Obama calls for halt to Gitmo prosecutions.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

So how come you're not all over Bush since a guy who was released from Gitmo is now the head of an Al Qaeda cell, + the handful of ex Gitmo inmate who either blew themselves up in Iraq or Afghanistan or are currently fighting ?

I actually am. And there are two other released detainees who recently showed up in Jihadist videos. The Bush Administration should never have listened to the lib critics over Gitmo. And Bush is absolutely at fault for it. As such, I'm shocked by Obama's naive plans to outright close Gitmo due to emotional pleas from his drones....errr voters. Bush never went that far despite the pressure from the whiners. And he has only given mild lip service to an eventual closure with no specifics. I believe as an attempt to shut the left up as no real policy ever came about. And absolutely no thought to any executive order which would endanger our troops outright. And no executive order to move these radicals to criminal show trials here Like the Obama administration is moving us towards.

The evidence shows that when these people are released from Gitmo, there's a good chance that they will return to their nasty little ways. The earlier released jihadists should at least get the new administration rethinking their own new pie-in-the-sky policy. But apparently it has no effect on them. The fact that they're full speed ahead in the opposite direction shows that they do not learn from historical precedents of recent. Even the Bush administration changed policy to changing conditions when things showed a different approach was needed. Don't know what's happening in the halls of the White House now.....but it looks alot like they're putting politics ahead of national security again. Am I surprised? No.

With the previous post I was just indicating that Obama will now be solely at fault for not using appropriate sources and methods to gain intelligence to safeguard against terrorist acts now. He will be solely responsible if more Jihadists are put into circulation with his new policy. And with the historical precedent of evidence showing released detainees returning to their jihadist ways, the hammer will fall harder on those who do not learn the lesson.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

So how come you're not all over Bush since a guy who was released from Gitmo is now the head of an Al Qaeda cell, + the handful of ex Gitmo inmate who either blew themselves up in Iraq or Afghanistan or are currently fighting ?

because he realeased them over some mistake a democrat made in the office:rotfl:

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses. Your rebuttal is nothing more than that.

Like your posts littering this thread that push the nonsensical agenda that all this is entirely the fault of the Democratic party? Look, if you don't want to admit that right-wing Conservative Republicans also got us into this mess, that's fine with me. It's not anything new with you.

It's always funny when people make a statement like Sea Demon's "You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses", yet they never do try to rebuke or admit to the facts. It's like they think that sort of statement will just make a person's point magically disappear into thin air.

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

It's an exercise in buying time in order to figure out exactly what to do with the mess that is Guantanamo Bay.

That's about sums it up.

[Happy Times]

I dont want any prisoners here.
I was happy that the Finnish security police recently openly warned about taking muslim refugees and imigrants at all in the country.
Im not tiptoeing around this subject, i can say i want it to stop.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Like your posts littering this thread that push the nonsensical agenda that all this is entirely the fault of the Democratic party? Look, if you don't want to admit that right-wing Conservative Republicans also got us into this mess, that's fine with me. It's not anything new with you.

It's always funny when people make a statement like Sea Demon's "You wasted I don't know how much time on spin and excuses", yet they never do try to rebuke or admit to the facts. It's like they think that sort of statement will just make a person's point magically disappear into thin air.

It is indeed not entirely the fault of the Democratic party.

But did it ever occur to you that the Democrats never take responsibility for ANY of it? In fact, they never take responsibility for ANYTHING bad that happens!

What you're doing is calling someone to the mat for the same thing that your party has done, non-stop, for the last 8 years.

Leftist hypocrisy at its finest.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Aramike

It is indeed not entirely the fault of the Democratic party.

But did it ever occur to you that the Democrats never take responsibility for ANY of it? In fact, they never take responsibility for ANYTHING bad that happens!

What you're doing is calling someone to the mat for the same thing that your party has done, non-stop, for the last 8 years.

Leftist hypocrisy at its finest.

Thank you Aramike. Stealth Hunter is simply one of the Obama drones. He talks loud, and yet says nothing. And yes, these people don't know accountability or responsibility if it bit em' on the rump. Republicans have indeed messed up, and have misstepped on policy. While Mr. Bush has not exactly handled everything perfectly, I do believe it's quite obvious that Mr. Clinton pretty much mishandled terrorism for 8 years and left Mr. Bush with quite a mess there. It actually took a Republican to actually respond appropriately, or at least, someone with a national security focus as the objective. Modern Democrats never have this focus. They're too busy trying to please the whiners here and across the pond. Had Clinton actually done his job, and tackled the terrorism issue with more clarity and focus, 9/11 may not have happened. Any thinking person can see that. A drone cannot see it. Don't expect them to.

This is why Mr. Obama's new policy here is of great concern. Are we headed back to the "sweep it under the rug" policies of the 90's to make whiners happy? Setting forth a new policy, by executive order (with no congressional approval), which could lead to freedom for many of these Jihadists held at Gitmo make me think we are. And at the very least, I'm more worried about what message this is sending to international terror groups. Obama is indicating that he will be softer on terrorist acts, our readiness to respond will decrease, there will be less clarity on the issue of what defines terrorism, and we're not going to take terrorism seriously anymore. Obama's first full day was spent softening up our approach to terrorist detainees. Not ensuring the U.S. military has what they need to succeed in their mission. Just what message does that send over to international terror organizations?

[Morts]

if Obama is really as bad as you say, why is he the President ? Ignorant democrats ? you're gonna have to come up with something better this time:rotfl:

[Skybird]

Europe should only accept those prisoners who by all understanding indeed are harmless and beyond doubt, and cannot return to their original places and that do not wish to depend on America's hospitality any longer, after the Gitmo experience. the ones wanting to stay in america and the ones being a risk, America has to accept itself, for it is responsible for it all.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Morts

if Obama is really as bad as you say, why is he the President ? Ignorant democrats ? you're gonna have to come up with something better this time:rotfl:

Because almost 53% of the voting population voted for him, that's why. Including millions of first time voters who voted for his rhetoric (or his race) rather than what he really stands for (which we don't know yet because he hasn't really done anything except issue some executive orders with no plans on how to carry them out and give his first formal public TV interview on an Arabic cable TV channel http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28869185/ ). Does that explain it well enough, or do you need some more help understanding?

Edit : Oops, almost forgot the part about how a republican didn't stand a snowballs chance in Hades of getting elected after the last 8 years. The democrats could have put Howdy Doody up there and gotten him elected (puppet reference intended).

[Enigma]

I'm sorry, did you just pretend to know the psyche of the 20 Million odd first time voters?

:rotfl::rotfl:

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Enigma

I'm sorry, did you just pretend to know the psyche of the 20 Million odd first time voters?

:rotfl::rotfl:

You know, you could direct that at yourself also. You have no idea what those 20 million odd first time voters were thinking. You can only judge by what you see. From personal experience and well documented examples of some of the Obama supporters total lack of knowledge regarding what the man said he stood for.

From a friend of latino descent : "I just can't vote for an old guy who can't raise his arms above his shoulders and holds his hands so weird."

From a black friend of mine : "I just can't vote for the white guy this time."

I'm sure you don't want to see or hear any of the video or audio regarding the matter again.

You can laugh and roll your eyes all you want to, but there is plenty of evidence that many of those new voters were totally clueless. You also can't deny that many voters will blame the party of the sitting President for everything that is done (quite a few by the opposing party's Congress or Senate).

Oh, I forgot to mention the totally ghastly amount of money spent to get him elected, too, but that doesn't matter either, does it?

Here's a prime example for you. Here in my home state the Senate race between the Republican and Democrat was so close they had to have a run-off. Yet, when the run-off vote was counted, the Republican won by 14%. Lets see, when all these new voters are at the polls pressing the Democrat button to elect Obama, everything's close, but when those new voters don't bother to show up for the run-off, it's a clear Republican win. What does that say about the new voters? They either don't really care (or know) what each parties candidate stands for, or they're too lazy to get out for the run-off.

If you'll bother to look at the demographics of the election you'll get a little idea how a person can feel the way I do about the reasons so many new voters voted for Obama, but that's probably a bit too much to ask, so go ahead and assume that I don't have a clue regarding the matter. It is only my opinion, after all.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Well then it just shows that you have clueless friends, I think it tells more about you than about Obama's victory

Nah, actually, the majority of my friends have a clue. These two were the best examples of some of the warped opinions I've heard folks use to explain who they were going to vote for. I also have friends and relatives who voted for him for logical (to them, at least) reasons that were a lot sounder than my examples.

Besides, my point wasn't entirely about my friends warped opinions. I tried to point out other evidence to support my opinion.

Edit : Why he was elected really doesn't mean much now, anyway. He was elected and we all have to live with it (like it or not).

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Oh, I forgot to mention the totally ghastly amount of money spent to get him elected, too, but that doesn't matter either, does it?

What difference does that make?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

What difference does that make?

No difference, really. I just find it odd that the left can freely spend so much money to gain power but believe that charity should be legislated...