Obama Administration Orders New Airline Security Directives

Yemen. That sounds familiar.
Posted by: FreePress | Jan 3, 2010 6:30:10 PM
_____________________________________
Yemen sounds familiar because that’s where the Bush administration sent released detainees from Gitmo – like the ones who apparently are behind counselling the fellow who just attempted to blow up the Detroit-bound plane.

How will this help terrorists who will go to great lengths to ensure their departure city is one that is not on the new list???

It didn’t have to come to this.
If the world had just loved Obama like he thought they would, we could all just get along.
He’s got all that life experience, and Muslim ties. He’s apologized and bowed down.
Welcome to reality Obama.
They hate him just as much as they hated Bush. They hate America as much now as they ever did. Maybe more. Maybe they see Obama as a sellout.

Posted by: kyle | Jan 3, 2010 7:13:25 PM
kyle you really missed the approach this President is taking.
His approach is to reach out to all of the non-extremist Muslims in the world to let them know America is not out to get them – but rather to fight against violent extremism of any kind.
The majority of Muslims are not radical, violent extremists – same as the majority of Christians in the world are not radical, fundmentalist, evangelical extremists.
Obama at know point said he was pretending violent extremists were going to quite being violent extremists because he was President.
But he has been trying to rally sensible people around the world (regardless of religious orientation)to know the United States is not their enemy but that violent extremism is their enemy and ours.

On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.
Detainees whose cases were consolidated with Boumediene v. Bush
* Belkacem Bensayah
* Saber Lahmar
* Mohammed Nechle
* Mustafa Ait Idir
* Lakhdar Boumediene
* Hadj Boudella
Conservative commentators have criticized the ruling, asserting that it “wantonly overruled the will of the people and Congress to suspend the habeas corpus rights of this dangerous and irredeemable class of criminal defendants”.
Liberal legal theorist Ronald Dworkin disagreed with the conservative criticism and praised the Court’s decision, advocating that it was “a great victory”.
Justice Scalia’s dissent was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas. -wikipedia

Mr. Bush sent detainees to Yemen, so that makes it ok for Mr. Obama to do the same.
It was a bad idea for Mr. Bush to do it, but it is a good idea for Mr. Obama to do it.
Because Mr. Bush did it, he caused the Undi-Bomber incident.
If Mr. Obama does it, it will prevent future terrorist attacks.
Is that perfectly clear?

Obama can’t get his decisions or his story straight. On 12/20 he has confidence in Yemen. On 1/1 not so much – and insists the lack of confidence was “several weeks ago.”
NY Times 12/20:
“the government was gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness to handle returning detainees after months of ‘intense’ talks under the Obama administration
NY Times on 1/1:
“Mr. Obama’s interagency team had already decided quietly several weeks ago that the security situation in Yemen was too volatile to transfer any more detainees beyond six who were sent home in December. The government concluded it had to release those six because it was about to lose habeas corpus hearings in court that would order them freed.
As for the rest, ‘we all agreed we couldn’t send people back because of the security situation,’ said the official, who like others requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The administration will re-examine the question in late 2010, when an Illinois prison is ready to take remaining Guantánamo detainees, the official said.”

Tierra…..attempting to speak facts is like talking to a stop sign…all it will say is STOP……these are biased people who do not want the truth.

Sara,
Please feel free to tell us the truth, as you see it.

“the government was gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness to handle returning detainees after months of ‘intense’ talks under the Obama administration”
_______________________________________
“gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness” does not at all say they were CONFIDENT in Yemen’s ABILITY to handle returning detainees. Not at all – they were only ‘gaining’ confidence and only in Yemen’s ‘willingness’. Big difference.

Tierra…..attempting to speak facts is like talking to a stop sign…all it will say is STOP……these are biased people who do not want the truth.
Posted by: sara | Jan 3, 2010 7:58:26 PM
Facts? What facts? That nobody ordered Bush to release detainees? Really?
On November 20, 2008, five Guantánamo detainees, including Boumediene, were ordered freed by Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington.]
And Obama just happens to change his position on trusting Yemen from 12/20 to 1/1 and the underwear bomber just happens to attempt to blow up a plane on 12/25 and has connections to Yemen? Those facts. Obama making decisions on a ten day cycle and then can’t even admit it saying that was his position weeks ago when it clearly was not.
Sara, don’t let your biases cloud your ability to reason.

On November 20, 2008, five Guantánamo detainees, including Boumediene, were ordered freed by Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington. The Court ordered the continued detention of a sixth, Belkacem Bensayah. The Court ruled: “To allow enemy combatancy to rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation; the court must and will grant their petitions and order their release. This is a unique case. Few if any others will be factually like it. Nobody should be lulled into a false sense that all of the … cases will look like this one.”

So should Obama go ahead and release the other 45 to Yemen or not?

“gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness” does not at all say they were CONFIDENT in Yemen’s ABILITY to handle returning detainees. Not at all – they were only ‘gaining’ confidence and only in Yemen’s ‘willingness’. Big difference.
Posted by: tierra | Jan 3, 2010 8:01:14 PM
Well, that’s priceless. Not that I’m surprised. You are nothing if consistent in your undying support for all things Obama.
And I love the way you carefully word your posts:
Yemen sounds familiar because that’s where the Bush administration sent released detainees from Gitmo
Posted by: tierra | Jan 3, 2010 6:45:01 PM
Bush released hundreds of detainees – of his own volition.
Posted by: tierra | Jan 3, 2010 7:33:23 PM
So do you mix and match numbers to deceive? Bush actually released only 14 detainees to Yemen – in 8 years. Obama has already release 6 in less than a year.
“About 91 Yemenis remain at the facility, making up the largest bloc of the population of about 200 detainees. Though 14 Yemenis were repatriated from Guantánamo during the Bush administration, concerns about the Yemeni government’s ability and commitment in fighting Al Qaeda, which has long found a haven in that nation, has made officials reluctant to repatriate Yemenis in large numbers.” – NYT, 12/20
I think I’ll start researching the 14 released to find out why Bush released them. Might prove interesting since I doubt you’ll be forthcoming.

As part of the new National Security and Health Care initiative; everyone who uses mass transportation gets free medical exams or ex-rays before boarding transportation. Results of the exam will be an extra charge since it is considered a Cadillac option. However, those that trigger the national security option get free room and board, free training about the customs and habits of their intended victims, free legal representation by expert loop-hole lawyers, opportunities to network with others to go over lessons learned, and then get free transportation to join up with the terrorist organization of choice. Wonderful! America, a land of opportunity for everyone that wants a free ride. Honest hard workers wanted; someone has to pay the tab.

“gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness” does not at all say they were CONFIDENT in Yemen’s ABILITY to handle returning detainees. Not at all – they were only ‘gaining’ confidence and only in Yemen’s ‘willingness’. Big difference.
Posted by: tierra | Jan 3, 2010 8:01:14 PM
“Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd defended the decision. “We would not have proceeded with the transfers if there were security-related concerns that were not adequately addressed,” he said.” – Reuters, 12/20
So much for wordsmithing the nuances of the word “confident.”

The argument was that intelligence sources agreed Gitmo was effectively being used as a recruitment tool by al Qaeda and insurgents who were then attacking our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Skip | Jan 3, 2010 8:16:12 PM
And all the years prior to Gitmo? I don’t think they lack recruiting tools, Skippy.

“And all the years prior to Gitmo? I don’t think they lack recruiting tools,”
non-sequitur
You guys don’t have the guts to support closing Gitmo even if you know it would take pressure off our troops in the field. The Democrats aren’t the pansies.

You guys don’t have the guts to support closing Gitmo even if you know it would take pressure off our troops in the field. The Democrats aren’t the pansies.
Posted by: Skip | Jan 3, 2010 8:40:37 PM
No combat related deaths in Iraq last month. Excellent work troops!
What makes you think transferring detainees to Illinois is going to relieve any pressure on our troops? It will still be a recruiting tool. Nuance.

You guys don’t have the guts to support closing Gitmo even if you know it would take pressure off our troops in the field.
Posted by: Skip | Jan 3, 2010 8:40:37 PM
The best recruitment tool isn’t even in Gitmo. As of last January, he was being held in the brig in South Carolina since 2003. He pleaded guilty in April.
“A group of intelligence experts argued today that holding an Al Qaeda suspect for seven years on U.S. soil without charge has been a recruiting bonanza for Osama Bin Laden’s thugs.
“The 16 highly-respected intelligence and counterterror officials signed a brief filed with the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case of “enemy combatant” Ali Saleh al-Marri – a top priority of Team Obama.
“Eyed as an Al Qaeda “sleeper” agent, Al-Marri was arrested at his home in Illinois three months after the 9/11 attacks and charged with terrorism. But in 2003, ex-President Bush turned him over to the U.S. military, which holds him without charge in a South Carolina Navy brig.” – NY Daily News

“You guys don’t have the guts to support closing Gitmo even if you know it would take pressure off our troops in the field. The Democrats aren’t the pansies. ”
Wow, that is some twisted reasoning there.
It first makes a giant assumption about taking pressure off the troops. It is highly unlikely that it would. Amongst liberals, there is always an assumption that the bad guys should just be given whatever they want – and then they won’t be mad any more.
This pretty much never works – but it feels so good to believe it.
It then second (for some reason) assumes that the policy issue is the matter of whom has the most “guts”. Obviously, that isn’t the question. But even if it were, I guess one would conclude that releasing all the terrorist in Gitmo would take more guts becuase there would be far more likelyhood that the said terrorist would kill people than say, if they stayed in prison.
So I guess he has a point. It would take guts to just cut all of the terrorists loose. A lot of guts.

Amongst liberals, there is always an assumption that the bad guys should just be given whatever they want
___________________________________
Wrong.

The whole “Gitmo as Recruiting Tool” BS needs to be revealed as the myth that it is.
______________________________________
Guantanamo and the pictures from Abu Ghraib enticed many believers into becoming Jhihadists – and swayed some moderates towards supporting the cause.

“Amongst liberals, there is always an assumption that the bad guys should just be given whatever they want”
I think it’s twisted reasoning to assume the bad guys want us to close Gitmo and move the prisoners to Illinois.
“It then second (for some reason) assumes that the policy issue is the matter of whom has the most “guts”. Obviously, that isn’t the question.”
Oh no? All of these decisions involve accurately assessing and weighing the consequences of risk, which right-wingers seem unable to do rationally.

Posted by: Skip | Jan 3, 2010 9:32:14 PM
I need a map. Who were the bad guys again? Detainees? Liberals? Right wingers?

skip:
“Amongst liberals, there is always an assumption that the bad guys should just be given whatever they want”
I think it’s twisted reasoning to assume the bad guys want us to close Gitmo and move the prisoners to Illinois.
================
You do? Why?
================
“It then second (for some reason) assumes that the policy issue is the matter of whom has the most “guts”. Obviously, that isn’t the question.”
Oh no? All of these decisions involve accurately assessing and weighing the consequences of risk, which right-wingers seem unable to do rationally.
===========================
This comment just seems like childish taking a shot without really making any endorsement of the original argument.
This does seem like it is in the vain of, “give them what they want so they will love us.”

“I need a map. Who were the bad guys again? Detainees? Liberals? Right wingers?”
Check your moral compass. It will point the way.

“This does seem like it is in the vain of, “give them what they want so they will love us.”
Only a lunatic would suggest we are considering closing Gitmo to give bad guys what they want; It’s to take away what they want: A notorious symbol they can use against us. It’s not worth debating down this ridiculous tangent.

Only a lunatic would suggest we are considering closing Gitmo to give bad guys what they want; It’s to take away what they want: A notorious symbol they can use against us. It’s not worth debating down this ridiculous tangent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
It seems that you’re only understanding of Gitmo is it’s symbolism. Symbolism largely assigned to it by liberals. A place that largely gets attention due to liberal complaints.
Gitmo is set up specifically to hold these dangerous terrorists – and is physically separated from the United States. It is run by the military, as it should be.
And the money has already been spent to set this place up. New money – millions – will have to be spent just to set up Illinois.
Tell me if you will, why would a militant muslim be less OR more upset about a fellow terrorist being held in an Illinois prison than they would at Gitmo? What magical thing supposedly happens when they all get transferred there?

“Tell me if you will, why would a militant muslim be less OR more upset about a fellow terrorist being held in an Illinois prison than they would at Gitmo”
That’s the misunderstanding. A fellow terrorist won’t care. It’s somebody who is not yet a terrorist who may be influenced to become one if he is moved by perceived injustice, of which there is plenty associated thus far with Gitmo. Ask any publicist, advertiser, political consultant, etc etc: image is everything, and Gitmo’s image is absolutely notorious.

tierra,you still have not cited any evidence proving that Gitmo increased Al Qaeda recruitment.As I recall,none of the 9/11 bombers were motivated by Gitmo.Richard Reid was not motivated by Gitmo.The Khobar Towers bombers were not motivated by Gitmo.The U.S.S. Cole bombers were not motivated by Gitmo.The African embassy bombers were not motivated by Gitmo.Khalid Sheik Mohammed was not motivated by Gitmo.Osama bin Laden was not motivated by Gitmo.

“Can you tell me why it would be any different in the Illinois facility?”
Hopefully–and this is by no means certain–it will appear that we at least made some effort to administer some kind of justice even if it was very harsh, instead of just throwing hundreds of people in jail offshore, some possibly on the flimsiest of pretexts, and just throwing away the key. Few people in any country in any culture is going to think that’s fair or honorable.

“So it’s about appearance over substance?”
It’s both. We should have the courage to administer justice even if it’s harsh for friend and foe alike to see anyway. Hopefully it will work against al Qaeda but unfortunately nothing is guaranteed.

So, for the substance part, why can’t justice be administered at Gitmo?

Symbolism largely assigned to it by liberals. A place that largely gets attention due to liberal complaints.
—
No. Worlwide people were shocked and outraged by Gitmo, and most people have no idea what improvements have been made since the early 00′s. It represents torture, and America turning its back on its ideals. If liberals in America can’t forget it and sickened by it, how are other people around the world supposed to simply forget and understand the improvements made there? Or believe we are who we’ve always said we were?
I’m with President Obama and General Petraeus on this. And by the way, its a bipartisan deal. Bush talked about closing it and so did McCain. We can’t be crazy or irresponsible about it just to meet a deadline, but we should close it as soon as we can responsibly.

Posted by: Nephron | Jan 3, 2010 11:06:47 PM
Nephron you have to try to imagine you’re a solid Christian fighting against Islamic invaders and you find out fundamentalist Christians are being imprisoned without charges, paraded and photographed naked and piled upon each other in mock sex poses, tortured, that the bible has been squatted over and flushed down the toilet. That your fellow Christians have been jailed for years without charges or trial.
Would that encourage you to join up and fight?

Name one “interrogater” who made that claim. Let’s see the specifics to back up that interpretation.It seems to me that IEDs were pretty common before anybody had heard about Abu Ghraib.I’m sure that the Baathists that were part of the Iraqi resistance were really upset about the terrible conditions at Gitmo.Get real.

Name one “interrogater” who made that claim. I’m sure that the Baathists that were part of the Iraqi resistance were really upset about the terrible conditions at Gitmo.Get real.
___________________________________
“Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006. He is the author of ‘How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq.’ He is writing under a pseudonym for security reasons.”
P.S. – Baathists are not al Qaeda recruits. You’re making the same mistake George Bush did.

If I was a hippie in the 60′s and 70′s, I would say “love the one you’re with” is the way.
—
Oh, hahahaha. That’s too funny as I referenced that song (wrongly attributing it to the Rolling Stones) on another thread. though I was more of a round II Grateful Dead revival hippie of the 80s. LOL. (Sorry– too much personal information, I’m sure– I was just so surprised to see that same reference. It can’t possibly mean I’m on the same wavelength as Live!, can it?…..Bipartisanship? Unity? Right here at Political Punch?
Naaaah.)

“I’m with President Obama and General Petraeus on this. And by the way, its a bipartisan deal. Bush talked about closing it and so did McCain.”
__________________________________
Excellent and important points Planet B. McCain called for it to be closed during the election.

I get the impression it’s Cheney’s baby.
___________________________________
I get the impression Cheney wishes the United States was an empire that he ruled over with an iron fist.

“It’s quite an exaggeration but as long as the “them” refers to mainstream Muslims–what’s wrong with that? You accuse Obama of being some kind of thug yet all you want to do is push other people around.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Who am I trying to push around? Terrorists?
Seriously?
Clinton tried the appeasement tactic for 8 years – and it bought us 9/11. Curling up in a ball and begging for mercy is only going to make them bolder.
That’s what’s wrong with it.

“Maybe you haven’t been paying any attention, ‘curling up in a ball’ has consisted of continued attacks against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen over the course of the last year.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I was referring specifically to Skip’s suggestion.

Who’s pushing around main stream muslims?

“Who’s pushing around main stream muslims?”
Well if you don’t like pushing around mainstream Muslims then you won’t mind if Obama tries to establish better relations with the Muslim world.

“”Who’s pushing around main stream muslims?”
Well if you don’t like pushing around mainstream Muslims then you won’t mind if Obama tries to establish better relations with the Muslim world.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, establishing better relations is the same as not pushing them around?
Wow.
Okay – how about this.
Why don’t you buy me a new car? I know you don’t owe it to me.
But it would improve our relations.
If you don’t buy me a new car, I will have to complaign loudly that you are pushing me around.

Well if you don’t like pushing around mainstream Muslims then you won’t mind if Obama tries to establish better relations with the Muslim world.”
____________________________________
Improving relations with the Muslim world is an excellent idea to open up lines of communication and diplomatic negotiations.
At the same time, Obama has taken a very hard line approach all year with attacks on extremists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

Immediately after 9/11, up to and including the attack on Afghanistan, Bush could have gotten away with anything. Virtually the entire country rallied behind the President.
It wasn’t until Cheney and all the dark lords of the neo-con movement decided the time was ripe to abuse public support against terrorism to attack the neo-con dream – IRAQ – that things really went off the rails for Bush.
In fact the United States had a huge amount of world support and sympathy until the neo-con crowd decided to do their Iraq number.
By the end of the Bush administration, support for that President had almost completely disappeared – at home and around the world.
The families of tens of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis – many civilians, women and children – would tell you the neo-con arrogance wasn’t worth it.

Funny how the Iranians are laughing at us again, isn’t it?
_________________________________
Bob, the Iranians were laughing at us and Bush when they developed their secret nuclear facility on Bush’ watch. Fortunately that facility was discovered (after Obama became President).
The North Korean’s were also laughing at us and Bush when the tested their first nuclear weapons on Bush’s watch.

“Establishing better relations with the Muslim world by itself does not imply a required substantial loss or exchange of wealth. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if right-wingers aren’t motivated by a fear it did.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It probably does actually.
But what the heck. What would you suggest skip?
(And again, wow – we have to reach out to them in order to NOT be pushing them around. That’s some wild stuff there.)

“Funny how the Iranians are laughing at us again, isn’t it?
_________________________________
Bob, the Iranians were laughing at us and Bush when they developed their secret nuclear facility on Bush’ watch. Fortunately that facility was discovered (after Obama became President).
The North Korean’s were also laughing at us and Bush when the tested their first nuclear weapons on Bush’s watch.
——————————–
Which is to say Bush puffed himself up and strutted around like a little bantam rooster, but Iran outmanoevered him, North Korea did the same – so did Bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Most of the world scoffed at Bush’s strutting bantam rooster act.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, Obama has certainly taken care of the iranian threat. Nothing more to see here. There aren’t any human rights violations, or any nuclear facilities to worry about in Iran now that Obama is taking care of things.
Oh, and N. Korea has been addressed now too, right? There was some sort of beer summit that patched all that silly intercontinental ballistic missile stuff, right?

I refuse to believe the claims of a man who is afraid to use his own name-”Matthew Alexander”.What security reasons are there for this action?Does he have any evidence for his claims?Have any other interrogators confirmed his claims?What was his rank?Even if the prisoners made the statements,how did he know they were sincere? What was his knowledge of Arabic.tierra,most of the initial resistance to the allied occupation of Iraq came from diehard Baathists,many of whom were part of Saddam’s security service.Or perhaps you are suggesting that Al Qaeda was established in Iraq from the beginning of the resistance ie. before the invasion.

“It probably does actually.”
You have got to be kidding me! It’s about all I can take…
“we have to reach out to them in order to NOT be pushing them around.”
I don’t believe that’s what I said but I was probably too metaphorical.

tierra,the nuclear weapons tested on Bush’s watch were duds-they did not achieve fission.Do you know what a fission reaction entails?Get your facts straight-the first successful PDROK nuclear test occured after Obama became president.

“Bush was in there for 8 years and became a laughing stock. Iran develops a secret nuclear facility on Bush’s watch; North Korea tests its first nuclear weapons on Bush’s watch.
Bush was in there for 8 year; Obama has been in office for only 1 year.
That you would expect Obama to have solved North Korea and Iran in one year shows what a poor grasp you have on world affairs.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ah yes – the old, ‘it was such a huge mess even Obama couldn’t fix it this quickly’ argument.
So George Bush caused it (nevermind that the N Koreans probably got their technology from the Chicoms, who got part of that technology from one Bill Clinton). And you already know that Obama is going to fix it, he just hasn’t done it yet.
Could you tell me what Obama is going to do exactly? What is it that he is going to do to get N Korea to disarm itself? How will he use his silver tongue to get the centrafuges to stop spinning in Iran?
How?

“Now you’re just being silly. We make peace with the Muslim world and culturally and socially isolate the terrorists.”
Are we at war with the Muslim world in general?
This is the first I’ve heard of this.
How do we make peace with them? Specifically.

“We make peace with the Muslim world and culturally and socially isolate the terrorists.”
Are we at war with the Muslim world in general?”
I guess I walked right into that one. How about: we improve relations with the Muslim world to the extent that we isolate the terrorists.

Bush was in there for 8 years and became a laughing stock. Iran develops a secret nuclear facility on Bush’s watch; North Korea tests its first nuclear weapons on Bush’s watch.
Bush was in there for 8 year; Obama has been in office for only 1 year.
That you would expect Obama to have solved North Korea and Iran in one year shows what a poor grasp you have on world affairs.
**************************
That you are actually still in the mindset that Obama – or any politician -will “solve” North Korea and Iran shows that you’re a true believer in this Second Coming nonsense.
So-called “liberals” just have a different object of worship than do other religious fanatics.
It’s easier to criticize than to govern, isn’t it? I could enjoy this spectacle more if I weren’t so worried about the security of our country until the next election.

Posted by: Bob | Jan 4, 2010 1:16:45 AM
Poor Bush, made a laughing stock, and our county too – around the world. Out finessed by Bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan – despite his strutting he’d get em dead or alive.
Out finessed by Iran with their secret nuclear facility and North Korea with their first nuclear weapons test.
And suddenly now you’re worried about the security of the country?

Poor Bush, made a laughing stock, and our county too – around the world. Out finessed by Bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan – despite his strutting he’d get em dead or alive.
Out finessed by Iran with their secret nuclear facility and North Korea with their first nuclear weapons test.
And suddenly now you’re worried about the security of the country?
*******************************
Did you ever hear Bush complaining about Clinton’s mistakes leading to 9/11? I didn’t think so.
If you really want to act like the grownups, it’s time for you and The One to start accepting responsibility for an Administration that’s through 25% of its term of office.
Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush
Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush… There, I’ve said it for you.

Did you ever hear Bush complaining about Clinton’s mistakes leading to 9/11?
____________________________
He pointed the blame at almost everybody but himself.
“They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy.”

Sorry Bob, much as you want to sweep the Bush administration under the rug, it isn’t going to happen. His record stands – and it leads directly into where we are now.
***************************
You can type away frantically in a vain attempt to stem the tide, but the fact is that Obama is being revealed for what he is to the independents who voted him in. His poll numbers are descending as the more naive among us figure out that there’s no there there.
By the way, I’ll gallantly offer you the last word.

“Poor Bush, made a laughing stock, and our county too – around the world. Out finessed by Bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan – despite his strutting he’d get em dead or alive.
Out finessed by Iran with their secret nuclear facility and North Korea with their first nuclear weapons test.
And suddenly now you’re worried about the security of the country?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You still haven’t answered how Obama is going to do it.
You seem to be living in the past a bit. Bush isn’t president now – Obama is.
Since you believe he is so superior to Bush – I assume you have a foundation for that belief.
Therefore, could you please tell us how O is going to disarm N Korea – what’s the big plan? How’s he going stop the Centrafuges in Iran?

Posted by: Bob | Jan 4, 2010 1:38:55 AM
The constant right wing and Republican attack on the Democrats and Obama for anything and everything they do has basically worn out their welcome with many Americans.
The President’s poll numbers remain strong. Much stronger than for instance Reagan’s. Reagan dropped to 35% approval in his first term.
Obama is a politician who is in it for the long haul. He has stated his approach on international politics and he will now follow it – and it is basically an open hand – with a cocked club in the other.
He has stated his approach to the economy. To tide people over this very tough economic stretch, while gearing up the country and beginning to get the infrastructure in place for the oil-less economy coming down the pipes (so to speak).
Much, much more.

“Poor Bush, made a laughing stock, and our county too – around the world. Out finessed by Bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan – despite his strutting he’d get em dead or alive.
Out finessed by Iran with their secret nuclear facility and North Korea with their first nuclear weapons test.
And suddenly now you’re worried about the security of the country?”
____________________________________
No Paul, again . . . if you had a better grasp of world politics you would know that everything the Bush administration did leads to where we are now – and can’t be ignored.
The main point is that the cocky bravado shown by Bush did nothing but make him – and the country – a laughing stock.
The current President shines in comparison. No belligerent boasting, just a clear outline of the difference between people who have a faith and violent religious extremists – and a very clear statement that one will be gladly accepted while the other will be stamped out methodically and thoroughly throughout the world.
This administrations continued focus on taking out extremists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen demonstrates his intentions towards the extremists.
It is very regrettable the last administration chose to back off Afghanistan thus allowing both the Taliban and al Qaeda to regroup, become stronger and begin to inflict further damage on our troops and the Afghan people.

U.S. Navy general counsel Alberto Mora, who in 2008 submitted testimony to Congress saying that, “There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq — as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat — are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”
____________________________________
Right. . .

“Stylistically is so decisive it’s trumping substantially to the point that it’s a tangential argument. ”
And there you have it.
Reality doesn’t matter. Right and wrong don’t matter. Justice doesn’t matter. The safety of the American people doesn’t matter.
Only appearance matters. Stir up a big enough stink about something long enough that can’t even remember what it is that is so horrible about Gitmo in first place. Then declare that it must be shut down for appearance sake.
This is a defining difference between a conservative or neutral person. A conservative will see this line of reasoning for the hogwash that it is. The liberal accepts it as rational.

Take note folks.
Everything that is bad is still Bush’s fault. (Perhaps even the outrageous – ruineous budget deficits we’ve been running?) Everything that is good, the credit goes to Obama.
This, in a nutshell, is going to be the campaign theme for 2010. I is childish. It’s outlandish. But that’s the story line.
Expect ABC to play it’s part to help out with this wherever it can.

Paul, you hit the nail on the head:
“Only appearance matters.”
Frightening, isn’t it?

We also had an exploding economy – running on all cylinders until the last year of his administration.
Posted by: Paul
President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.
His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.
OMG… Bush’s record is worse the Carter’s,
look out for falling republicans
now there’s a prime example of
‘mission accomplished’

“And there you have it.”
Right. -You coin a term like ‘stylistically’ and when somebody tries to use it in the same context as you presented it you change your definition…
“Reality doesn’t matter. Right and wrong don’t matter. Justice doesn’t matter. The safety of the American people doesn’t matter”
This conclusion is ridiculous. You tried to foist the same kind of lame hyperbole on us when you quite snidely concluded that our wanting to improve relations with the Muslim world means we want to just surrender to the terrorists.
“Stir up a big enough stink about something long enough”
Attempting to use your metaphor and assuming you don’t try and change it again: I don’t believe anybody had to stir it very hard or very long–to anybody anywhere with a nose for ethics Gitmo always stinks to high Heaven.
There is a difference between really debating and being an obfuscatory chef.

“Does it matter that these two places became iconic due to the cronic harping on them by american and european liberals?”
We do have freedom of the press after all, but don’t you think these two places got a whole lot of airtime on Arab TV too?
Posted by: Skip |
They know about Bagram too. Why don’t you ever mention it?