How did Bush get a 3rd Term???
 

Today, President Obama un-suspended the scheduled tribunals for Gitmo detainees. It seems, upon further review, the Bush Administration policy of dealing with enemy combatants, is the best way to deal with the situation. This follows a barrage of other actions taken by the Obama Administration in recent weeks, which have to be frustrating to the left-wing anti-war radicals of his party.

Yes, we have seen the Obama Justice Department lawyers, doing an about-face on the Rendition Program... You recall, this was the program the left wanted to try Bush for war crimes over, but Obama attorneys say... meh, not so bad, we want to keep it! Likewise with the designation of "enemy combatant", it hasn't gone away with Bush.

At the start of his presidential bid, Obama said he planned to withdraw American forces from Iraq within 6 months. Before the Democrat primaries were over, this had been stretched to 9 months, and by the time the general election was over, it was up to 18 months, which coincidentally just happened to coincide with the Bush Administration's own estimate for a draw down. Last month, Obama announced another 15,000 troops will be heading to Iraq, and 17,000 to Afghanistan. Curiously enough, there is still no date circled in red on the calendar for American withdrawal from Iraq. Most experts conservatively say 2011 is the soonest we could see a major draw down of forces in the region.

The Obama Justice Department, not only lobbied to keep the Bush Administration policy of warrant-less wiretapping, they sought to extend the program beyond it's current limitations. So, apparently, this is not an "impeachable offense" of Bush violating our Constitutional rights at all. Apparently, it is typical of the Executive Branch throughout history, and Bush using these executive powers is really no different than Obama using them, or Truman, Roosevelt, Lincoln, etc.

It's amazing to watch Obama transform the Pinheads. All of this absolute bs he fed them during the primaries and general election, is now having to be re-thunk. He can't exactly do what he promised, he is caught between his slick polished Harvard poli-sci debate rhetoric, and the real world he is faced with. Reality being, he can't bring the troops home, he can't remove the tools we are using to keep America safe from attack. It's easy to say you are going to do this or that, but reality says there are many variables to every issue, every decision, every move. In the coming weeks, I am sure we will be entertained with valuable and wise press conferences from The One himself, to explain it all to us.

Tell us how you really feel. :thumbsup:

This is the first time you have heard of a politician saying one thing then doing another?

Good post, I can't wait to see what it turns into.

Nice avatar too.

Gee...a politician who presented himself as the antithesis of an unpopular politician and who sold the general populace a bill of goods that couldn't be delivered.

Shocking

He CAN do what he promised, he's just being a coward. This is why no one takes the Democrats seriously. They're centrists, they play it safe in the middle.

Obama was still a better choice than McCain, but that gap is beginning to close. If this keeps up, expect this liberal pinko to be demanding the impeachment of President Obama.

Well, it's like this:

The world rejoiced when Obama was sworn in. "Hooray!" they cheered. And then on his second day in office, he ordered the closing of Guantanamo. "Hooray!" they cheered again. And then he said, "since I'm closing Gitmo, who wants to help me out in taking in these prisoners?" And they all fell silent. Even the crickets stayed silent, fearing even a single chirp could be interpreted as agreeing to accept them.

So nobody wants to take these prisoners (save for that one symbolic but meaningless gesture by Germany). And nobody wants to set them free, especially if there's the possibility that they could resurface as a somebody high up in the al Queda hierarchy, like Said Ali al-Shihri, or become suicide bombers, like Abdallah Saleh al-Ajmi. So with no foreign nation willing to take them, and no American city willing to take them, what is to be done with them?

Some call his actions cowardice; I call them unfortunate reality checks. He probably would've been on pace to close Guantanamo by the end of the year if he had found people willing to take these prisoners in. He probably would've had no problem releasing the remainder of the Abu Grahib photos if there wasn't for the thirst for revenge that he never anticipated when he declassified the Justice Dept memos on interrogations. American forces would've been withdrawn in under six months if it wasn't for the logistical impossibility of it all, coupled with his realization of how fragile the peace is and how easily it could degenerate back into the bloody Sunni/Shiite battles that nearly tore the country apart.

Reality bites, and even the man that many of us have put hope and faith in can't change that.

We can try them for the crimes they were captured for. We can at least attempt justice. Imagine the innocent going free and the guilty found so based on the evidence. What a sight that would be.

I find the notion of a Bush Three to be absurd.

Most of Obama's promises (and subsequent policies and actions to-date) are what I expected. Some I agree with and others I dont, but its hard for me to see how they are Bush-like.

Expansion of the SCHIP program that Bush vetoed twice, lifting Bush restrictions on stem cell research, putting more than 2 million acres of wilderness under federal protection and stopping leases on oil/gas exploration near federal parks issued by Bush in his last days in office, signing the law to provide fair pay/pay equity for women, ending Bush restrictions on Clean Air Act regs on GHG emissions, a commitment to urban issues, that was neglected for eight years, with the creating of an office of urban policy and restored or expanded funding for numerous programs - COPS, CDBG, ...

The first attempt at real health care reform after eight years of neglect as costs rose and access declined, with the hope of legislation by the end of summer and climate change legislation (reducing GHG emissions) in the works.

A presumption of release of documents under FOIA requests rather than the Bush presumption of denying such requests whenever possible and by any means.

Rebuilding US image abroad by engaging with Muslim leaders and communities and restoring diplomacy as a foreign policy tool.

As to other national security/foreign policy actions....this is where I might disagree , but who is really surprised?
- setting a hard timetable for withdrawal of most troops from Iraq (not soon enough for me)
- deployment of more troops to Afghanistan (a no win situation)
- continuation of prisnoer rendition (at least not to the countries with the worst human rights records) and closing "black" prisons

The only real mirror image of Bush policy is probably w/ regard to FISA and now these military tribunals (at least with more prisoner rights).

So among all of the above, what comes as a real surprise?

You mean belief in accountability? Lock me up and call me bloodthirsty because yes, that is what I want.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...tos/index.html

I was as happy when Obama was elected as anyone but I always knew (and said out loud) that, in the end, he would disappoint me. I have to admit though, that even I am shocked at how hard and fast that end has come.

It only reinforces my certainty that, for all of the talk (aka, distraction) about liberal conspiracies in American media and education, that liberalism (progressivism) has been clearly disabused of any semblance of a legitimate stance in American politics and society.

Congratulations conservatives, you won. You can put down your guns and your teabags and go on home. Your precious sensibilities and traditions are still safe and sound in Washington.

Try them were? In the U.S.? Wasn't going to happen. Fairfax County, VA was one of the proposed locations to hold the trials and folks around here went bananas just from the proposal itself. I find it difficult to imagine that the reaction would be different anywhere else.

It doesn't help that the $80M that the White House requested to close the prison was taken out of a spending bill winding its way through congress, btw.

The new system is not perfect, but it is a significant improvement, and it certainly beats the legal limbo they've been stuck in and would continue to be stuck in as the gov't tries in vain to find a suitable place to conduct trials.

I'm confused. Weren't we-liberals GLAD when Bush started actually trying Gitmo detainees, rather than just holding them forever on made-up (or no) charges? Aren't we glad we have a legal process for pulling people out of there? What am I missing?

Don't get me wrong--there's stuff I'm not happy with Obama about, here. There's also stuff I'm happy with him about. On the whole I think he's done better than he's done worse. But I'm not delighted with the no-change I'm seeing in our approach to national security.

Obama is twenty pounds of shit in a ten pound bag. It was obvious during the primaries, and obvious during the general election. He made way too many promises too way too many people. He's going to be worse than Bush, for the simple fact that most people think he's better.

Yeah, they were acting like fools. Still, I don't think that public discomfort is the roadblock on this issue. It's about looking "soft on terror", demonstrating that Democrats are still playing by the axioms established by the chickenhawk GOP. The left won't truly have power until they take it. Setting up Limbaugh as the unofficial leader of the Republican Party was a good first test of progressive strategizing, but it's small fries. It's time to create leftist buzz-phrases like "stupid on terrorism" or "soft on reality"; it's time for the Democratic government to start releasing complete and factually correct information that can be verified in order to have a properly educated populace; it's time for a number of things, but first and foremost we need to clean up the biggest messes that are ongoing, which includes the innocent or guilty prisoners that are being held without trial. They're a drain on resources and holding them without due process is unethical and hypocritical.

There have been several reversals in policy that one could chalk up to the fact that Obama didn't have the intelligence and facts about things until he took office. It's easy to say "we need to stop illegal wiretapping" while you're running an election, but if your security team takes you aside in your first week in the White House and shows you 100 instances where wiretapping prevented terrorist attacks (as a random example), you might think twice about your campaign stance.

I don't see how a farmer we've had in captivity for 3 years could still be holding on to actionable intelligence.

More CHANGE than a pair of homeless siamese twins. :splat:

And this is why I voted for Obama. He didn't seem like the type to rush in to decisions based on ideology, but on what was the best course of action. I.e. No pulling out of Iraq because 'war is bad' but a phased draw down as would render the most stable Iraqi government in the U.S. forces' place.

Still not too happy about empowering the president to label someone an 'enemy combatant' and denying them their rights though.

Dude, have you never heard of "my turd is better than your turd"?

I always knew people would be dissapointed by the progress so far. Sure, you want us to do something ... but how, most especially if you aren't willing to help, should we draw blood from a stone???

How do we prove half the prisoners in GITMO are actually guilty? What do we do if they aren't? "You can go home now, sorry, my bad..." I for one will NEVER feel safe if GITMO is closed down.

**shivers**

Those of you who speak of timetables ... really? C'mon now, how? I don't see how we can say, "by x date Iraq will be stable enough to not need us"

Protip: You dont start shit you can't finish.

QuasiMondo, Get out of my head!!!!

I never expected progress right away, I just don't trust him. He's this brighteyed wiz kid with good intentions, but he's too nieve and optimistic too actually do anything helpful. It's like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

All in due time ... all in due time. I actually think were better off.

In my opinion whether you agreed with him or not the Bush agenda was clear. Obama seems to be all over the place and is not sending clear messages. Many complained about Bush's rhetoric, which appeared to some to be unsophisticated, but Obama's nuances don't work in a war. Obama is not even close to Bush regarding the execution of war. Bush had clear goals and objectives for Iraq and treated prisoners of war like prisoners of war. We don't even know what Obama's objectives are in Afghanistan, do we? But he is escalating the war. Do we know who are we fighting? What political goals we are trying to achieve? Are the people we are fighting the enemy or are they people needing help? Are we in a secret war in Pakistan? One thing we did know in February was Obama's intent on treating Afghanistan detainees in a manner similar to the Bush administration, while being highly critical of Bush's policy in Gitmo.

Obama administration keeps Bush view on Afghanistan detainees - CNN.com

The sad part is no one in the media is asking the questions that need to be asked and neither are the politicians in Washington. what is Obama trying to prove in Afghanistan? The US can not win a war in that country and we can not control the local factions with our military.

Not so much about "what do we need to prove in Afghanistan" as in, how can we stabilize A-stan so that the country's problems don't spill in to and destablize Pakistan too (a nuclear-capable country).

this is a joke, right? If not, what were Bush's clear objectives? And please, don't insult our intelligence by ignoring the several different objectives he set up. And how was Bush's execution of the war much better? Last I checked, Iraq was a mess for at least 4 years, Rumsfeld had to resign over it, and Afghanistan was slowing drifting back into Taliban's hands. And shouldn't all those questions be asked of who started the wars? And are you seriously saying that he "treated prisoners of war as prisoners of war?"

Of course I would rather see Obama reverse a lot of his decisions on these matters, but I don't see how anyone can sustain a position that at the same time criticizes Obama for continuing some Bush policies and attacks him for not being enough like Bush with a straight face.

His only objective was getting Bin Laden (and intelligence tells us Bin Laden's not been in Afghanistan for years). After that, it was just the same as Iraq; vague crap about brining freedom, fighting "trrrists" that didn't actually attack us, etc.

Mr. Obama does not have to worry about what the far left thinks.

When 2012 rolls around they aren't going to push for a different Demcrat in the primaries (and if they do, who is going to listen?) and they sure as heck aren't going to support a Republican.

Therefore he doesn't have to worry about what they think.

Those on the "farther" left should remember that is was not they who got him elected. It was the mainstream Democrats, the Independents, and the open minded (read:fed up) Republicans.

He needs to make sure he has their continued support (especially the last two groups mentioned) if he wants to get re-elected.

When Bush did all this crap it was grounds for impeachment. Now it's accepted as the "Washington game."

Outsiders can not have a lasting impact on "stabalizing" Afghanistan in the remote areas. This has been proven many times. But are you suggesting the war on terror has changed to a war to prevent the destabilization of Pakistan?

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

Perhaps it is to you.

To remove Sadaam from power and to render his military impotent and unable to wage war. To incapacitate Iraq's ability to use or develop WMD.

After the above was accomplished the war evolved into an occupation "building democracy", which I still have mixed feeling about. Iraq was also a chosen location to engage terrorists as we battled them along with the Iraqi people for political control of the country.

I am not suggesting mistakes were not made, no major war in history has been executed without mistakes, however, in my view what leaders have as a primary responsibility is to clearly define the cause. In Obama's case I thought his cause was to end the war, but he is escalating the war in Afghanistan and seems to be expanding the war to include Pakistan in a manner that is not clear to me.

We did not start the war.

In the war on terror the rules of engagement are unique, but generally I think Bush treated prisoners of war like prisoners of war as opposed to treating them like criminals.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

What about the one's who have declared war on us and are acting accordingly? Are you suggesting we are fighting a mythical enemy?

In some ways, yes, that's exactly what we're doing. The rules of war can't apply when you're (supposedly) fighting an ideology or a movement vs. fighting a country or government. The "war on terror" is completely unwinnable.

Declaring war on us does not automatically make one a threat. I could declare war on the US right now and the FBI wouldn't be breaking down my door. The fact is that the Taliban were simply a regional source of instability back in 2001. They really weren't a threat to anyone but the people of Afghanistan. If you need evidence of this, go back and look at what our government did right after 9/11: we asked the Taliban nicely to hand over Bin Laden. We were happy to leave them be if they'd simply hand over someone virtually the entire world was pissed at. We had no intent to bomb or invade or "liberate", that came later, after they flatly denied our request. Our beef was with the small number of people at the time in what was later called al Qaeda.

We, Ace, are fighting "the terrorists". That's about as mythical as it can get.

I don't have the words to express how much I disagree with your statement.

I think we fundamentally disagree on the concept of "threat". My tendency is to want to act on a potential "threat" before the "threat" is able and willing to inflict harm. It seems you would not act on a potential "threat" until after it is able and has communicated its intent to harm. And for the record when I say "act", I don't necessarily mean using violence.

Again, I don't have the words to express how much I disagree with your statement.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

I do agree that the phrase "war on terror" is a simplistic slogan, but what is happening and what has happened is not a simplistic slogan. I also agree that terrorism is a tactic, and that you can not wage war on a tactic, but there are people who are singularly focused on using that tactic to have innocent people in the world bow down to their will, and that in my view is very real. I will not bow down to anyone, I will fight to protect freedom.

Again, who are Obama's objectives any less clear than Bush's? How is his conducting of the war any worse than Bush's? And I see you didn't even answer your own questions.

And don't give me this crap about "war on terror" in relation to Iraq.

And Obama had made it perfectly clear that he would expand the war in Afghanistan and take the war to Pakistan if necessary. Agree or disagree all you like, but that was a major point of the campaign, and either you have a really short memory or you are willfully ignoring history.

As far as POWs go, how can the USA be treating them as POWs when people went to such lengths to even deny they were POWs?

so wait---after being wholly aligned with the crudest imaginable form of neoliberal economic ideology for year after year--you remember, right? that quaint horseshit about markets being rational, enlightened self-interest raising all boats blah blah blah--the dreamworld that landed us in a systemic crisis--now conservatives are trying to argue that because obama operates within constraints and so is moving toward what he talked about more quickly in some areas, more slowly in others, and sometimes has to reverse course---that somehow conservatives had a handle on reality?

that's hilarious.

so the gitmo tribunals are in place but they're also being made over into something more than kangaroo courts--so therefore, in the blinkered little world of what remains of the right, bush administration policy in this area is vindicated?

because the bush administration's wiretap policies have not been entirely abandoned, those policies are vindicated?

i suppose by this same logic, the right can say that because the administration limited the release of images which show the extent of the bush people's use of torture as an arm of policy that therefore the bush people's use of torture is vindicated.

these arguments are so stupid that it's hard to know where anyone not a far right ideologue can find the energy to waste their time on them.

maybe this is what the karl rove school has come to--a kind of victory through stupidity that happens in some alternate universe that makes if seem coherent to still be on the right---if a statement floats out there in the media-aether and is so stupid that no-one outside the right takes it seriously, then the right wins. hooray!

Perhaps the problem is mine. I thought I understood what Bush was trying to accomplish. I don't know what Obama is trying to accomplish.

I think a war needs a clearly defined cause. I think bush had one (reasonable people can disagree on if the cause was worthy), I don't know what Obama's is, do you?

For what cause?

Nuance. I generally don't like lawyers because they have to play word games. Obama is a master at "nuance", drives me crazy. Bush was forced to play that game of "nuance", so you get enemy combatants rather than POW, etc, Obama willingly plays the game. In my book it is what it is, an enemy combatant in captivity is a POW.

I, username Willravel, formally declare war on the United States of America. I have neither the inclination, nor the means to wage such a war, but I declare it none the less. I intend to take no action with this declaration. It is a declaration and a declaration alone.
No, I believe in acting on credible threats. The Taliban weren't a credible threat, and my opinion on that is shared by the intelligence community under Clinton, and under Bush (until 2002, when they said "no" to turning over Bin Laden). Demonstrate to me why you considered the Taliban to be a CREDIBLE threat.
I know it might be difficult, but find them.

...dude has been in office for like a whole ten minutes. He was handed a shit sandwich.

I'm not a genius, but the POTUS is one guy and doesn't have the Iron Fist of Dictatorship (TM) card.

Anybody else expecting him to water-to-Redbull or just ditch established GWOT policy and start all over like a new game of Sim City 2000?

New guy is gettin' all sorts of triple-A because he's coming on after a double-dose of a Super Bad.

I'll wait until 2012 before I start saying "nothing has changed, nothing is getting done."

I don't know. But my actions, what I do, what I support, what I practice, are real to me. Those things that confound my "reality", I question. In my questions you can easily find the boundaries of what you might consider my handle on reality. If you get a handle on those boundaries as they affect me and others you could have a great deal of influence. With your knowledge you have power what you do with it is up to you, the choice is yours, the red pill or the blue pill?

No, no, no, but this is:


I don't feel vindicated because the real issue has yet to be resolved one way or the other. However, I would think liberals should feel like they were lied to.

No, but I think there has been a fair debate on the issue and the nation is better because of that debate.

Not for that reason, but it is nice to see people on the left taking into consideration the potential consequence of their actions in eyes of those who would want to do us harm.

Perhaps if you bolded and capitalized "stupid", it would actually persuade me to stop wasting time. Or, maybe not...the choice is yours...

---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

When I have gone to the Comedy Store, I laugh at the jokes and don't take them serious. When I go to a "political" meeting, I take the speakers serious and assume they would act on what they say.


If you had a baby crocodile living under your house, no ability and no expressed intent to do you harm, would you act now or wait?

And I don't have the words to express how much I disagree that "we didn't start the war". We absolutely most certainly did. Who attacked us was NOT a country. We responded in 20th century fashion by focusing the bulk of our force on a country that wasn't related in ANY way to those who attacked us. Whatever war we're in now, WE'RE the aggressors.

ace---my arguments were clear. i have neither the time nor the inclination to screw about with you picking through the various straw men etc..i'll leave that for folk who are perhaps nicer than i am. it's better that way. trust me on this.

The terrists have already won, then.