any nation--including Iran--should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yOTO7q1naU

Quote :

" 1 May 2009 Iran remains the 'most active state sponsor of terrorism' in the world, a report by the US state department says."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028064.stm

6/15/2009 4:56:15 PM

Quote :

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon--everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1UTuYyACSA

Quote :

"No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons."

Quote :

"And any nation--including Iran--should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yOTO7q1naU

Quote :

" 1 May 2009 Iran remains the 'most active state sponsor of terrorism' in the world, a report by the US state department says."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028064.stm

6/15/2009 4:56:15 PM

Just because they're terrorists doesn't mean they have nukes, but it probably does.

6/15/2009 5:07:53 PM

US says hot dog diplomacy still on with Iran - 2 days ago

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters. President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution. 'There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats,' State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters. 'We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran,' Kelly said. 'We tried many years of isolation, and we're pursuing a different path now.' [O'RLY?!]"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hMtZsaQT4cTxcgA51WrpiUS6cWGg

Hot Dog Diplomacy is nixed - 16 hours ago

Quote :

"'Given the events of the last few days, those invitations will be no longer extended,' announced Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Wednesday."

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/24/hot-dog-diplomacy-is-nixed/

For Christ's sake, the Obama administration can't even solidify its position on a hot dog dinner!

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 8:26 AM. Reason : Just wow. ]

6/25/2009 8:26:02 AM

I as well am shocked anytime somebody reacts to a constantly worsening situation.

6/25/2009 8:30:28 AM

so does "flip-flop" have some other meaning than "to change one's mind and course of action in light of changing circumstances"

and if not

can someone explain why that's a bad thing

6/25/2009 8:39:55 AM

^^ Dude, you're stupid. It was only days ago that this young woman. . .



. . .Neda, was shot down in the street. How much fucking worse does it have to get?

And 48 hours ago the Obama administration said the Iranians could still come eat hot dogs--even after this outrageous murder and we're now learning many others like it. Barely a day later, these White House clowns flip-flopped--again--and decided to take some sort of a stand.

Sweet Jesus. It's amateur hour at the White House.

^ If you base your policies on principles--instead of having your finger in the wind--there will certainly be less reversals. I'm not saying that a president can't change his mine, but Obama's "reversals" are incessant.

And ask many on the left who are now disenchanted with Obama. They were promised things and Obama's not keeping many of those promises--yes, flip-flops do matter.

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 8:53 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2009 8:45:12 AM

by setting up "principles" versus "finger in the wind"

aren't you presenting a false dilemma

not every decision can be the best decision

but neither is every decision made lightly

aside:

shouldn't principles be subject to re-examination and change as well

6/25/2009 9:03:19 AM