Gitmo....Off with its head!

Off Topic
1

Ok, so first-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=guantanamo+bay+closing&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

a few dozen stories with their take on the whole Guantanamo bay closing. Pick your favorite, I couldn’t care less.

There are currently two problems I have with this. One is that a lot of [fox news] people are up in arms about this, making it sound like closing Guantanamo bay means the [potential] terrorists are just going to be roaming the streets now that they don’t have a prison.

Kind of retarded considering it was made clear that they’re just moving to American prisons.

Two, Obama has been president two days and Fox news has been EXTREMELY hypocritical (even for their standards). For weeks at a time they ranted about how it’s unamerican, unpatriotic, downright wrong to question a presidents tactics when Bush was in office. O’Reilly even said “like it or not, bush is your president so support him.” Aside from the obvious problems with an incredibly blind and retarded statement like that, Fox news (including O’reilly) is questioning and criticizing and even hating on Obama within TWO fucking days of his presidency.

And then there’s Rush Limbaugh going full out racist on Obama and his decisions, though I’m actually not surprised about that.

But still, the entirety of Fox news didn’t just flip flop, they made a complete fucking 180 in their opinion of the white house Administration from Bush’s reign to Obama’s start.

2

Gitmo…Off with its head!

First, a couple of points regarding Guantanamo Bay:
The notion that everyone held there was a terrorist is patently absurd. More than 400 detainees were released without charge. This means that either the United States government knowingly released 400+ terrorists back into the world or the United States government came to the conclusion it could not, even with the deck stacked in its favor, bring terrorism charges against those 400+ individuals. Personally, I’m inclined to believe the latter.

Because of this, the argument that it is OK to do whatever you want to these people because they are terrorists is void. Even if you are willing to look the moral implications of torture by applying an ends-means justification, there is no end-justification to torturing someone who, surprise, turns out not to be a terrorist after all.

Speaking of torture, I believe there is a lot of ambiguity on this issue. It is entirely possible that some of the allegations of inhuman treatment are complete fabrications or prove to be the exception rather than the rule, just as it is possible that there are even worse things that did happen that we haven’t even heard about. The level of secrecy surrounding Guantanamo’s operations make the truth difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. Furthermore, it creates a situation where we are expected to believe everything is on the level because the government SAYS it’s on the level. Needless to say, that’s asking too much of anyone with half a brain.

Lastly, I fail to understand the framing of Guantanamo’s closure as a partisan issue. In 2006, then-President Bush expressed his desire to close Guantanamo. In 2007, John McCain said he would close Guantanamo immediately if elected. Yet actually closing Guantanamo is somehow dangerous because Barack Obama is doing it?

I’ve said all I care to on Fox ‘News.’ With regard to the general post-election hypocrisy, one of the blogs I follow is doing an ongoing Partisan Hack Watch. So far, it’s been both amusing and horrifying.

For example, here’s Sen. John Kyl, R-AZ, in 2005 on using a filibuster to hold up Supreme Court nominations:
“My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President’s nominees. To that I say, I don’t think so, and even if true, I’m willing to give up that tool.”

Here’s Kyl in November 2008:
Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130483.html

There is a bunch more like that. You’ll probably also see the left-progressive line undergo an embarrassingly blatant and ideologically bankrupt shift from “Truth to Power” and “Question Authority” to “Support Out President.” The shoe is on the other foot and politicians are hoping we all have amnesia.

(Interestingly enough, Mike Huckabee seemed willing to try a different approach. Let’s see how long he sticks to it). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449425,00.html

4

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Would you care to qualify that? While Limbaugh is at sometimes sickeningly critical, I have not heard any overtly racist statements in the last couple days.

Ok, I may have been mistaken as I heard this on the daily show (and apparently it was extremely out of context, even for Stewart’s standards).

Still though, the whole “I want him to fail” bit seemed pretty damn arrogant to me.

“OMG he’s a socialist who’s going to kill America,”

I’m more concerned with why people thing socialism is bad. Socialism is FLAWED, I realize this, but not inherently evil like many make it out to be.

First, a couple of points regarding Guantanamo Bay:
The notion that everyone held there was a terrorist is patently absurd. More than 400 detainees were released without charge. This means that either the United States government knowingly released 400+ terrorists back into the world or the United States government came to the conclusion it could not, even with the deck stacked in its favor, bring terrorism charges against those 400+ individuals. Personally, I’m inclined to believe the latter.

Four -hundred-?!

That’s insane. That is pure balls to the wall insanity. I knew Guantanamo was pretty much the opposite of all of our American values but goddamn.

6

Gitmo…Off with its head!

what i want to know is why obama is the poster boy for change? is it his policies are gona change the world or is it that hes a black guy? if its the latter isnt that incredibly racist? isnt sorta saying because Obama is black he is gona change the world like a white guy couldnt. or is it that they are saying finally a black president, everybody’s equal. Pardon my ignorance but didnt that happen along time ago?

Personally i think he is doing a great job, two days in and he’s already pissing people off. its nice to see such swift and affirmative action on the part of a politician

8

Gitmo…Off with its head!

I would argue that Obama’s cabinet picks (Ray LaHood, Robert Gates, James Jones, et.) reflect a higher amount of bipartisanship on his part. However, his ability to make Washington more bipartisan is hampered by his own party’s fondness for things like this:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnHMsHdiW-mG_jKo8vvmIqcdmKMQD95HU0M84

10

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Yes, that’s true Winnie Cooper.

11

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Richardson has been withdrawn from consideration. As for the rest, let’s break this down:
Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton
'Nuff said

Treasury Secretary - Timothy Geithner
Undersecretary from 1998 to 2001; Clinton-era retread

Seretary of Defense - Robert Gates
CIA Director 1991-93; Secretary of Defense 2006-present; Bush-era retread

Attorney General - Eric Holder
Deputy Attorney General 1997-2001; Clinton-era retread

Secretary of the Interior - Ken Salazar
Never served in the federal executive branch

Secretary of Agriculture - Tom Vilsack
Never served in the federal executive branch

Secretary of Labor - Hilda Solis
Interned for the Office of Hispanic Affairs in 1980-81; briefly an analyst for the OMB in 1981. Very inconsequential executive branch experience.

Secretary of Health and Human Services - Tom Daschle
Never served in the federal executive branch

Secretary of Education - Arne Duncan
Never served in the federal executive branch

HUD Secretary - Shaun Donovan
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing during the Clinton/Bush transition. Let’s count him as a Clinton retread for now.

Secretary of Transportation - Ray LaHood
Never served in the federal executive branch

Secretary of Energy - Steven Chu
Never served in the federal executive branch

Secretary of Veteran Affairs - Eric Shinseki
Never served in the federal executive branch (was Army Chief of Staff under Clinton and Bush, but I’m not counting that as a political appointment)

Secretary of Homeland Securtiy - Janet Napolitano
Never served in the federal executive branch, though was a US Attorney under Clinton. For the sake of argument, let’s count her as a Clinton-era retread

Chief of Staff - Rahm Emanuel
White House advisor 1993-1998; Clinton-era retread

EPA Administrator - Lisa Jackson
Worked for the EPA for 16 years but was not, to my knowledge, a political appointee.

OMB Director - Peter Orszag
Member of the Council of Economic Advisors 1995-1996; Clinton-era retread

US Trade Rep - Ron Kirk
Never served in the federal executive branch

Of the 18 posts listed, 7 are Clinton-era retreads. That’s less than half, not “most.” Please get your facts straight.

Of course, the real measure of “change” is how this stacks up against past precedent. So if anyone is up to the task, try looking up George W. Bush’s first cabinet and applying the same criteria to Bush I/Reagan-era retreads.

13

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Well here’s an interesting change it seems Obama’s economic adviser has decided that racism is okay as long as it’s against “white males”:

For those that don’t want to risk the link he states SPECIFICALLY he wants criteria set so that “white males” are kept from getting the stimulus money.

I wonder if he’s okay with “white males” not having to PAY for that stimulus money through taxes?

….No… I’m sure he wouldn’t like that…

Ahhh Gotta love Socialist money/job redistribution.

By the way Socialism isn’t “evil”, unless you believe in personal responsibility and the American way. Then it becomes such, but in opinion only.

Edit:

I want those here to know I don’t hate our President, I’m willing to see what he does. And while his political picks so far don’t bode well for his promised “change”, I never really though he’d be able to keep that promise. His cabinet picks show he isn’t chained to the “crazy left” that got him elected. And that is good for America. Seeing his central picks made me feel better that he won’t be the “anti-christ” so many (even me) though he would end up being.

I believe he has anti American ideals. And I believe if it wasn’t for the economy needing to be repaired after the government meddled with the banks and mortgage institutions back in the mid 90’s he’d be potentially “dangerous” to the American way.

Instead he will be addled with a mess that he promised he could clean up, and sadly will not be able to, at least not in 4 or 8 years. Without cutting spending all around, and cutting taxes there is NO ONE that can fix the mess we’re in.

I pray for him, that he will stand up for our country, and not turn into Jimmy Carter Junior. And that he can ride out the next 4 to 8 years without “re-interpreting” the Constitution to much.

14

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Ehh…that wasn’t really racist. He did say he doesn’t want it to go to “JUST” white males, the keyword is Just, as in before it had apparently mostly gone to only white males.

Now…is it a smart idea? No. Enforcing equal opportunity when it may not be that beneficial to begin with to get the economy back on track is a bad idea. I would prefer financially smart decisions over racially sensitive ones any day. Does that make me a racist? No, because I wouldn’t care if it were Mexicans that were the financially smart choice or Blacks or Asians or whatever, I would just like something that benefits the entirety of the country in it’s current economic crisis.

Either that, or maybe I misheard something.

15

Gitmo…Off with its head!

And if there was a program created to give jobs out, and he came up and stated he didn’t want the money to go to “black males” what would be the overwhelming cry from most news sources?

Now let’s read what Obama’s economic adviser said:

“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people that are already professionals, or to white male construction workers.”

“I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And… Therefor in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I’m certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be… Ah… Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed ah… minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers, or high skilled professionals.”

So that’s apparently not racist or anything, which mean this wouldn’t be either:

“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to low skilled people, or to black male construction workers.”

“I have nothing against black male construction workers, I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And… Therefor in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I’m certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be… Ah… Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the skilled laborers laid off because of the recession ah… construction workers on unemployment, people who are not necessarily minorities.”

Because to ME both of those seem VERY “racist”. They are attempts to use RACE to give out jobs, and the money those jobs would provide. Which would seem to be “racist” to me.

I guess giving the jobs to the BEST workers, regardless of race isn’t part of a successful companies/governments policy….

16

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Yes, they are using Race to give out jobs, they have been doing this for a LONG time.

It’s called the Equal Opportunity act, it means that no person of any race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or what have you is excluded from a job and saying “I don’t want to give this job to just white males” goes hand in hand with equal opportunity.

17

Gitmo…Off with its head!

GW never promised “change”. It’s been Obama’s rallying cry from the start.

And my question to you is this: does recycling officials from previous administrations to a far lesser extent than his predecessor constitute change?

Onto other business:

Bob Reich is toxic. People in power REALLY need to stop listening to him. The Clinton administration can best be described as an idealogical tug of war. While some folks (Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, etc.) were tugging toward deficit reduction and market-friendly reforms, Bob Reich was tugging from the other end, trying to stir up support for investment in “human infrastructure” (translation: let’s spend a ton of money on ineffective government assistance programs and hope that the supposedly better-educated, more productive workforce will somehow offset the cost). Also, he looks like an elf.

Regarding Obama’s actual nominees, I don’t see Timothy Geithner weathering Obama’s entire term even if he’s confirmed and I can only hope Eric Holder does not as well. Of all of Obama’s picks, Holder bothers me the most. As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I don’t see her as a bad fit for secretary of state. After all, Henry Kissinger proved you can be a ruthless Machiavellian flip-flopper and a respected statesman at the same time. And if a psychopath Alex Haig (seriously, he makes Dick Cheney look like like a hippie) can serve as secretary of state and not cause World War III, what’s there to fear from Hillary Clinton in comparison?

Holder worries me because he has all kinds of shady connections, he’s hostile to gun rights, he’s a staunch believer in affirmative action and he’s an overzealous drug warrior. If Alberto Gonzales didn’t already set the bar so low, I’d say that Holder has all the ingredients to make an exceptionally bad attorney general. (I also disagree with Hilda Solis’ views on most issues, but that’s about par for a secretary of labor and as far as I know she isn’t corrupt).

With the other nominees, it’s more a case of one or two things I dislike rather than the candidate as a whole. I think Tom Daschle’s proposal for a federal health board is a terrible idea (the last thing we need is more bureacracy), but on the other hand, Daschle isn’t the type of person to try to ram through single-payer healthcare in a heartbeat. I dislike Tom Vilsack’s enthusiasm for farm subsidies, but I like his stance on genetically modified crops.

And, in a few instances, I think the picks are genuinely promising. Eric Shinseki is highly decorated and has a lot of leadership experience. Arne Duncan supported charter schools and weighted per-pupil funding in Chicago, both of which are good ideas. I don’t know how Steven Chu will work out, but his academic credentials are impressive and nobody can accuse him of being a partisan hack.

Overall, the proposed cabinet is a very strange blend of insiders, outsiders, technocrats and politicos. I’m interested to see how long this kind of kitchen-sink approach to governance will last.

18

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Yes, they are using Race to give out jobs, they have been doing this for a LONG time.

It’s called the Equal Opportunity act, it means that no person of any race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or what have you is excluded from a job and saying “I don’t want to give this job to just white males” goes hand in hand with equal opportunity.

Ahh, so making criteria to EXCLUDE “white males” isn’t racist because it’s not violating the Equal Opportunity act, that states you can’t exclude persons due to race… Er….

Which is odd, because the way I read what you posted doing so WOULD violate the act. The way I read the act the only way a person should be excluded is if they weren’t qualified to do the job… Which sounds fair to me.

But thanks for showing me what it REALLY means.

Oh, and just because it’s been happening for a a “long time” doesn’t make it right. Just as not letting women vote was wrong, and Jim Crow laws were wrong, so is excluding ANYONE (white males included) based on race. No matter how “long” those actions have occurred.

As the video stated, I want the BEST people building my roads and bridges, whether they be white, black, red, or yellow. Hell, even pink.

Bob Reich was tugging from the other end, trying to stir up support for investment in “human infrastructure” (translation: let’s spend a ton of money on ineffective government assistance programs and hope that the supposedly better-educated, more productive workforce will somehow offset the cost). Also, he looks like an elf.

LOL. Yeah, he kind of does!

19

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Ahh, so making criteria to EXCLUDE “white males” isn’t racist because it’s not violating the Equal Opportunity act, that states you can’t exclude persons due to race… Er….

Oh for gods sake this’ll be the third time I’ve said it.

He is NOT excluding or suggesting it or implying it or whatever. He is saying they shouldn’t be the ONLY ones to get the jobs.

Quit arguing with me if you’re just gonna keep not reading what I say.

21

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Right, I’m not arguing that the Equal Opportunities act is seriously flawed, but that’s its own problem. Obama’s economic advisor is working in a broken system and all I’m saying is HE’S not advocating racism or in short a racist, it’s the system’s fault.

With the system we have, yes their will be some places that hire a different race rather than a skilled white person. Why? Is it because they’re racist? No, it’s because they actually don’t wnt to appear racist and thus have one person of a different race or ethnicity working for them.

It’s not morally right, it’s not ethically right, I fucking hate equal opportunities because it’s choosing force tolerance over basic freedoms (if a business owner wants to hate black people that’s his own fucking fault if his career and business go down the shitter, but it’s HIS choice).

However, my entire point was that the advisor is not the problem and he is not at fault. So calling him a racist isn’t where the blame should lie and that’s what I was mainly annoyed about.

22

Jaks

he is not a racist he is a liberal he made and idiotic statement then again he meant it

I am trying with every ounce of my being to give Obama the benefit of the doubt

Making Hillary Clinton Secretary of State did not add to my confidence

She is less qualified for that job than she was President

We all have to hope Obama is what people think he is this country is in huge trouble as is the world

Actually he has been President for what 4 days he has not done one damn thing that impressed me But I am still hoping

23

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Me too bur I doubt he’ll do anything good for us.

24

Gitmo…Off with its head!

I don’t know of any president in recent history who made a huge impact with less than a week on the job.

The bottom line is this: the country got really fucked up under Bush. I don’t hold him solely responsible for that, though he did make his share of errors. Regardless of who is at fault, that fucked-up condition is what Obama inherrited. I don’t believe he’ll be able to repair the damage because all of the damage may be, in practical terms, irreperable for the time being. And because either Obama or his supporters racheted expectations so high, a lot of people are going to be dissapointed. So yes, hold him accountable for failing to deliver on promises when that happens (and it WILL happen). But don’t blame him for a mess that he didn’t create and don’t point the finger at him alone for doing (or not doing) things that would have been done (or not done) under someone else’s watch anyway.

Context, people. We don’t need another 8 years of everyone losing their heads.

25

Gitmo…Off with its head!

Ex-President Clinton began this mess now we’ve’ve his wife as Secretary of State.

26

Gitmo…Off with its head!

So your argument is that Hillary Clinton is secretly Bill Clinton in drag. That’s the only reason I’d think that would make your statement stand as an argument.