Obama argues against Uigher release

posted at 10:00 am on May 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama has decided to fight the release of the 17 Chinese Uighers at Guantanamo Bay into the US, Jake Tapper reports — and he’s choosing an interesting argument to use.  While Obama has wasted no opportunity to paint Gitmo as a stain on the nation’s reputation and all but the gulag Dick Durbin called it a few years ago, the administration paints quite a different picture of it in court:

The Obama administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to reject a request for a hearing from 17 Chinese Muslims currently being held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, arguing they have no right to come to America despite a district judge’s orders last Fall that they immediately be brought to the U.S. and released.

“Petitioners are free to return to their home country, but they understandably do not wish to do so, because they fear inhumane treatment there,” reads the filing, signed by US Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, and other Justice Department officials. “Petitioners are also free to go to any other country that is willing to accept them.”

Many European countries are waiting for the US to accept the Uighurs before they agree to accept any more detainees from Guantanamo, but there is strong resistance from Congress, which recently voted to keep any detainees out of the US — even out of US prisons.

But not to worry — the Obama administration says the Uighurs’ detention isn’t so bad, considering.

“In contrast to individuals currently detained as enemies under the laws of war, petitioners are being housed under relatively unrestrictive conditions, given the status of Guantanamo Bay as a United States military base,” Kagan writes, saying they are “in special communal housing with access to all areas of their camp, including an outdoor recreation space and picnic area.” They “sleep in an air-conditioned bunk house and have the use of an activity room equipped with various recreational items, including a television with VCR and DVD players, a stereo system, and sports equipment.”

In fact, the conditions at the rest of the facility also are pretty decent, compared to conditions in max-security prisons elsewhere in the US.  The military runs a tight ship at Gitmo, but the prisoners have a standard of living that — apart from their detention — exceeds anything available to them in their home countries, free or not.  They certainly don’t want to be there any more than the Uighers, but as the administration admits in this filing, they’re being detained under the “laws of war.”

Presumably, they would have to be detained under the “laws of war” regardless of where we house them.  So why close Gitmo at all?

Also, Obama’s new friends in Europe have to be a little nonplussed at this filing.  He just got done twisting arms on his first trip to the EU to get our allies to take some of the Gitmo detainees.  Supposedly, the Uighers are the best of the lot, with no particular animus towards anyone but China, at least according to the administration.  If so, why did Obama go to court to block them from entering the US?  Europeans may not have been so charmed by Obama as to miss that glaring hypocrisy.

It seems that the more Obama looks at Gitmo and the military tribunal system, the better he likes both.  Maybe by this summer, Obama will finally admit out loud that George W. Bush had it right all along.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Weee!!!!

This ride is craaazy!

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Kagan writes, saying they are “in special communal housing with access to all areas of their camp, including an outdoor recreation space and picnic area.” They “sleep in an air-conditioned bunk house and have the use of an activity room equipped with various recreational items, including a television with VCR and DVD players, a stereo system, and sports equipment.”

How do I sign up for 2 weeks at Vacation Paradise Gitmo?

Daggett on May 31, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Its a good thing, lets see how they blame Bush for this choice.

rob verdi on May 31, 2009 at 10:07 AM

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Somebody stop this ride. I think I’m gonna throw up.

kingsjester on May 31, 2009 at 10:07 AM

“Petitioners are free to return to their home country, but they understandably do not wish to do so, because they fear inhumane treatment there,”

That pretty much sums up the Gitmo lie.

katy on May 31, 2009 at 10:07 AM

“Petitioners are free to return to their home country, but they understandably do not wish to do so, because they fear inhumane treatment there,” reads the filing, signed by US Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, and other Justice Department officials.

They fear inhumane treatment??? Are these Gitmo-terrorists now asylum seekers?

It seems now that one of the fastest ways to get a green card is to be captured in a terrorist training camp, spend a few years at US taxpayer expense at club gitmo, and then apply for asylum. Why didn’t some of Obama’s relatives think of that?

What a scam. We’re such a silly people.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 10:09 AM

uh er uh I am am known as Obamacles the Morion and er uh I have the uh superior um judgment to er uh make the right um call….so uh when I er do the same thing as Chimpy McHaliburton it is uh pragmatic realism….

sven10077 on May 31, 2009 at 10:09 AM

President Ogabe: Warmongering Torturer in Chief.

I look forward to the YouTube vids of Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin chanting and howling near the White House, screaming through bullhorns that Ogabe is a war criminal.

Bishop on May 31, 2009 at 10:09 AM

What a scam. We’re such a silly people.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 10:09 AM

say what you want about Mexico but they at least grasp security and sovereignty….

Mexopolis a roach motel in reverse….you can’t get in but you can sure as hell leave.

sven10077 on May 31, 2009 at 10:10 AM

How do I sign up for 2 weeks at Vacation Paradise Gitmo?

Daggett on May 31, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Come on now –they are only living as good as our bottom 5%

/s

CWforFreedom on May 31, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Somebody stop this ride. I think I’m gonna throw up.

kingsjester on May 31, 2009 at 10:07 AM

It’s crazy!!

And it’ll never end once the left eliminates term limits!!!

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Uff, Elena Kagan is proving to be quite a pick.

promachus on May 31, 2009 at 10:12 AM

We need to have more empathy for those people in Gitmo.

faraway on May 31, 2009 at 10:13 AM

They fear inhumane treatment??? Are these Gitmo-terrorists now asylum seekers?

Which is just so darned odd, considering the daily waterboarding and other “tortures” they suffer at the hands of bloodthirsty Marines.

If I was being “tortured”, I would take my chances somewhere, anywhere else and demand release from Gitmo.

Bishop on May 31, 2009 at 10:13 AM

He just got done twisting arms on his first trip to the EU to get our allies to take some of the Gitmo detainees.

Considering his success I think it is safe to assume he is keeping his perfect score in the sissy department.

Cindy Munford on May 31, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Ah, these must be the scamps Harry Reid said last week were there “for nothing”.

Marcus on May 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM

This reversal was reinforced when the American people told their Congress that they do not want the Gitmo detainees relocated to the U.S. Obama simply can not do everything the Far Left wants if he wishes to be re-elected.

kingsjester on May 31, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Everything this administration says is a lie or manipulation.

He wants all of Gitmo on streets, but by protesting, he can say, it was beyond his control blah blah…

I don’t want to own banks, insurance business, car business…briar patch…
Czar say we will tax and monitor internet for hate (different opinion), but he will be helpless against these all powerful czars…

nondhimmie on May 31, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Maybe by this summer, Obama will finally admit out loud that George W. Bush had it right all along.

Obama seems too prideful to ever admit that George W. Bush was right on anything.

Successful negotiations with foreign powers requires the skills of an honest statesman. Obama is just a stinking politician/thug, even if he were to try he could never be a statesman. Ever.

Zorro on May 31, 2009 at 10:19 AM

We get change , every day.

the_nile on May 31, 2009 at 10:19 AM

I’m not looking forward to the fruits that Obama’s counter-terrorism policy will bear.

Mushroom cloud?

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM

New Cable Program—The Terrorist Shopping Network—(cash or government issued credit cards accepted)

Rovin on May 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Silly little brown people. They will have to set nukes off in the west to get the attention and respect they are looking for.

BL@KBIRD on May 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Ah, these must be the scamps Harry Reid said last week were there “for nothing”.

Marcus on May 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Exactly, this needs to be tied in with Reid’s comments, and there have been several instances of it, that they are imprisoned for no reason at all.

Dash on May 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM

This decision is precisely why all the noise about Bush’s legacy was just that……noise. It was obvious that many of Bush’s decisions, while unpopular with the liberal press, were actually quite moderate and smart. Obama, gratefully, does take his position as Commander in Chief seriously. He’s not the fool I worried that he might be.

The left is non-plussed as to why Bill Clinton and George Bush had such a pleasant “debate.” They both understand the gravity of such decisions and respect one another, that’s why. And I’m sure they respect Obama’s hot spot on this issue, too, since he clearly campaigned one way and now has to govern the opposite.

They’ve both been there. :)

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Maybe by this summer, Obama will finally admit out loud that George W. Bush had it right all along.

Right. And he’ll proclaim it loudly while parading on his trusty unicorn.

BobMbx on May 31, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Successful negotiations with foreign powers requires the skills of an honest statesman. Obama is just a stinking politician/thug, even if he were to try he could never be a statesman. Ever.

Zorro on May 31, 2009 at 10:19 AM

+100

zeebeach on May 31, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Obama, gratefully, does take his position as Commander in Chief seriously. He’s not the fool I worried that he might be.

Thanks for the laugh. Ok, it was more of a guffaw.

Bishop on May 31, 2009 at 10:25 AM

“Just words?”, candidate Obama asked.

Yeah, “just words”, Mr. President.

Have we ever had a President praised so much by the MSM for breaking campaign promises?

The man can do no wrong for them.

SteveMG on May 31, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Has anyone asked the Uigher’s if they really want to go? Sounds like a good life to me.

jeanie on May 31, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Thanks for the laugh. Ok, it was more of a guffaw.

So you disagree with this decision?

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:32 AM

In other barf-related news, be sure to read today’s estrogen-soaked steaming heap by NY Times Drama Critic Frankie Rich. The money quote:

The harrowing truth remains unchanged from what it was before Cheney emerged from his bunker to set Washington atwitter. The Bush administration did not make us safer either before or after 9/11. Obama is not making us less safe. If there’s another terrorist attack, it will be because the mess the Bush administration ignored in Pakistan and Afghanistan spun beyond anyone’s control well before Americans could throw the bums out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/opinion/31rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Del Dolemonte on May 31, 2009 at 10:32 AM

He’s not the fool I worried that he might be.

But you are, as you admit, but we should listen to your opinion now.

The left is non-plussed as to why Bill Clinton and George Bush had such a pleasant “debate.” They both understand the gravity of such decisions and respect one another, that’s why. And I’m sure they respect Obama’s hot spot on this issue, too, since he clearly campaigned one way and now has to govern the opposite.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Bill Clinton was less of a moron as Pres. than Obama. Hillary Clinton is an absolute zero.

Why not just come clean with everyone here and reveal your PUMA status? Your comments at NQ, Liberal Rapture, etc. were read by others. Don’t try to rehabilitate the Clintons by attaching them to Bush’s coattails.

You’re disingenuous, so you’re dangerous.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 10:33 AM

When the left thinks about the mujahids down in Gitmo, this song plays in their heads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB2gPZRsz0Q

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Wow, he really did not think this thing through at all, just like most of whatever else he shoves down our throats. It’s going to be really interesting if/when we’re attacked again.

Tuari on May 31, 2009 at 10:36 AM

It’s going to be really interesting if/when we’re attacked again.

Tuari on May 31, 2009 at 10:36 AM

It will happen, and it will be NY again.

These f*cking dogs aren’t done.

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:37 AM

I was a HUGE supporter of Bill Clinton and of Hillary. I sure don’t think I’ve ever hidden that. Bill Clinton is my kind of Democrat…fiscally conservative.

I never understood the huge backlash against Bush. I watched and saw the public back him. They were terribly disappointed about the lie he told, but they backed him.

I switched to Independent after the primaries. I personally checked out PUMA, but I found them to be very unprofessional in many ways.

And I’m dangerous only if you can’t handle any perspective being shared other than a rubberstamp of your own. In that case, I’d suggest you simply skip over my posts.

Because I am not the type to change opinions simply because I know there are objecters.

That’s not my style.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:39 AM

I am getting whiplash watching this guy.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 10:39 AM

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:39 AM

What I’d do to have Slick Willy, the Great Stainmaker in office again, over Prince Obarfy.

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:40 AM

AnninCa:

What lie did Bush tell?

I was disappointed when Democrats like Clinton spent years telling us all how dangerous Saddam was only to do an about face when it turned out their intel was not all right, but then again…I left the Democrats years ago because of their lies so I was not so surprised as some to watch them turn on Bush when it worked for them politically to do so.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 10:42 AM

I sure don’t think I’ve ever hidden that. Bill Clinton is my kind of Democrat…fiscally conservative.

Before or after the 1994 elections. Not that those days aren’t just a dream to be remembered, back when Republicans were Republicans.

Cindy Munford on May 31, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Don’t forget the 20 new laptops and computer lab they are getting. The military is preparing to teach them how to send email and how to get along in our new high tech world. Twenty new laptops. A computer lab.

paustin110 on May 31, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Oh Bullshytt
Bush made this clusterfuck by creating Gitmo.
He couldn’t close it, and now Obama has to clean up after him just like the econopalypse.
The truth is that Bush was too STUPID to realize he was creating a class of permanent detainees that could never be legally tried, or be legally detained, and no one wants them either detained or released in their OWN country.
It is NOT an endorsement of the Moron President, just as Petraeus’ statement is AN IMPLICIT CRIT of his FORMER CinC.

PETRAEUS: In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice — I talked to the attorney general the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary — again, how to take that forward.

But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.

strangelet on May 31, 2009 at 10:44 AM

balantblue:

I had this talk with a relative recently. He said that Clinton mostly supported the Iraqi Liberation Act to divert attention or something. I thought that it was too bad he did not call it the Iraqi Forget my Whore Act instead if that was the case. In fact we even had an argument about Bush wanting to bring democracy Iraq…I wondered why it is so many old Clinton fans thought Clinton used the word Liberation in that act. If you read what he said at the time he certainly did want to see Saddam removed from power and a democratic government in his place.

How soon they forget.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 10:45 AM

It seems that the more Obama looks at Gitmo and the military tribunal system, the better he likes both. Maybe by this summer, Obama will finally admit out loud that George W. Bush had it right all along.

I imagine General Petraeus is wondering why in hell he made those recent comments supporting his CiC’s original position. Gets complicated, don’t it?

a capella on May 31, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Terrye

Don’t you know Clinton’s lies were endearing?

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:45 AM

You know Ed, I srsly doubt that Petraeus is going to be on your ticket in 2012.
I betcha he he pulls a Powell and votes for O.

strangelet on May 31, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 10:45 AM

As for the ILA of ’98, I don’t think it was a distraction, to be honest.

I don’t doubt he wanted Saddam gone.

But I think people also need to bear in mind that many signatories of the Project for a New American Century were instrumental in the ILA of ’98. Strangely enough, many of those signatories ended up in President Bush’s inner circle :p

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:48 AM

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:39 AM

What “lie” did Bush tell?

Del Dolemonte on May 31, 2009 at 10:48 AM

I was a HUGE supporter of Bill Clinton and of Hillary. I sure don’t think I’ve ever hidden that. Bill Clinton is my kind of Democrat…fiscally conservative.

Strange place for a Clinton(s) supporter to have found a home. Your ilk sowed the seeds for an Obama. Don’t run away from your creation now looking for new friends. And don’t dare to think you can advise us what to think. YOU are the problem. YOU enable and empower these madmen in gov’t. And your Queen Hillary is a loser and a suck-up and has ended-up with as much integrity as Specter.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 10:48 AM

have the use of an activity room equipped with various recreational items, including a television with VCR and DVD players, a stereo system, and sports equipment.

OMG no TiVo?

TORRRRRRTTURRRRRRE!!!!!!

LibTired (KO) on May 31, 2009 at 10:48 AM

strangelet:

Bush did not create Gitmo, moron, it was already there. So maybe you should look in a mirror to see real stupid.

BTW, my dear there is nothing permanent here. If half the crap your side has been saying for years was really true, Obama could close Gitmo tomorrow. It is not as if anything has changed since Obama started flapping his gums a couple of years ago.

He lied to you, simple as that. Fed you a line of crap knowing full well that he could count on you to let him get away with it.

And if the Democrats wanted to stop Gitmo they could have refused to fund it years and years ago.

Moron.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 10:48 AM

What lie did Bush tell?

The general opinion is that he lied about the weapons of mass destruction to manipulate Congress into the vote for the war.

That really hurt his credibility later.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Bush made this clusterfuck by creating Gitmo.
He couldn’t close it, and now Obama has to clean up after him just like the econopalypse.

Why does the black guy always have to clean up? I hope Soto does something about this injustice.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 10:49 AM

That really hurt his credibility later.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:49 AM

With as*holes who supported Clinton and Obama.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Strange place for a Clinton(s) supporter to have found a home. Your ilk sowed the seeds for an Obama. Don’t run away from your creation now looking for new friends. And don’t dare to think you can advise us what to think. YOU are the problem. YOU enable and empower these madmen in gov’t. And your Queen Hillary is a loser and a suck-up and has ended-up with as much integrity as Specter.

You’re entitled to your opinion.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Maybe by this summer, Obama will finally admit out loud that George W. Bush had it right all along.

By his actions in the last 120 days, he has already admitted he is nothing more than a naive, sophmoric, narcissistic man-child, incapable of keeping his word for more than 24 hours, and unfit to serve as President of the United States.

Too bad the MSM hasn’t pickup up on this yet.

fogw on May 31, 2009 at 10:51 AM

You are putting all your chips in the Obama-fail basket.
If he doesnt fail, you are going to spend 40 years in the wilderness, because you can’t seem to admit just how wrong Bush was on simply everything, and you are not accepting any responsibility for what happened.
Why do owe Bush loyalty?
He didn’t even freakin’ try to overturn Roe.

strangelet on May 31, 2009 at 10:51 AM

You’re entitled to your opinion.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:50 AM

And you and your kind have the type of opinions that lead to radical leftist democrats and insane feminazis like you.

Your “opinion” is the cause of our problems. Scram commie.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Eh, I tend to not think he lied.

But I will say this:

We didn’t have any solid intelligence assets that were reliable INSIDE the Iraqi regime. Saddam had quite the tight noose around everyone. I think too many assumptions were made on not so strong intel.

But I tend to think WMD existed, albeit perhaps not in the forms we thought (but that doesn’t matter).

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM

balantblue:

I think Clinton wanted Saddam gone, back in those days no one doubted that Saddam was a bad man, a dangerous man who was a threat to his own people and the United States. It was only when it was politically expedient to doubt any of that they decided Bush lied. What a bunch of self serving cowards. If they wanted to turn Saddam lose and declare him innocent of all charges, they had years to do it.

No, they let Bush take him out and then called him a war criminal for carrying out their own policy.

Cowards.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM

So you disagree with this decision?
AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:32 AM

No, I disagree with your statement that Ogabe takes his CinC duties seriously…and that he is not a fool.

*guffaw*

Bishop on May 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM

There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to existence of WMD, but I wish we had gotten something more solid..

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM

strangelt:

Obama fail? I am figuring that Obama will do whatever he has to do to and you will lie for him, make excuses for him and pretend that he did not use you.

pathetic little tools.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 10:54 AM

No, they let Bush take him out and then called him a war criminal for carrying out their own policy.

Cowards.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Agreed. How disgusting it was when they turned on him.

I think WMD was a reason for invading Iraq, but I also think 9/11 (a total sea change in Bush’s world view), and the influence of PNAC signatories with their desire to reshape the geopolitical structure of the Middle East (which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing — probably would be good) were two huge influences on the decision to invade Iraq.

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:55 AM

The general Leftist opinion is that he lied about the weapons of mass destruction to manipulate Congress into the vote for the war.

That really hurt his credibility later.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Fixed.

BTW, at the time she voted for Bush’s war, Hillary Clinton said she relied on not what Bush told her about Saddam’s WMDs, but what her husband’s intel people told her about Saddam’s WMDs. So if anyone lied us into war, it was the previous President.

Del Dolemonte on May 31, 2009 at 10:55 AM

because you can’t seem to admit just how wrong Bush was on simply everything

Everything? You do realize that this thread is about Ogabe continuing Bush’s policy of Gitmo detentions, do you not?

If Bush was wrong then Ogabe is wrong.

Bishop on May 31, 2009 at 10:55 AM

If he doesnt fail, you are going to spend 40 years in the wilderness

Laughable. Barry has zero chance of keeping the Reich going for forty years.

btw, what’s your plan just in case forty becomes four?

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 10:55 AM

But IDK, I hate talking about Iraq because people get so black and white about it.

In the end our intentions were good, IMHO.

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:56 AM

I personally have no doubt that Obama’s decisions will CONTINUE to support Bush.

I think, just my 2 cents, that Bush was a far better president than people, even in his own party, give him credit for being. So I’m one who thinks history will vindicate him in some areas.

In other areas, no, and those aren’t being discussed.

I think we need to look at relations with SA. China is gobbling up oil contracts. Obama’s outreach sure didn’t work, at least not initially.

That’s a big issue.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:56 AM

The general opinion is that he lied about the weapons of mass destruction to manipulate Congress into the vote for the war.

That really hurt his credibility later.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:49 AM

All kinds of WMD’s were found in Iraq.

But pretending that the silly lib lie is true that there were none, I ask you… do you really believe that Bush “knew” that there were absolutely none to be found anywhere in Iraq? Isn’t that a little bit silly? Wouldn’t he also “know” this would be reported by the hostile media eventually, or do you think he planned on planting them there?

LibTired (KO) on May 31, 2009 at 10:56 AM

strangelet on May 31, 2009 at 10:51 AM

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Del Dolemonte on May 31, 2009 at 10:56 AM

So if you have a recreation room, TV, air conditioning, etc., jail is no longer jail?

albill on May 31, 2009 at 10:58 AM

AnninCa:

Whose general assumption is that? I can remember Clinton on TV with Daschle standing at his side telling us all that Saddam not only had weapons of mass destruction, but that he would use them.

Maybe it was good old Bill who was lying. Surely not, not Bill!

Yep, the fact that Bush actually thought the Clinton administration knew what they were talking hurt his credibility.

BTW, Saddam had 550 metric tons of yellow cake and he had hidden his weapons programs not disbanded them. There is no doubt of that. In a couple of years he could have rebuilt all those stockpiles, so I would not really call it a lie when the Bushies said he had wmd.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 10:58 AM

That’s a big issue.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Agreed.

Obarfy’s walking into a playground of mean sixth graders, while he’s only a second grader.

He’s going to have to do some muscle flexing to get respect.

The pleasantries and self deprecation aren’t going to fix things, or make enemies succumb.

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 10:58 AM

You’re entitled to your opinion.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Typical lib crap.

We’re all entitled to our opinions. Everyone is equal. Nobody’s opinion counts more than anyone else’s. Who are we to judge other peoples’ opinions?

Your opinion sucks, and ushered in Obama. Trying to run from culpability doesn’t work. Hide your head in shame. You’re lucky you aren’t tarred and feathered. COLLABORATOR.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 10:59 AM

I think WMD was a reason for invading Iraq, but I also think 9/11 (a total sea change in Bush’s world view), and the influence of PNAC signatories with their desire to reshape the geopolitical structure of the Middle East (which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing — probably would be good) were two huge influences on the decision to invade Iraq.

I agree. People wanted revenge, frankly. And the minute we elected Bush, I knew he was the guy for that move. The public supported that war in spades, and the left can’t rewrite history. Everyone I knew was buying GI JOE dolls for their boy kids. *haha

We wanted revenge. But, as history shows, the public always really gets over revenge motives usually before the war is over. That was Bush’s problem in the end, and it’s affected the perception of the GOP today, even.

It’ll pass, if some of these GOP newshogs shut up, that is.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Maybe by this summer, Obama will finally admit out loud that George W. Bush had it right all along.

He’ll never admit it out loud…he’ll never admit it to himself. Somehow it’ll be a fresh new idea of his own.

ladyingray on May 31, 2009 at 11:00 AM

AnninCa:

I do agree that Bush was a better president than anyone gave him credit for. And what is more I think that if Clinton had it to do again, he would probably take out Osama Bin Laden in 97. He might even have gone after Saddam in 94. Hard to tell.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 11:01 AM

It is NOT an endorsement of the Moron President

strangelet on May 31, 2009 at 10:44 AM

True. Bush had the courage and conviction to look out for our safety and security. He wasn’t poll driven and after making a decision he stuck to his guns rather than change his mind every five minutes. If anything it is the endorsement of policies known to have worked and kept us safe. Bush a moron? I think not.

Obarfy is catching up during his on-the-job training, but he still has moronic status when it comes to understanding the ways of the world.

fogw on May 31, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Oh Bullshytt
Bush made this clusterfuck by

creating Gitmo

taking prisoners.

There. Fixed that for you. What difference does it make where they’re held if it’s outside of the US?

Pablo on May 31, 2009 at 11:02 AM

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Well, like I said, 9/11 changed Bush’s worldview, and I would have changed too.

I remember Bush had a position of non-interventionism during the campaign in 2000.

But if he DIDN’T change after 9/11, I’d think him a dumbbell.

I don’t know if it was revenge, or more of, “we need to start eliminating threats to this country.”

People claim Bush made connections between 9/11 and Saddam, but I don’t find that ever being the case.

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Even the messiah is discovering that it is hard to put a genie back into a bottle.

izoneguy on May 31, 2009 at 11:03 AM

It’ll pass, if some of these GOP newshogs shut up, that is.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Remember to take this feminist democrat Clinton supporter’s advice on how Republicans and conservatives ought to win.

She’s the perfect one for us to listen to, and not those GOP newshogs like Limbaugh.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 11:03 AM

I remember Bush had a position of non-interventionism during the campaign in 2000.

Okay, I don’t REMEMBER — I was 12 when Bush got elected.

But I have seen and read things since. Fixed!

blatantblue on May 31, 2009 at 11:03 AM

But pretending that the silly lib lie is true that there were none, I ask you… do you really believe that Bush “knew” that there were absolutely none to be found anywhere in Iraq? Isn’t that a little bit silly? Wouldn’t he also “know” this would be reported by the hostile media eventually, or do you think he planned on planting them there?

My honest opinion is that Bush is more emotional than people realize. I worked for 4 different CEO’s of Fortune 100 companies. Closely. One thing I learned was that they are often very emotional creatures. Bush strikes me as that type. He WANTED to believe, and the nature of the structure is that the sources gave him reason to back what they already knew he wanted to believe.

Is that a lie? No. It is, however, poor judgment.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 11:04 AM

AnninCa:

I don’t think it was just revenge that made it necessary to go after Saddam. I think it was Saddam’s attitude. The idea he had that he could defy the UN, try to kill a president, turn a humanitarian aid program into a slush fund and shoot at our planes while ignoring a cease fire. I think they were afraid that if Saddam got away with all that then no one would ever have any fear of the UN or the US again, that they would do what they liked when they liked and that would lead to more terrorist training camps and funding.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I think Clinton wanted Saddam gone, back in those days no one doubted that Saddam was a bad man, a dangerous man who was a threat to his own people and the United States.

Not only did he want it, he signed the law that made it American policy.

Pablo on May 31, 2009 at 11:05 AM

poor judgment.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Your real name.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I do agree that Bush was a better president than anyone gave him credit for. And what is more I think that if Clinton had it to do again, he would probably take out Osama Bin Laden in 97. He might even have gone after Saddam in 94. Hard to tell.

Of course. Bill said in the Canadian debate that he most regretted Rhawanda and not doing more. I think you’re right. He most regrets not taking out Bin Laden.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Oh Bullshytt
Bush made this clusterfuck by
creating Gitmo
taking prisoners.

There. Fixed that for you. What difference does it make where they’re held if it’s outside of the US?

Pablo on May 31, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Gitmo is the perfect place for the scum. It is in Cuba which pisses on Castro.
It is inaccessible by the media. It is almost impossible to escape from. Fellow Jihadists cannot get close enough to help anyone escape. We just need the tribunals to get going so we can set-up the firing squads.

izoneguy on May 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM

AnninCa:

I think he believed there were wmd. In fact I remember seeing Clinton on Letterman just weeks before the invasion and it was obvious that he believed it too.

To be honest, we still do not know what happened to the stockpiles. No one does.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 11:07 AM

He WANTED to believe, and the nature of the structure is that the sources gave him reason to back what they already knew he wanted to believe.

Is that a lie? No. It is, however, poor judgment.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Pablo on May 31, 2009 at 11:08 AM

No, I disagree with your statement that Ogabe takes his CinC duties seriously…and that he is not a fool.

*guffaw*

Bishop on May 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM

My reaction to her statement:

*snort*

ladyingray on May 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM

We wanted revenge. But, as history shows, the public Bush-hating liberals always really get over revenge motives usually before the war is over. That was Bush’s problem in the end, and it’s affected the perception of the GOP today, even.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Fixed.

The left didn’t want Bush to succeed, so they attacked our president’s policies in a time of war. Why? Plain and simple, for political gain. And with the help of the MSM, their un-American ploy worked like a charm.

fogw on May 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Pablo:

Yes, Clinton did. Democrats today will tell you that did not support invasion. I suppose that means they thought the regime fairy was going to come along and make the bad mass murderer dictator go away.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM

fogw:

In fact I think that if the left had not started screaming war criminal, then things might well have settled down in Iraq sooner than they did. The jihadis knew they had a receptive audience on the left and a pliant media and they used both…the Democrats think that just hurt the GOP but here we have Obama coming up against the same realities that Bush had to deal with it and they find that making decisions is harder than burning flags.

Terrye on May 31, 2009 at 11:12 AM

“Ann” doesn’t give a crap about Obama’s policies–she’s pissed a guy stepped in and took away the crown from the rightful Queen. She’s no Obama supporter, but she’s a Clinton lover and apologist. And if/when Hillary runs for something again, she’ll back her against any Republican/Conservative.

She doesn’t share your values or goals. She’s attempting to make a temporary alliance of convenience, but she will sell you down the river so fast that your head will spin.

JiangxiDad on May 31, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3