White House Says Comments from GOP Leader Boehner Are Crazy

At the end of the day it seems right wingers are rank cowards and want others to act just as cowardly so they do not feel so ashamed.

please create on private sector job. until then you people are worthless and taking up space that better people could fill. you people are pelosi reid and obama

That is what the GOP does for every suggestion of the Obama Administration, they say No, Can’t, Fear, without offering any solutions. At least these prisoners will be dealt with and not just sit rotting in a prison that has a Stigma attached to of torture and shame. It is the GOP who cannot get anything accomplished because they are the party of No, Can’t and Fear. Oh yeah and Lies!

“No, Can’t, Fear, without offering any solutions.”
Another example the success of the Democrats in shaping opinions of the uninformed.

That is what the GOP does for every suggestion of the Obama Administration, they say No, Can’t, Fear, without offering any solutions.
=====
This Congress, this Democratic Congress, denied Obama the funds to close Gitmo.
As for fear, anyone who says Gitmo helps recruit terrorists is trying to use fear to persuade us it should be closed. It may be legitimate, or they may think it is legitimate, but they want you to be more afraid of the current condition than the one they propose.

Once the Gitmo detainees are safely tucked away in the Thomson Correctional Center, I wonder how long it will take the senior al Qaeda leadership to begin using the TCC as a clarion call to American al Qaeda wannabes to join their jihad? And they won’t even need a passport. Instead they can just descend upon Thomson, IL and concentrate their efforts in attempting to spring the detainees.

When are those “grown ups”, that the Dems promised us would be in charge, ever going to show up? Gibbs and Obama deride, taunt and insult fellow Americans simply for disagreeing with them.

I haven’t figured out the differrence between Gitmo Cuba and Gitmo Illinois. Gitmo Cuba is surrounded by military guards and numerous civilians that work on the base and Gitmo illinois will be basically the same.

james…Exactly…the fact of matter is, it is not the detainees locked behind walls in Illinois that is the concern, it is the element that will be attracted to the town of Thomas…I wonder if the residents REALLY thought out this side of the debate…Three thousand jobs??? If I lived in the area, one million jobs would not make it worth the risk…..

GITMO North
The new ground zero for terrorist.
Obama is just begging for another attack in the US.
The KSM trial in New York and now this decision. A bone to the left.
All about politics, not about our safety.

ABC News has resources to report on fluff pieces such as “President Obama Dips in Approval Ratings, but Portrait Still Inspires” and “President Obama Traces His Love of Basketball to an Xmas Gift from his Absent Father” but cannot find it within their journalistic senses to report on the following:
“According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if (Senator Ben) Nelson doesn’t fall into line (with healthcare reform/vote for ObamaCare).
Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a “naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson’s vote.” They are “threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?” asked the Senate staffer.
Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.
===============================
Is ABC News planning to look into this? Or will ABC News choose to remain silent as they did for ACORN videos, Anita Dunn’s praise of Chairman Mao, Van Jones, ClimateGate, etc.?

Gitmo has gone on waaay to long. Should have been trials long ago….I am glad this is finally moving forward…regardless of the outcome…

“Why do right wingers fear our justice system?”
I, for one, don’t fear the American justice system. The problem is these detainees are not common criminals. They are enemy combatants during war time. And they have been treated as enemy combatants from day one–no Miranda warnings and no collection of forensic evidence. So I would expect the American justice system to easily acquit most if not all of the detainees. But before that these detainees will literally have their day in court. They will take the stand and spew their propaganda and their anti-America hate speech.

“According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if (Senator Ben) Nelson doesn’t fall into line (with healthcare reform/vote for ObamaCare).
tjp612 | Dec 15, 2009 7:42:49 PM
I wish. It would be awfully nice to seen some LBJ grade back bone in the Democrats. But oddly I have trouble believing what an anonymous aid reputably said. Frankly, based on their track record, I would have trouble believing a Republican Senator speaking on the record passing along such gossip.

“the Obama Administration has put the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people”
_______________________________________
“liberal special interest groups”? What the heck is this dude talking about – other than the usual smear and fear tactics?
Do Republicans not have any other tactics beyond fear mongering and smear campaigns?
Seriously, Republicans are like poison.

Thinking the Legally “Unthinkable” in the KSM Trial View Comments
by Jack Kemp | December 15th, 2009
If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is clever he will turn his trial into an Obama birth certificate circus.
The New York Post has an excellent piece by attorney Michael Schwartz, pointing out the difficulty of predicting a jury’s verdict in the pending Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial in New York City. His article is entitled “Why the gov’t could lose this case.”
But there is a complex, two-part possibility that Attorney Schwartz did not consider.
KSM has said he wants to put the US government on trial and will probably bring up the Bush administration and mention waterboarding as torture in the courtroom, playing to the international media. But why would he limit himself to attacks on the last administration? KS Mohammed could well bring up the subject of Barack Obama never producing his long form birth certificate and thus claim he is not qualified to be President of the United States, thus rendering invalid his appointment of Attorney General Holder. It would throw the court into an uproar and possibly cause a Constitutional crisis, exactly what KSM wants – and the Obama administration doesn’t want to see on television just before the 2010 or 2012 elections.
KSM doesn’t even have to research the citizenship matter much. He could merely attain transcripts of the case attorney Orly Taitz won against the government in attempting to deploy a soldier overseas who claimed that Barack Obama wasn’t a valid Commander-In-Chief. He could also use the public record of Philip Berg’s testimony in his attempt to question President Obama’s citizenship before the US Supreme Court.
Perhaps Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has worked out a private deal with the Obama administration to not bring this up, but he would obviously be more than willing break that deal and advance a media-based jihad where he could extend the trial for a number of months.
This brings us to the second part of this complex situation regarding a possible courtroom discussion of Obama’s legal citizenship. Just as a prudent person never loans out anything they won’t mind never getting back, what if Obama has figured for KSM’s questioning the Obama Presidency’s legal authority – and would enjoy a Constitutional crisis that throws the country into an uproar? Obama is governing as if he has one TWO-YEAR term, not four. What if the destruction of Constitutional rule and capitalism is his aim, as many a website has made a case for? That would mean Obama would relish a Constitutional crisis and might even want to use it to declare martial law.
Don’t assume that Obama wants what most people want in America. If that were true, he never would have flown a 747 trailed by a jet fighter over Manhattan as if it were another 9/11 – or moved this trial to the New York federal courthouse. Why would you give the man who appointed a bunch of unaccountable, unconstitutional Czars and is involved in passing an unreadable healthcare bill in the middle of a Saturday night the benefit of the doubt?

S does this mean Boehner wants to move every dangerous domestic criminal housed in U.S. prisons to Gitmo, too?

“Seriously? You forsee an army of Al Quaida concentrating on attacking Thomson? When they haven’t done squat with Gitmo just a few hundred yards from a hostile power? That’s a powerful imagination.”
jhw: Thomson is not only the name of the correctional facility, it is also the name of the town in which it is located. Even us crazy right-wingers don’t believe the prison will be attacked directly. But the surrounding area (including the town of Thomson) might be.

Inconvenient Truth for Gore: Ice Claims Don’t Add Up

Howard Dean: Kill The Senate Bill’…

Jhw539, it won’t take an army. If an aircraft approaches within 50 miles of Gitmo they probably encounter an escort. The TCC is about 150 miles from Chicago. Chicago O’Hare International Airport is the 2nd busiest airport in the world with over 2,400 flights per day; and Chicago Midway Airport has nearly 700 flights per day. And then you have dozens of other airports within a 200-mile radius of the TCC. There are hundreds of flights coming well within 50 miles of the TCC everyday. It’s possible that ONLY ONE plane flying into the TCC would be sufficient to do the trick–freeing the detainees.

Could it be because there are left-wing judges who legislate from the bench?
tjp612 | Dec 15, 2009 9:22:13 PM
You mean like the ones who gave Gore the disputed election in 2000? Or the ones who called Bush to the carpet for his numerous shady attempts to expand Executive power? Can you cite examples of this left-wing legislating from the bench (even though Republican administrations have appointed the majority of current Federal judges)? Or is it another case of reality having a liberal bias (as I stated earlier, even the right wing judges are competent, which could be misconstrued as liberal nowadays).

It’s possible that ONLY ONE plane flying into the TCC would be sufficient to do the trick–freeing the detainees.
James Danley | Dec 15, 2009 9:36:46 PM
It is also possible that only 100 heavily armed terrorists attacking during a hurricane event could free the detainees from Guantanamo. Although that’s only slightly less absurd than your scenario.
So we can secure detainees at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan in the midst of a hot war zone, but its too hard to do it in the US because an airport is 150 miles away? Give me a break. How many airports are within 150 miles of the Whitehouse – heck how many roads are within 150 yards? Why wouldn’t they go for the big show and hit the Whitehouse in your magic plane scenario?

I would expect a fourth grade snipe coming
from Gibbs. The only reason this Gitmo
thing is even a factor is to throw his
liberal loons a bone. I am sure all those
insurgent wannabes are throwing their arms
down as we speak saying that now they know
the US is really nice because they are going to house these threats in US prisons. There is no reason to close
Gitmo. Its there, these idiots are on
an island away from everyone and their
comrades would not plan on doing a hostage or terrorist threat there, all
of which would be a nice stunt here in
the US. No good reason to change things
other than making all the wrong people
happy.

A nation of sheep
will beget a government
of wolves.
…Edward R. Murrow

“Why do right wingers fear our justice system?”
————————-
Hmmmmm… O.J. Simpson?
Hmmmmm… Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn?
Hmmmmm… Chicago seven or eight?

Posted by: Terry | Dec 15, 2009 10:03:07 PM
People having recourse to the rule of law frightens the right wing.
They know who’s guilty and who isn’t by intuition.
They’d prefer to just dispose of people the “know” are guilty – no recourse to law, no recourse to judge or jury.

Can you cite examples of this left-wing legislating from the bench.
Posted by: jhw539 |
Roe v Wade. Heard of it?

Can you cite examples of this left-wing legislating from the bench.
Posted by: jhw539 |
Hmmmmm…. Ninth Circuit Every Case????

Thank you Gibbs for saying it out loud. John Boehner is a loon who looks drunk out of his mind half the time. It’s in the eyes. And the things he says are either willfully ignorant, nefarious or insane– or all three. Vote him out of office. He is totally unfit.
Meanwhile, Michael Steele’s statement shows he just doesn’t give a darn about what the Department of Defense and military have said about the dangers associated with Gitmo.
From Think Progress, in May: “…Petraeus reiterated his support for a “responsible closure” of Gitmo but went a bit further, noting that the prison has been harmful to the U.S.:
PETRAEUS: Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activities since 9/11. And again, Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.
As Fox host Martha MacCallum went through most of the right-wing talking points on Gitmo and torture (Gitmo terrorists will “go free” in the U.S, torture works and should be used for the “ticking-time bomb” scenario) Petraeus knocked them down one-by-one. “I don’t think we should be afraid to live our values,” Petraeus repeatedly said.
…MacCallum asked, “So is sending this signal that we’re not going to use the techniques anymore, what impact will that have on those who do us harm in the field that you operate in?” Again, Petraeus noted that such policies and techniques harm the U.S.
PETRAEUS: What I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized. And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.”

Roe v Wade. Heard of it?
__________________________________
Roe v Wade was in 36 years ago! And that’s what you’ve got?
(Also, wasn’t Roe v Wade was a right wing decision valuing freedom of choice of the individual over dictation by the state?)

Can Spokeman Gibbs tell us how he knows that none of the detainees will be ordered released by American judges?
As a follow up, could he comment on the soon-to-be precedent of indefinite detention on American soil. Is this a good addition to the American legal framework?

“You mean like the ones who gave Gore the disputed election in 2000?”
So we’re going to skip the standard “Bush Did It!” response and go all the way back to the “Stolen Election” meme. Points for deviating from standard cut-and-paste response.
“Or the ones who called Bush to the carpet for his numerous shady attempts to expand Executive power?”
So why are they not calling out Obama for same? Obama also utilizing “executive orders”, rendition, and has further expanded with his shadow “Czar” government.
Nice try though.

Wouldn’t it be childs play for you to divine guilt or innocence of a single man?
_____________________________________
No, unlike the other poster, I do not think ascertaining the guilt or innocence of a man charged with murder is ‘child’s play’.
I support the rule of law as far as condemning people to prison.

GIBBS SAID “Thirty-two times since 2001 and four times this year alone, senior Al Qaida leadership in recruiting videos have used the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a clarion call to bring extremists from around the world to join their effort.”
So this means that Thomson Illinois will be the new clarion call for the extremists?
Gibbs is a raving lunatic.

Posted by: James Danley | Dec 15, 2009 10:45:01 PM
So, your ok with terrorists being released into to the American heartland because in the urgency to defend the American people after 911 some people arrested on the battlefield in Afghanistan were not given their full constitutionally protected rights?
So it’s ok for KSM, beheader of Daniel Pearl to go free because he was made a little uncomfortable with techniques used on our own troops for training every day…
May you offer safe refuge for one of these terrorists after their release….

GIBBS SAID “Thirty-two times since 2001 and four times this year alone, senior Al Qaida leadership in recruiting videos have used the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a clarion call to bring extremists from around the world to join their effort.”
And of course they won’t be using the Super Max in Illinois and the new indefinite detention policy of the Obama Administration for propaganda purposes… That just wouldn’t be right!

So it’s ok for KSM, beheader of Daniel Pearl to go free
________________________________
Who says KSM is going free? And why would you believe anything KSM says? Or why would you doubt it?

As a follow up, could he comment on the soon-to-be precedent of indefinite detention on American soil. Is this a good addition to the American legal framework?
Jamal | Dec 15, 2009 10:42:24 PM
It’s not at all new. Not something to be particularly proud of, but if the three branches of the government agree (which pretty much only happens when the vast majority of the citizens also agree) they can do anything. And have in the past.
Currently some of the worst sex offenders who are deemed high risk to reoffend sometimes serve their entire sentence only to be subjected to involuntary commitment to a secure pysch hospital for ‘further treatment.’ The US legal system is among the best and most respected in the world. OJ or not, I trust it and take pride in it.

The Thomson photos (gray, stark, Illinois winter) won’t be nearly as appealing as the palms, beachy ones from Gitmo.
Forget it – the White House is CRAZY

When KSM walks out a free man I hope Obama and Holder board the jet along with him.

Legislating from the Bench?? Kelo vs New London. Left Wing Justices inserted ” For Common Good” where the US Constitution clearly says ” Common Use” for Eminent Domain

Or are you embarrassed to have to go all the way back to 1973 (Roe v Wade) for an example?
Posted by: jhw539 |
Are you embarrassed that when someone cites an example of what you claim doesn’t exist that you’ve got a big bag of nothing for a response?

Its a little late for the left to point to Al Queda’s attention to Gitmo when they emphasized how evil and awful it was. It has become a self fufilling prophecy without ever having the evidence of wrongdoing.

Posted by: jhw539 | Dec 15, 2009 11:10:25 PM
——————
So you are saying that the ninth circuit, with the exception of a few, is not made up of a bunch of left-wing wackos, and doesn’t generally rule from a left-wing viewpoint and isn’t among the most over-ruled circuits in the US?

“Even though likelihood of a similar attack is slight, the potential harm is simply too much to stomach. Why the unnecessary risk?”
Oh no. Another rubber back-boned right-winger. That’s all I can stomach tonight. Do you guys have any idea how many people are killed in car crashes every year? Those aren’t tragedies? Why aren’t you on here every night calling for lower speed limits, safer vehicle design and cellphone use and texting while driving restrictions?
The terrorists are winning. They’re scaring the heck out of you.

So you are saying that the ninth circuit, with the exception of a few, is not made up of a bunch of left-wing wackos, and doesn’t generally rule from a left-wing viewpoint and isn’t among the most over-ruled circuits in the US?
Terry | Dec 15, 2009 11:24:58 PM
Bwhahahaha – you really CAN’T know one single case of the ninth legislating from the bench can you? Come on, at least google up something better than “they’re a bunch of left-wing wackos”. I’m expecting some cutting insult about my mama any minute at this rate.

Bag of nothing? I started by citing the verifiable evidence supporting my opinion and stand by my opinion that the Federal judiciary in America does not have a problem with left wing judges ‘legislating from the bench.’
Posted by: jhw539 |
You are confused. You started by asking for examples of left wing judicial activism. I gave you a classic example for which you had no rebuttal so now you are trying to change the argument.
btw, what does “the Federal judiciary in America does not have a problem with left wing judges ‘legislating from the bench.’” mean? Are you speaking for the entirety of the Federal judiciary now?

You are confused. You started by asking for examples of left wing judicial activism. I gave you a classic example for which you had no rebuttal so now you are trying to change the argument.
Foghorn Leghorn | Dec 15, 2009 11:33:09 PM
I started with:
“You mean like the ones who gave Gore the disputed election in 2000? Or the ones who called Bush to the carpet for his numerous shady attempts to expand Executive power? Can you cite examples of this left-wing legislating from the bench (even though Republican administrations have appointed the majority of current Federal judges)?”
The obvious rebuttal is to repeat my original post citing example of right wing legislating from the bench. Actual examples of judges legislating to the left 36 years ago versus examples of legislating to the right 9 years ago suggests that the courts are actually pretty close to the middle. But feel free to keep fighting the 70′s.

A brief history of the left’s legislating from the bench:
Helvering v Davis: Giving the Federal Government almost unlimited power to “promote the general welfare” and thus turning the doctrine of enumerated powers on its head.
Wickard v. Filburn: Granting the Federal Government truly unlimited power to regulate even purely intrastate commerce. .
Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdel: Allowing the Federal Government to interfere with and even rescind private contracts, in express violation of the Contracts Clause.
Whitman v. American Trucking: Giving administrative agencies the ability to make law. This, of course, undermines much of representative democracy when unelected folks make the laws.
McConnel v. FEC: Allowed an administrative agency (FEC) to restrict free speech simply because the agency surmised that the law would promote an image of fairness. The agency didn’t have to show any actual unfairness cured by the law.
US v. Miller: Undermined 2nd Amendment right to self defense.
Korematsu v. U.S.: Allowed the executive to round up Asians and put them in concentration camps.
Bennis v. Michigan: Government can seize property without regard for Due Process.
Kelo v. City of New London: Already mentioned.
Penn Central v . New York: Let the Government take property simply by regulating its usefulness down to nothing.
U.S. v. Carolene Products: Undermined the inherent human right to live by the work of one’s own hands on one’s own terms.
Grutter v. Bolinger: Let the Government actively pursue policies that support making decisions based on skin color.

Posted by: jhw539 | Dec 15, 2009 11:31:58 PM
You’ve obviously done some Googling… did you miss Newdow v. U.S. Congress? – later overturned.
Really, you should be proud of your liberal judges instead of denying them.
Ninth Circuit liberal wackos? Damned right and proud of it!!

I didn’t Google. I actually just graduated from law school. I pointed those cases out just to add historical context to the debate.
I am proud of many justices that would be called liberal. (Brandeis sticks out in my mind as a great champion of the right to privacy) In fact, I think that we have been pretty blessed over the course of our history to have diversity on the bench and robust debate. I just wish we could recover some civility.

Continued Gibbs, “I will say this. I have seen some far crazier comments today — comments from people like John Boehner. Here’s what I would suggest for John Boehner. Call up Leon Panetta or Denny Blair at the CIA or the director of national intelligence. Ask them if he can come down and watch a video put out by Al Qaida senior leadership like — the names that we recognize, (Ayman al-) Zawahiri. Thirty-two times since 2001 and four times this year alone, senior Al Qaida leadership in recruiting videos have used the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a clarion call to bring extremists from around the world to join their effort.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gibbs is an idiot. Now, they’ll just use Gitmo North in Illinois in their recruiting propaganda.

Hmmmmm, no I guess not, I just don’t know. Since GWB was such a bad guy and brutal denier of human rights, why didn’t he execute KSM??
_____________________________________
I would suggest it was because Bush wanted to follow the rule of law as he had revamped it to suit his purposes.
And if I remember at the time, he didn’t want to make KSM a martyr.
Following rule of law, is what the United States is based on . . . without it bias and prejudice, ignorance and power rule.

Posted by: RL | Dec 16, 2009 12:19:31 AM
It surprises you the Islamic ‘warriors’ support a Palestinian state? Most of the world supports a Palestinian state.

I just wish we could recover some civility.
Posted by: RL | Dec 15, 2009 11:55:31 PM
____________________________________
A noble sentiment RL; you should come to this site on a daily basis and watch the attacks on the President with juvenile name calling, hateful attacks on his family, unsubstantiated accusations, fear mongering and smear attempts.
You don’t have to believe me. Watch for yourself.

Would be nice if Jake Tapper would challenge Robert Gibbs when Gibbs cites all of the people who “support” the decision to close GITMO and transfer the detainees to Illinois. What Gibbs is leaving out is that most if not all of the people he cited do NOT support moving the detainees to the United States. So annoying to watch the media lapdogs just sit there and take dictation from Gibbs. Jake, how about challenging Gibbs once in a while?

al Qaeda actually have published ‘negotiating demands’ . . .
1) a Palestinian homeland,
2) all western military off of Islamic homelands,
3) the fall of the house of Saud
You don’t see them published much, but they have been published. I wonder if we would stop fighting while Islamic troops patrolled the United States?

Does it surprise you that Zaqahiri would not only detest the idea of Guantanamo, but also not trust the United States nor their policies regardless of who is in power, and would attack their policies?

Posted by: Terry | Dec 16, 2009 12:39:00 AM
Sorry Terry – typo. If you had been following the conversation you would have known we were discussing ‘al-Zawahri’.

Robert Gibbs thinks we just need to be “nice” and close Guantanamo and al Qaeda won’t target us. Talk about insane!
Robert Gibbs, you belong in a straitjacket — you sick fool.

Travis, do you have sources to back up your claim that most if not all of the people Gibbs cited do NOT support moving the detainees to the United States? My impression is the opposite.
For example, in May, Mullen said “We have terrorists in jail right now, have had for some time. They’re in supermax prisons. And they don’t pose a threat. So that’s certainly an option. But again, it’s not one for me to decide.” Also, according to the AP, the letter sent to Illinois governor was signed by Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair.

Robert Gibbs thinks we just need to be “nice” and close Guantanamo and al Qaeda won’t target us.
______________________________________
I don’t think he said that. I think he said its going to take the propaganda tool of Guantanamo out of the hands of al Qaeda . . . and the Unites States will stand on its might AND its principles.

Gibbs implicitly endorsed the idea that Zawahiri can be viewed as a reliable source of mainstream Islamic and Arab opinion.
_________________________________
How so? What evidence do you have for that . .. in Gibb’s words?

The answer is to impeach Obama. Heck, with the unhappy Dems due to the health care joke Obama has pulled, I know there are millions who want to get him on a train back to Chicago more than some conservatives even do.
Obama will not be happy until al Qaeda attacks us again. He’s evil.

His argument is this: Gitmo is one reason that Muslims adopt a militant attitude toward the US. (Thus, he argues that we will be safer for closing it. He cites as proof Zawahiri’s messages.) He in effect says, “I know what makes moderates into extremists because Zawahiri has told me.” He thus enshrines Zawahiri’s ravings as legitimate.

It’s Gibbs, not me, who is trying to make the case that al Qaeda will recognize some sort of “improvement” in our international policy, which will soothe their hatred of the US.
Posted by: RL | Dec 16, 2009 12:43:43 AM
___
I’d love to see an example of Gibbs trying to make that case. A quote. It seems to me that is the Republican spin of the case that has been made, a case that is more along the lines that Al Qaeda uses Gitmo and the torture it has come to represent throughout not only the Muslim world, but the world, as a recruiting tool, as a way to incite sympathetic people to join their ranks– sympathy increased by the idea that America tortures people unjustly and doesn’t live up to their ideals. I think President Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe al Qaeda is reasonable, and I think its silly and willfully missing the point to claim the admin is saying al Qaeda will change its ways because we closed Gitmo. Evil exists and sometimes war is necessary, right? And war is necessary against terrorist extremists who have murdered our citizens and hate us? Isn’t that what President Obama has said more or less said in two speeches now? We won’t change al Qaeda but we may begin to change the minds of 18 year old boys that have not yet been driven to hate us. We make it a little more difficult to lure people into joining them in their wish to destroy us, as we won’t have some secret torture prison that they’ve heard rumors about.

I don’t think he said that. I think he said its going to take the propaganda tool of Guantanamo out of the hands of al Qaeda . . . and the Unites States will stand on its might AND its principles.
Posted by: tierra | Dec 16, 2009 12:55:08 AM
___
Whoops. Tierra covered what I said much more succintly.
I agree.

DMM:
First, I want to point out that you conclude your post pretty much the same way that I followed up the post of mine that you quoted. I think we agree that the public perception battle is for the moderates or mainstream Arabs and Muslims. Those who might be teetering on the brink of taking up with terrorist groups.
When I said that about Gibbs, I had in mind this passage from the above article:
“Here’s what I would suggest for John Boehner. Call up Leon Panetta or Denny Blair at the CIA or the director of national intelligence. Ask them if he can come down and watch a video put out by Al Qaida senior leadership like — the names that we recognize, (Ayman al-) Zawahiri. Thirty-two times since 2001 and four times this year alone, senior Al Qaida leadership in recruiting videos have used the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a clarion call to bring extremists from around the world to join their effort.”
In context, it’s clear that he is arguing that America will be safer with Gitmo closed because the extremists will have softened their view toward the US (or at the very least they won’t have this “clarion call” to respond to).
Gibbs doesn’t say (what he may very well be trying to say) that this was a recruiting tool to urge moderates into extremism. He says point blank it was to “bring EXTREMISTS from around the world [together].” He takes for granted that the extremists exist and that Gitmo was (and is) used to focus their hatred on to the US.

“Thirty-two times since 2001 and four times this year alone, senior Al Qaida leadership in recruiting videos have used the prison at Guantanamo Bay” Gibbs.
___________________________________
Gibbs said al Qaida uses Guantanamo in their ‘recruiting videos’ . ..
I think we’re splitting hair here.
To say . . . ” . ..Gibbs . . . is trying to make the case that al Qaeda will recognize some sort of “improvement” in our international policy, which will soothe their hatred of the US.” isn’t quite accurate.

Tierra,
I agree. I thought the same thing after I made my last post. This wasn’t meant as a definitive statement of the WH’s position. So I shouldn’t scrutinize it as much.
I do think Gibbs would have been better off simply to focus the conversation on mainstream Arabs and Muslims. It would help limit this “appeaser” talk. It’s a rhetorical point, not a policy point. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that we want to appease the terror leaders. We want to destroy them and bring them down.
But we also want to befriend and help up the mainstream Arabs. So, in the end, I think Gibbs would have been better off to focus on the symbolic significance of the closing of Gitmo to Arabs and Muslims throughout the world. And he should have just left Zawahiri’s name out of the conversation.
(In terms of recruiting tools, I don’t want any statements out there that Zawahiri could twist and use to argue that he and al Qaeda have directly influenced our policy).

But we also want to befriend and help up the mainstream Arabs. So, in the end, I think Gibbs would have been better off to focus on the symbolic significance of the closing of Gitmo to Arabs and Muslims throughout the world. And he should have just left Zawahiri’s name out of the conversation.
____________________________________
I only ‘see’ Gibbs from posts on Political Punch, but he just doesn’t seem top drawer at this particular job. Maybe he’s better behind the scenes.

Do Gibbs or his masters really expect the American People to believe that the jihadists are winning recruits on the basis that America isn’t giving jihadists the same gold-plated civil rights as her own citizens get? Is Ayman al-Zawahiri a card carrying member of the ACLU who will be mollified only once all the Gitmo prisoners are arraigned in federal courts? Is that what their jihad is about – instituting global compliance with the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights instead of sharia law? Why is it that the lapdogs of the White House press corps are eager to lap up such nonsense as if it were a universal truth?
We the People hereby inform the governing and media elites that America is cosa nostra – our thing – and not yours to piddle away as you see fit.

Ever heard of Beslan? Muslim terrorists took over a school there in the former Soviet Union demanding the release of compatriots. They killed all the boys old enough to resist and repeatedly raped the young girls with their rifle barrels sometimes in front of the windows so gathered parents could see.
Now project that same plan being implimented here.
Don’t think it can happen? The families of 2 dead recruiters in Arkansas, 14 dead at Ft. Hood and the 3000 murdered on 9/11 might argue that point with you.
GITMO is the safest, securest place for these animals.

Is it that the extremists are outraged about WHERE their brethren are being held? or that they’re being held in the first place? In other words, why wouldn’t we expect the word ‘Gitmo’ to now be replaced with the word ‘Thompson’ in the extremists’ rantings?
On a side note – the temps were in the single digits in the midwest these past couple weeks – Do we really think that moving these prisoners to this frigid weather from the tropics ISN’T going to upset them a little bit?

Al Queda will use WHERE EVER these terrorists are imprisoned as a recruitment video. How stupid does Gibbs think Americans are. Oh wait, 4% of Americans gave us Obama as President instead of someone actually qualified.

How does this clown keep his job as the presidents mouthpiece? He has the intellect and temperament of a 12 year old.
My main concern isn’t the safety issue, it’s the fact that some ACLU lawyer will now file suit to provide full rights of citizens to these murdering thugs. Now that they are being held on U.S. soil watch some left wing radical judge confer the writ of habeas corpus…..

Will Obama move all the detainees locked up at Bagram AFB, Afghanistan to Illinois? They were not arrested, nor read Miranda rights, nor allowed Habeas Corpus. Why are they entitled to any less “justice” than the “refugees” held at Gitmo??

So, if we bring Gibbs statement regarding AQ using Gitmo as a recruiting tool to its “logical” (and I use that term loosely) conclusion, that means that once the terrorist detainees are in the US then the recruiting will stop.
Get ready to cue the videotape MSM. I cannot wait to see AQ praise Obama and Gibbs for their astute and peace-loving move. Political suicide

My main concern isn’t the safety issue, it’s the fact that some ACLU lawyer will now file suit to provide full rights of citizens to these murdering thugs. Now that they are being held on U.S. soil watch some left wing radical judge confer the writ of habeas corpus…..
Posted by: icob | Dec 16, 2009 8:44:36 AM
___
One day a member of the contrary opposition is quoting the ACLU because they disagree with the President, the next another is talking about their fears regarding the ACLU. Granted the latter is more in keeping with the usual fears– fear of someone pushing us to living up to our ideals rather than backing down in terror.
The so-called radical left wing stands for the ideals this country was founded on. If you’re too chicken-hearted to be an American, then go. The cry baby baloney now that our ideals are being somewhat restored is getting old.

Jhw539 wrote: “…president will have almost 4 times as many troops hunting Bin Landen in Afghanistan about 1 year after taking office.”
Additional troops, while certainly needed to quell the regrouping of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, has its consequences. The American death toll in 2009 (302 as of Dec 8th) is almost ONE THIRD of the total deaths (927 as of Dec 8th) for the 8-year war.

If 2010 elections change the balance of power away from those that undermine the constitution then congress needs to open criminal investigations
___
The 2006 and 2008 elections have been giant steps in the right direction in this regard. We just need a dozen more progressives, and a cleaning up of the morons on the right side of the aisle.
I do think criminal investigations of the Bush-Cheney admin, the true underminers of the Constitution, would be a fantastic idea. Perhaps, you’re confused? Unsurprising, the GOP does a good job of keeping their loyalists confused and misinformed through lies and gross distortions.

“They, terrorists, basically have the intelligence of an 8 year… old…”
If they’re so dumb why are all of you so afraid of them? We could just arrange permanent day-care.

“If there are concerns for security reasons, I would hope some of those people would address why they think the military can do what they’re doing at Guantanamo and can’t do it at Thomson,” Gibbs said at his daily briefing today.
Um, just look at a map, Gibbs.

Ok. So what is the end game for these terrorist? Does a conviction mean the end? Will other terrorist drop their desire to break them out of prison? Too many are so wrapped up in a ‘fair trial’ that they neglect to recognize that legal proceedings are not the ultimate goal. The goal is to keep them isolated in a way that they cannot be reached by sympathizers or escape to do more of their infidel extermination work. A civilian legal proceeding lowers the bar that keeps them contained and having them in the heartland gives would-be home-grown radicals a cause they can reach.

i find it appalling that politician in america continue to exploit their people thorough fear in other to satisfy party. honestly it seems democracy is falling for all pratical purposes

wow, who knew those cowboy republicans were so afraid of everything…..cowards,. guess maybe their new business will be ‘undisclosed location’ holidays for the chosen few…
..for the rest of us, duct tape and plastic sheeting..
good thing america’s security is not dependent on republicans, 9/11 demonstrated that….as well as not capturing Bin Laden ‘dead or alive’ and their shameful handling of Iraq and Afghanistan for so many years
republicans throughout history are good at starting wars, but they leave them for others to finish and win.