Well, well, well...what have we here?

Good eye, Iraqi. I was just about to post the Washington Post's coverage, but couldn't figure out how to tie it to Sarah Palin.

As one who voted for Obama and lived through the Viet Nam mess, this is what is wrong: One president is stuck defending the previous president's precedents. It is the reality of our government.
A new president does not change everything!
Obama, meanwhile, is changing the direction of Middle East policy which is a remarkable and praiseworthy thing.

A new president does not change everything! -- #3 | Posted by Diablo

...especially if the same old public acts as an enabler.

One president is stuck defending the previous president's precedents. It is the reality of our government.
A new president does not change everything!

Grandma used to say "If you ain't part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

Good jab, Phoenix, but what I said is true. The diplomatic corps has to do the dickering and that means appearing "seamless" as they change. Presidents are held to this archaic nonsense.

Good jab, Phoenix,

Wasn't intended as a jab at you.

...but what I said is true. -- #6 | Posted by Diablo

What I said is also true. Changing presidents won't change policy if the American public doesn't demand it.

Changing presidents won't change policy if the American public doesn't demand it.

When mainstream media devotes 1/100th of the Michael Jackson coverage to this, you let me know.

Speach writers are drafting their excuses even as I type this.

Hooray! This is exactly why I voted for Bush's re-election last fall. I wanted to continue his worst policies.

Bush should be impeached. Bush is going to keep grabbing power and trashing the Constitution. Bush keeping detainees is illegal. (plus a gaggle of cuss words and name calling)

--- the Left ---

I don't like this, but I don't know what can be done about it. As to KBM's quotes from the left, this stinks no matter what President does it, but let's be VERY clear about the facts. Obama wouldn't be drafting anything like this had it not been for Bush and the situation he's left us all.

The article does a very good job in describing the situation, what Congress is doing, and the ramifications forcing the possible Executive Order.

I don't see any good solution, only the better of poor choices.

"One president is stuck defending the previous president's precedents."

Obama is counting on this type of thinking as he fails to live up to his promises. Although I'm not completely against this, he did say was going to close Guantanamo, and I'm pretty sure nobody took that as, "I'm just going to keep doing the same thing at a different location." He's hoping he can get away with this because Democrats will blame Bush.

From his inaugural address: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

obama = bush

"Obama wouldn't be drafting anything like this had it not been for Bush and the situation he's left us all."

Bush wasn't the one railing against this situation during the campaign. President Obama was. Now it seems he was simply doing so to get votes.

Why can't the military commissions work for these guys? If there is classified information being presented or information given by foreign agencies, then bar the press and everyone but the necessary courtroom personnel from the proceedings. Yeah, its not the best situation but at least its some type of trial where the evidence is presented and a sentence handed down.

Obama is counting on this type of thinking as he fails to live up to his promises.

So what's your solution?

One president is stuck defending the previous president's precedents

So why did the President campaign on change? Did you believe him?

I mean Obama's done work on the MCA, he's tried to bring it into compliance with the rulings from the SCOTUS. There are still issues, very big issues with testimony gained under torture. It's not the classified material that's at issue.

I didn't mean for that one comment to sound so glib, I was holding what I know in context and after posting realized there's no way you'd know where I was coming from.

So why did the President campaign on change? Did you believe him?

I believed he'd be different, and he is. I also thought he'd have to compromise, as every President. I also know campaign promises are campaign promises. I am extremely pleased with Obama in comparison to what I think we'd have with McCain/Palin. Not even a contest. That is not to say I am not disappointed. There are many things in which I don't agree with Obama.

Why? Did you think McCain would keep his promises? Would you like me to recount them so you can see how silly they were?

One president is stuck defending the previous president's precedents.

Let me say first, that this is a correct decision by the President.. he has an obligation to defend the country.

But the idea that he's stuck with this because of Bush is nutty. Bush was correct and Obama is, in effect, admitting it. And that's what sticks in the craw of the left wing nutjobs that rallied behind him.

Obama knows full well, that while the nuts backed him, he didn't get elected by nuts, he got elected by regular Americans who do not see codling terrorists as a wise move.

And I'm prepared to give Obama the benefit, while I didn't vote for him, of being an honorable man in this regard.

Get over it.

I believed he'd be different, and he is. I also thought he'd have to compromise, as every President.

I didn't think he'd compromise on Gitmo. Or torture. Or anything else we've done that breaks the Geneva Conventions.

This draft needs to be canned.

As one who voted for Obama and lived through the Viet Nam mess, this is what is wrong: One president is stuck defending the previous president's precedents. It is the reality of our government.
A new president does not change everything!
Obama, meanwhile, is changing the direction of Middle East policy which is a remarkable and praiseworthy thing.

#3 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-06-27 12:37 AM

okay a sincere post
but it doesnt change the fact that obama was a zealot about closing gitmo in the campaign. so is he a fuckin liar, a politician, or just the rank inexperienced community organizer with friends and mentors who are dangerous..
JUST AS WE tried to talk about in the campaign but were shut off by the state run media

Bush should be impeached. Bush is going to keep grabbing power and trashing the Constitution. Bush keeping detainees is illegal.

The thing that is lost on you is that this is being done and they'll get away with it and some on the left will justify it because George W Bush did it and got away with it and some on the right justified it.

Several posters here on this site warned of things like this. We were ignored and called America hating liberal surrender monkeys.

How's that shit sandwich taste, now?

"So what's your solution?

#16 | POSTED BY YAV"

I don't see why the military commissions can't work. Yeah, its not optimal, and people would still say its not "fair," but it would solve the problem of being able to present classified evidence since I'm pretty sure the military deals with that quite often. Like I said, just remove any non-essential personnel from the proceedings if that type of evidence is being presented.

Stop this show trial nonsense of bringing them to America for trial and put them all in the military commissions.

Then he can at least say everyone is getting their day in some type of court.

I don't even know where you're coming from on this RCade. Are we still breaking the GC? Are we still torturing people? Are we still doing extraordinary renditions? So far there are only allegations from the Right and the extreme Left that he's left the door open, but no evidence that that's actually true.

As to Gitmo, he's not the only one that promised to close it, and no matter who won, they'd have to deal with Congress and the NIMBYs.

I tend to be idealistic, but even I get reality.

BTW:

"I believe we should close Guantanamo,"

"Our great power does not mean that we can do whatever we want, whenever we want," said McCain...

Yav: McCain lost so I have the luxury of saying I believe he would keep 100% of campaign promises, even the ones that he flipped on or contradicted the other ones.

I agree that every President breaks promises but indefinite detention seems like a pretty big one, comparable to if McCain won (somehow) and raised taxes.

I agree that every President breaks promises but indefinite detention seems like a pretty big one.

It is a big one. Reading the article was interesting because (and this I'd have to do a bit more research) the drive to make this an Executive Order is coming from the Civil Libertarians. The article goes into the "why" on that - which is interesting. The short of it is an EO can be rescinded, but getting Congress involved and making it law has enormous ramifications.

As I said, this is one ugly clusterf**k with the choice of the best of no good options.

and along with this, isnt obama also keeping most of the nsa stuff going that people here and in dem party tell us was evil and had to be stopped.

NOW its not like we on the right are upset that he is seeing the 'light' on this because most of us arent I believe...but it certainly doesnt mean we wont use these 'flip flops' for our political gain because you would do the same thing and you know it

shameless, inhumane, opportunism.

who are we now?

Obama is a liar, and millions of Americans have been fooled.

Fuck Obama. We need a truly liberal president, not this hack.

Fuck Obama. We need a truly liberal president, not this hack.

#31 | Posted by Enfilade at 2009

interesting to read this here.
a real liberal for instance is one who is interested in diversity of thought...is that correct?

and the 'libs' running the show now are not in anyway concerned with that..is that sort of what you are talking about....or generally

WOW! i figured by now there would be a hundred posts calling for his impeachment and calling him some clever name like "the stammering chimp" or "monkey mcfuckup". Where are the liberals that wanted Bush and Cheney incarcerated for this kind of stuff?

HAHAHAHA, yeah, the only change you are going to get is what people like me care to put into your pencil cans as I walk past you on the sidewalk.

a citizen

hhmmmmmmmmmm

notice how the general views on this site are in the process of changing...interesting isnt it??
if I had time I would go through each thread and count up thr anti obama comments...they seem to be growing daily

I think Osama bin lying's nest speech will have the phrases:

1. "we may be in Iraq for another 100 years"
2. "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"
3. "we have recently learned that Iraq does have chemical weapons and they are stored in Syria"

For bonus points, he may say "I have authorized the military to engage in DOMESTIC spying on American Citizens by reading their e-mail to keep us safe from terrorists....like returning American soldiers, critics of the administration, voices of descent, and people who would gather to protest our policies."

(Actually, since the latter has already happened, I may not have a legitimate claim to the bonus points...interesting the left hasn't bitched about it though.)

That's what I love about the Retort...nobody bothers to read the article itself, just finds a way to twist the headline to their own biases.

==============================
=============
RUSH: I'm checking e-mail. "Rush, are you kidding, this theory of yours about Sanford?" No, I'm not. My first thought was he said: "To hell with this. The Democrats are destroying the country. We can't do anything to stop it. I gave everything I had to stop it here in South Carolina. My wife's left me, the hell with it. I'm going to enjoy life what little time I've got left." Folks, there are a lot of people that are looking at life, they're saying screw it. They're saying screw it. Before Obama takes away all their money, before Obama takes away their house or the economy takes away their house, there are people who are simply saying the hell with this. They've tuned out. The hell with it. I'm just going to try to enjoy it as much as I can. Clinton was in Argentina the other night from what I'm told. I frankly think that this is what's wrong with the economy today.

I frankly think a whole lot of people have just lost their spirit. Normal Americans, cap and trade. Stimulus bill. Taking over the automobile companies. They see it. They don't have a voice. They're saying screw it. I can't stop it. The political party that I'm a member of has no spirit either. Do you see any spirit out of the Republican Party? Obama's killing it everywhere it used to be. And that's why the economy is languishing, because in normal times people that make this country work overcome all these obstacles. But now people don't see any way to stop this. Warren Buffet said yesterday: We're in a shambles. The economy's in a shambles. There's no improvement for the end of the year. So Sanford is saying: You know, what the hell, I love this woman. Screw it. I mean, it doesn't make sense and forget the dignity, morality. I'm just telling you a lot of people may have the same attitude.
==============================
=

Yep, I've given up too, though not going the "busting my vows" approach.

Obama brought change all right....I've changed my mind about trying to try anymore. No more will I plan on opening my own business. Try to get ahead.

I'll suck at the governmental teat.

No more giving a rat's ass...the rat can keep her ass.

come on dap

its the ole idea of the changing of the guard and all that..
just hoping that there is enough of the patient left when that pendilum swings back the other way

BUT now is not the time for anyone to start a business especailly if you are REALLY tied in with energy..

I'll be damned. Bush is back in office.

Sniper,

You are close. Bush had experience. Bush was a leader. Bush could talk without a teleprompter. Bush never spent a trillion dollars in a month's time. Bush was all white.

Other than that, I guess you are right.

Bush had experience. Bush was a leader. Bush could talk without a teleprompter

Huge FF!

Great sarcasm, though I didn't expect it from you.

"White House Drafts Order for Indefinite Detentions"

Don't be fooled! This is just a trick to make Obama look like a centrist.

I'm going to have to side with the criticism of Obama thrown from the right.

Obama is definately stepping into Bush territory with this one, going against everything we elected him for.

National security or not, the demand we liberals made of Bush needs to be made of Obama - otherwise we are a bunch of puling hypocrites:

If he makes this his position, then:

Impeach Obama.

The constitution is the constitution no matter who is treating it like a 'goddamn piece of paper.'

Signed, well, a far-left liberal.

"White House Drafts Order for Indefinite Detentions"

Don't be fooled! This is just a trick to make Obama look like a centrist.

I would ahve chosen liar. I believe he was going to have his AG go over every Presidental Order from the previous administration. So far we are five months into the new term and... He is reasserting Bush's presidental order? Maybe Nulli is right and this is a centrist push.

YAV,

Bush had executive experience....Osama was a community agitator.

Bush was a leader, he did not follow polls or base his beliefs and convictions on what was popular...Osama changes like the weather.

Bush could talk without a teleprompter...it wasn't smooth and it wasn't pretty, but he could speak from the heart without being told what to say, Osama on the other hand, doesn't know his religion without a teleprompter.

Dumpling -

You are a trend setter, a consistent person. Please let me join with you in your call to impeach Osama. I won't even say I told you so!

George Bush never called the Constitution a God damned piece of paper...that was a fantasy of the liberal left. Sorry about that.

Huge FF!

Great sarcasm, though I didn't expect it from you.

#40 | Posted by YAV at 2009-06-27 01:34 PM | Repl

nothing he listed was wrong..and you can certainly make a point that he didnt talk as 'pretty' as barry does but when it comes from a teleprompter..
CAN he really talk pretty or is it just that he can read someone elses words better...

and then of course there is the old standby..
bush kept us safe for 7 years...the jury is WAY out on obama having that same line on his resume

The constitution is the constitution no matter who is treating it like a 'goddamn piece of paper.'

Signed, well, a far-left liberal.

#42 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2009-06

and you are a good EXAMPLE OF A SAMPLE

I mean you are a good example of why his poll numbers are like they are..I would think that you would answer good on the approval rating in general but would have something else to say when asked about specific issues like this one

IS that about right???

Let's wait and see how this plays itself out. Keep in mind it is the rightwingers who are seeking to permanently lock up these people without trial. It is President Obama who is searching for a way to give these men their day in court. Bottom line is, if President Obama is unable to rapidly close Gitmo, it will not be because he did not try. it will be because a coalition of Republicans and right leaning Democrats prevented it.

This type of behavior just lends weight to the idea that Senator/Candidate (and at times President) Obama was very naive. Either that or it says Bush was right all along, and Senator/Candidate Obama was wrong.

Neither make Obama look good here. I think he should have just pushed everyone into the military tribunals.

I disagree moder

it is because he acted without researching or listening to others and he got caught in the middle and now is having to crawfish.
just like some of these other things

HE DOES NOT have to move this fast but he is because he knows that the longer they are looked at, the less people like them...and on this ISSUE. it is coming back to get him and we on the right are just sitting back on this one because we AGREE WIth what he is doing.

Bottom line is, if President Obama is unable to rapidly close Gitmo, it will not be because he did not try. it will be because a coalition of Republicans and right leaning Democrats prevented it.

You mean the same republicans and right leaning democrats, that have kept it open these last 7-8 years via funding? Yet Obama and the dems all ran on the same platform GITMO was illegal, unconstitutional, they were going to close it down if elected... blah, blah, blah. Anything Bush did, we will reverse. Just curious why Obama can't simply draft an executive order vacating the Base.

CrispeeOC either you are being disingenuous or you are being stupid. The reason Obama "can't simply draft an order vacating the Base" is because there must some alternative location to move the prisoners to. And that involves funding from Congress and so forth. I know that cheap partisan politics is your forte, but at least try to appear intelligent in the process.

CrispeeOC either you are being disingenuous or you are being stupid.

...it is because he acted without researching or listening to others... -- #49 | Posted by afkabl2

It is because he was willing to lie to get elected. Goolsby explained this to the Canadians (re NAFTA), and Power explained it to BBC (re Iraqi troop withdrawal).

The reason Obama "can't simply draft an order vacating the Base" is because there must some alternative location to move the prisoners to. And that involves funding from Congress and so forth... -- #51 | Posted by moder8

What, and this has changed since his campaign speeches?

Don't be an enabler. Or if you're still clinging to the fantasy that he's not just another politician who will say anything to get elected, speak out and give him the leverage he needs.

Keep in mind it is the rightwingers who are seeking to permanently lock up these people without trial.-- #47 | Posted by moder8

Right. The Dem minority couldn't do anything to prevent the Iraq War and the financial crisis, but the Republican minority is running the country now.

"The Dem minority couldn't do anything to prevent the Iraq War and the financial crisis, but the Republican minority is running the country now."

What did you expect? The Democrats governing like progressives? The howling from the right that Democrats are "leftists" is always amusing.

Actually, to properly rephrase Phoenix's statement: The Bush/Cheney mafia lied to the Congress and the American people to sell a war which was completely unjustified and unnecessary. But the current Republican minority, while not able to control policy by any means, is being as obstructionist as possible. The GOP is doing everything it can to oppose Obama's policies. In some areas they have failed miserably. In other areas they have had enough cross aisle support in Congress to be partially successful.

The howling from the right that Democrats are "leftists" is always amusing.

#55 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-06-27 03:12 PM

A little selective memory?

Actually, to properly rephrase Phoenix's statement...

Correct your own crap before attempting to right others.

Is Crispee having a hissy fit? Another wimpy, whiny, wussy rightwinger who wants wine with that cheese? Bite me.

"Is Crispee having a hissy fit? "

Yep, she's crying again.

Is Crispee having a hissy fit? Another wimpy, whiny, wussy rightwinger who wants wine with that cheese? Bite me.

59 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-06-27 03:20 PM

Based on your pathetic post, you must have figured out how your #51 was kind of lame. Not only being dumb enough to call out someone, but to compound the ignorance?

Sniper,

You are close. Bush had experience. Bush was a leader. Bush could talk without a teleprompter. Bush never spent a trillion dollars in a month's time. Bush was all white.

Other than that, I guess you are right.

#39 | Posted by A_Citizen

Bush couldnt find oil in texas
bush lead 19% of americans, bush started a war of agression.
Bush had to be hooked up to a secret microphone and still couldnt talk
Bush handed the banks a trillion dollars in one day.

"Is Crispee having a hissy fit? "

Yep, she's crying again.

Crying of laughter thanks to Moder8. Help your buddy out.

awwww. poor crispee. laughing on the outside and crying on the inside? waah waah. My entire political philosophy has been discredited and all my favorite politicians have been thrown out of office.

Facts

Obama has inherited a seriously fucked up situation because of the actions of the bush administration.

Some if not many of the detainees are threats to the US.

The gist of the article is that the Obama administration appears to be searching for a workable solution. IT appears that there is no legislative formula that could work to create the justice system to try these detainees and Obama is therefore forced to EO.

His EO power does mirror what Bush did.

I for one will give Obama the benefit of the doubt in the short term as he attempts to find a path through. Clearly he has a different thought on the detainees than bush, actually doing something to bring justice there.

But this issue has to be resolved. AMerican's standards and Ideals are at stake.

As Bil Maher has pointed out, we have in this country two parties, right of center and insane.

WE need a truly liberal and progressive party.

awwww. poor crispee. laughing on the outside and crying on the inside? waah waah. My entire political philosophy has been discredited and all my favorite politicians have been thrown out of office.

#64 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-06-27 03:39 PM |

You could have just written I fucked up. Instead you continue to prove your ignorance. Not that you really need anymore help from me to solidify that fact.

As Bil Maher has pointed out, we have in this country two parties, right of center and insane.

WE need a truly liberal and progressive party.

So the fact dems control the Senate and the vote to close GITMO was voted down 90-6, means those 90 are right of center or insane?

Truth:

"bush lead 19% of americans,"
Nah, Bush lead the nation...19% supported him. Osama would have caved against such opposition. It doesn't surprise me that you don't recognise that quality in a leader.

"bush started a war of agression."
So did Lincoln. Do hate him too. Do you discount that people are better off now than before? Don't forget, your boy isn't man enough to end it. He is only able to follow where someone else has gone....Bush is a leader...Osama is a Follower. What is funnier is you idiots follow him, following Bush and think you are going in a different direction. Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows it?

"Bush had to be hooked up to a secret microphone and still couldn't talk"

There is simply no evidence of that. Nice rumor though. We have all seen Osama talk with ghetto studders when the teleprompter is not in sight.

"Bush handed the banks a trillion dollars in one day."

Who authorized that action? Let's see...it took Congress. As I recall Congress was controlled by DEMORATS. Even your boy voted for it. But let's look at it in the context of leader / follower...If Bush convinced the enemy congress to go along he is leading and Osama is doing little more than following to this day. If congress was leading, your boy would be responsible...so, which is it? I might point out that America got more out of that bail out than out of the trillion dollar osama handout.

"bush started a war of agression."
So did Lincoln. Do hate him too. Do you discount that people are better off now than before?

you need a lesson in history dummy.

South Caroline FIRED on Fort Sumter.

I might point out that America got more out of that bail out than out of the trillion dollar osama handout.

Still waiting for my bailout check, but am getting work from the stimulus bill.

...to properly rephrase Phoenix's statement: ...the current Republican minority, while not able to control policy by any means, is being as obstructionist as possible. -- #56 | Posted by moder8

Exactly. Doesn't the Dems' passivity during the Bush years make you wonder?

What did you expect? The Democrats governing like progressives? -- #55 | Posted by nullifidian

No. I'm hoping the public will become so angry that either one party will be turned around, or a viable third party emerges.

"WE need a truly liberal and progressive party."

I agree, but the odds of the dems becoming that are slim and none. Unfortunately, it's insanely difficult for 3rd parties, thanks to the two-party monopoly. Ask Ralph Nader.

Truth,

Hate to point it out to you, Ft Sumter was located on the property of a sovereign nation...let me remind you that South Carolina had left the Union and Ordered the Federals OUT of the fort. But I suppose, you believe that the British were the aggressors in the revolutionary war.

So the fact dems control the Senate and the vote to close GITMO was voted down 90-6, means those 90 are right of center or insane? -- #67 | Posted by crispee_oc

Works for me.

...it's insanely difficult for 3rd parties, thanks to the two-party monopoly. Ask Ralph Nader. -- #72 | Posted by nullifidian

You're old enough to remember when everyone knew no one could compete with CBS, NBC and ABC, right?

It's insanely difficult for third parties in part because of self-fulfilling beliefs. But Rahm Emanuel is right when he argues that you should never let a crisis go to waste -- they present opportunities to do things that are impossible under other circumstances. I hate to see this one wasted.

"Let's wait and see how this plays itself out"

Bush lies, and he's called put as a liar. Obama lies, and we need to "wait and see how this plays itself out." The deference given to this guy by leftwing douchebags is simply unbelievable.

out, not put

As Bil Maher has pointed out, we have in this country two parties, right of center and insane.

WE need a truly liberal and progressive party.

So the fact dems control the Senate and the vote to close GITMO was voted down 90-6, means those 90 are right of center or insane?

-------------

democrats = roman eagle

republicans = german swastika

Truth,

Hate to point it out to you, Ft Sumter was located on the property of a sovereign nation...let me remind you that South Carolina had left the Union and Ordered the Federals OUT of the fort. But I suppose, you believe that the British were the aggressors in the revolutionary war.

#73 | Posted by A_Citizen

yes that sovereign nation being the United States of America.

Left the Union you say? by an illegal declaration of secession? hmmm where in the Constitution does it mention the right of secession?

The White House dismissed reports that it has drafted an executive order allowing indefinite detention in the United States of some of the top terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

An administration official told AFP that no such draft order existed, though internal deliberations were taking place on how to deal with those inmates who could not be released or tried in civilian courts.

The source said that a task force established by the president was not due to present its recommendations until July, and that the administration would then work with Congress to find a solution to the conundrum.

Truth,

I am guessing that you have never read the Tenth Amendment. unless you can show me in the Constitution where it says "Once you're in...you're in - like the Mafia)" a State would have the right to leave the Union under the Tenth Amendment.

However, based on your analogy, i am guessing you believe that the founding fathers were traitors and that we should all be loyal British subjects, since the Declaration of Independence was a treasonous petition that was mailed tot he King of England? You must have been a hoot in history class.

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our political expediency."

--BHO

Even in light of #79, it's heartening to see the democratic blog ruler himself on here holding his president accountable, along with a couple other lefties.

interesting, since the constitution starts off with this

The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

seems like the feds are given the power to form a perfect union and insure domestic tranquility.

thus a power not given to the states to dissolve the sacred bonds of the union.

Actually the founding fathers were traitors to the british crown, until they formed the new nation in July 76.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

oh btw here is something specifically given to the legislative branch

suppress Insurrections.

Truth,

so you are saying you can't tell the difference between "insurrection" and leaving the union?

I think there is a huge difference between an insurrection and the lawful assembly of the people in the state deciding that the state is leaving the Union. How can the rightfully elected political body put the state as a whole into insurrection?

Nice try though.

Truth,

Bad news:

Actually the founding fathers were traitors to the british crown, until they formed the new nation in July 76.

You lost.

If declaring it makes it so (which according to your post it must since the war was not over until 1783 and the Constitution you were thumping wasn't ratified until 1790) then South Carolina was independent as soon as her legislature said she was and withdrew her representatives from Congress.

Better luck next time.

"..I would think that you would answer good on the approval rating in general but would have something else to say when asked about specific issues like this one...IS that about right??? #46 | Posted by afkabl2...

Obama has lost my overall support. His Legal friend of court brief on DOMA last week, which compared my Legal Gay Marriage to incest and child rape was the last straw...for me personally.

This is just salt in the wounds of the shattering republic.

Can I still vote for Ron Paul? Rlaph Nader?

...Ralph. "Rlaph Nader" is his Rap name.

Actually the founding fathers were traitors to the british crown, until they formed the new nation in July 76.

--------------

Saddams mistake was in forgetting who his godfather was. America didn't give a shit how many people he massacred until he threatened kuwaiti oil.

Milosevic too.

The new boss .. same as the old boss..

Truth,

Bad news:

Actually the founding fathers were traitors to the british crown, until they formed the new nation in July 76.

You lost.

If declaring it makes it so (which according to your post it must since the war was not over until 1783 and the Constitution you were thumping wasn't ratified until 1790) then South Carolina was independent as soon as her legislature said she was and withdrew her representatives from Congress.

Better luck next time.

#86 | Posted by A_Citizen

so sorry

our nation was formed on July 4, 1776 when we declared our independance.

SC signed up eventually to the constition andgave up their power to the feds. what they did was an act of insurrection which the feds clearly and undeniably had the authority to put down. therefore, SC started the CW.

even the FF viewed themselves as traitors to the crown until they declared.

Can I still vote for Ron Paul? Rlaph Nader?

#87 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2009-06-27 10:19 PM

FTA: Little information on bin Attash's case has been made public, but officials who have reviewed his file said the Justice Department has concluded that none of the three witnesses against him can be brought to testify in court. One witness, who was jailed in Yemen, escaped several years ago. A second witness remains incarcerated, but the government of Yemen will not allow him to testify.

Administration officials believe that testimony from the only witness in U.S. custody, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, may be inadmissible because he was subjected to harsh interrogation while in CIA custody.

Wot a hand lettered invitation a shiatstorm Obama was handed here.

99% sure he's guilty. Can't prosecute him due to lack of witnesses and inadmissable coerced testimony.

Keep him yer fucked.
Let him go yer fucked.
Try him yer fucked.

Fuck!

That noted, perpetuating the FAILed BushCo brand and wholly indefensible "indefinite detention is sometimes a good thing" policy is not the right answer.

It's is an answer from the right.

Just not the correct one.

Spud sez try him and most likely lose.

Deport him and track him.

Fair Trial or no trial at all, either.

K?

The larger issue of "legal indefinite imprisonment without trial" is no brainer.

No. Can not have. Not yours!

Be Well.

Keep him yer fucked.
Let him go yer fucked.
Try him yer fucked.

No shit.

That is reality.

No matter what tack is taken, we're fucked.

This is why Bush settled on doing nothing - procrastinating.

This is why Obama will follow suit.

NOBODY knows how to deal with this shit.

It's a paradoxical conundrum given our legal system.

Deport him and track him.

So, it's like recreational fishing - let's play catch and release?

How about we at least hold on to these assholes until the combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is over?

We NEVER would have released captured German soldiers during WWII prior to conflict being over.

How about we at least hold on to these assholes until the combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is over?

How about you take them to Iraq and Afghanistan now and let those governments try them?

America can assist in the prosecution by providing access to any legally obtained evidence.

America decides to stand by the courts decisions in those respective countries and does so before the trials begin.

How's that sound?

We NEVER would have released captured German soldiers during WWII prior to conflict being over.

Didn't release Japanese folks in internment camps unril after the war either and that wasn't right.

That sed, Spud would allow that if that was dione then that would be the maximum amount of time you could spend imprisoning them as long as the war ends within a reasonable amount of time.

But Spud still likes his idea better.

And war or no war the whole "coerced evidence sometimes through the application of torturous techniques" thing is still out there and largely unaddressed.

No accountability.

Be Well.

How about you take them to Iraq and Afghanistan now and let those governments try them?

I don't know that in many cases trying them is even an option.

If they were captured in a firefight, it stands to reason that upon release they will resume combat. Can we at least hold those who were captured on a makeshift battlefield until combat is over?

Is that too much to ask?

Or, do we reward some of these guys for not donning a uniform?

Please understand that these detainees fall under a number of different classifications.

In order for an on-topic conversation to continue, we have to agree upon different classifications and then narrow the 'what do we do' scenario to each classification - they are NOT all the same and the method of dealing with them should be customized accordingly.

"Didn't release Japanese folks in internment camps unril after the war either and that wasn't right.

Dumbspud

Bullshit. Were you there then, psuedo-clever naive boy? I was. We won. They lost. Shit happens. Spies happen. Traitors happen.

In fact, rounding up muslims now is not a bad idea (gasp!)

GA is a stupid anti-American douche.

MODER8 is a naive lib pimplyfaced kid who never fought a battle for his country in his wimpey life.

Chickenshit moderate.

This article isn't true. Beware of disinformation.

If you voted for obama, you are about as smart as nancy pelosi the west coast hag.

"Bush could talk without a teleprompter."

Identify the language he spoke, I dare you.

If you voted for obama, you are about as smart as nancy pelosi the west coast hag.

#102 | Poted by Badeye at 2009-06-28 04:26 AM | Reply | Flag: STILL STUDYING FOR G.E.D.

YEAH! JUST LIKE OBAMA IS GONNA MAKE WAR VETS PAY FOR THEIR OWN MEDICAL BILLS FOR WAR WOUNDS?? REMEMBER THAT ONE!!!

BOOGY OOGY OOGY

"Bush could talk without a teleprompter."

Identify the language he spoke, I dare you. -- #103 | Posted by LetUsPrey

Parseltongue, wasn't it?

However, Bush could not speak without an earpiece ...and even that he fucked up.

It is obvious to me that most posters here have never played chess. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the queen to win the game. This isn't the end of the game it is the beginning. Remember that the intent is to close Gitmo. It is a big mess with many complications...thanks to Bushco who almost made it impossible to solve.

Dumpling,

The legend of Bush's earpiece is simply that. But if you want to say it several more times, it may come true.

Now, if you want to talk about the ghetto studder language that the current president speaks when not on the teleprompter...

duh, weah, uhm, deah, uhm, dat, weah, uhm.

the ghetto studder language that the current president speaks when not on the teleprompter...

duh, weah, uhm, deah, uhm, dat, weah, uhm.

#109 | Posted by An_Ass

Why don't we just get out of the Middle East and let our oil companies deal with them? We had no problems until we started pouring "diplomacy" all over the place and lighting it with gunfire.
Exxon, Mobil, BP et. al. meanwhile seemed to get along fine with the Arabs.

I would say that Obama just lost the Jihadi vote.

Nulli,

Sorry, but your emperor has no clothes! If your party wants to make fun of Bush's speech pattern, I would remind you of your own glass house!

LETUSPREY: Obviously you never listened to Obama without his TelePrompTer. Without it, by comparison, he makes Bush sound like a professional orator.

Succinctly put, Obama reads {other people's words) well -- Period.