Don’t Blame Obama: Only 6 Democratic Senators Voted To Fund Closing GITMO

[Tx4obama]

Don’t Blame Obama: Only 6 Democratic Senators Voted To Fund Closing GITMO

Far left progressives constantly bash Obama for not closing GITMO, but a closer look at the facts reveals that their blame has been misplaced.

On January 22, 2009 as one of his first official acts in office, Barack Obama signed an executive order to close GITMO within one year. On that day Obama said, “This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.

In May 2009 only 6 Senate Democrats voted NO on the amendment to, “To prohibit funding to transfer, release, or incarcerate detainees detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States.”

Progressive heroes Chuck Schumer, Byron Dorgan, and Russ Feingold all sided with the Republican minority and voted to deny Obama the funding that he needed to close GITMO and relocate the detainees. Only six Democrats stood with the president on closing GITMO, Durbin, Harkin, Reed, Levin, Leahy, and Whitehouse. The rest of them caved to fear tactics and voted with the Republicans.

Full article here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/don%E2%80%99t-blame-obama-only-6-democratic-senators-voted-to-fund-closing-gitmo


p.s. I hope everyone will bookmark this article and pass it on to anyone in the future that blames President Obama regarding the GITMO issue :)

[Hippo_Tron]

1. But... But... Bully Pulpit... or something like that...

[Mz Pip]

2. I'm adding this to my list

of things to tell the DNC the next time they call me asking for money. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama tried to cut the defense budget to help with the budget crisis he'd be up against his own party as much as the Republicans.

[nevergiveup]

3. Bringing this up is not fair or helpful.

Obama broke his promise. :sarcasm:

[Fire1]

4. Their blame is always "misplaced," if that's what you wanna

call it.

[dsc]

5. Byron Dorgan, progressive hero?, surely you jest

Dorgan is quite far right on most social type issues which is where I would put this. He also is reasonably conservative on economic issues.

[PragmaticLiberal]

6. I have a feeling this thread won't get many posts...

[Fire1]

7. Of course not. It's fact. n/t

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

10. Yep. Most of the factual OPs I post get low traffic

seems like all the controversial ones get all the hits.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. But...But...But...he's the Dictator in Chief! He's the Decider! Oh wait! That was Bush...

but it's clear the ultra-leftists are still suffering from the Bush-Reign Syndrome. They've actually come to believe that President Obama is a dictator!

That first Democratic anti-Obama vote against one of his cherished campaign promises, was the first punch in Obama's solar plexus to let him know what kind of congress he's dealing with. It should've been a wake up call to all Progressives - including the ultra-left. Congressional Democrats sided with obstructionist Republicans to send him a clear and concise message, that message being: WE have the power! YOU. DON'T!

But all those center-right to ultra-right, and all those ultra-left (including FireDogJane) immediately came out to attack him, framing the issue as if he were the one who broke his promise. And that lie continues to circulate today.

K&R But I'm afraid, with the anti-Obama sentiment so prolific here, you won't get many understanding posts.

[A Simple Game]

22. Let me get this straight. Obama can bomb Libya against Congresses wishes,

but he couldn't close a very small portion of a military base without their permission? I suspect it cost much more to bomb Libya than it does to run Gitmo.

And since when does Congress micro manage the Pentagon's budget? We aren't talking about very much money in relation to the Pentagon's budget. We even had a state that wanted the prisoners for a prison they were going to close. Sorry can't remember the state, somewhere in the upper midwest I believe.

And yes, if * had decided to close Gitmo, it would have been closed, whether Congress wanted it closed or not!

[Tx4obama]

28. Read the whole article on the link in the OP

Excerpt:

In May 2010 the Democratically controlled House Armed Services Committee votes unanimously to prohibit the opening of any GITMO replacement facility in the United States, and the dream of closing GITMO was dead.

[A Simple Game]

33. There in lies the big difference in our opinions of the Obama Presidency.

I say an effective President tells Congress what he is going to do and does it, You say an effective President lets Congress tell him what he is going to do.

I repeat, if * wanted Gitmo closed, it would have been closed. I probably don't agree with anything he did, but he implemented his agenda and got things done. He was a very effective president, as far as the right wing agenda is concerned.

I would settle for half of the Liberal agenda being implemented, or even just half of what was promised.

[Tx4obama]

34. Oh yeah, and to hell with the law, eh?

Perhaps you haven't heard - we have three separate branches of government here in the USA.
The President can NOT demand the Congress to do as he says - Obama is not a dictator.

And as far as getting a liberal agenda passed in Congress, since the day Obama took office we have had 60 dems in the Senate (which is needed to invoke cloture) for only 49 days - so with all the GOP obstruction there's been for the past two and a half years good luck with that.

p.s. Al Franken wasn't sworn in until July 2009 and Teddy Kennedy died in August 2009. We've had ONLY 49 days of a 'real' majority in the Senate!

[A Simple Game]

36. Good thing LBJ and FDR didn't listen to you.

If he couldn't twist arms and tell people what needs to be done, perhaps he shouldn't have applied for a job with leadership qualifications. The fact is, he doesn't care enough. He has no passion for what needs to be done. He doesn't handle conflict very well. It was obvious during the debates that he was no liberal, not even a progressive, but could he at least fight for the center he claims to represent?

Not only could * have gotten it done, Raygun could have gotten it done and he had Alzheimer's and slept 20 hours a day. I rate both of them below Nixon, and they still were effective moving their agendas.

As far as to hell with the laws, ever hear of wiretapping? That doesn't seem to bother Obama, does it. Too much work to end it? Or does he want to keep it going even when it is illegal.

[BklnDem75]

74. Two presidents that had super majorities...

Not a good argument. No arm twisting was needed. Throughout Bush's 2 terms he had conservative super majorities, if not a repuke one.

[A Simple Game]

115. Your right, that's what you get for posting an hour after you should be in bed.

But still they both knew how to get people to do what they wanted. They were effective leaders.

[GoCubsGo]

47. Oh, he CAN demand anything he wants.

It doesn't mean Congress will meet his demands--even a majority Democratic Congress. Wasn't it Will Rogers who compared being a Democrat to herding cats?

[mistertrickster]

50. Gitmo itself is against the law. "Habeus Corpus" and the 5th Amendment etc. nt

[vaberella]

52. Which he can't close cause Congress blocked it. Sadly the law comes with other conditional laws.

It would seem.

[mistertrickster]

99. If only Bush had had to deal with Congress . . . we wouldn't be in Iraq! nt

[BlueCaliDem]

41. Therein lies your misconception.

You believe President Obama could get everything done because he's a Democrat and we had a Democratic supermajority for a few weeks? Whoa boy.

Sorry, but that's naive.

I can't understand how you, and other Liberals, can't see that the majority of Dems in Congress are NOT Democrats by any stretch of the imagination. They proved that back in June 2009 when they voted, en masse, to not allow the President to bring Gitmo detainees into the country to try, and to refuse him the funds for that endeavor.

You need to remember, had we a true Democratic majority, we'd have at least a public option. President Obama went out there campaigning for it, but Congressional Dems remained aloof, so it didn't happen. Yet, the ultra-left unfairly blame President Obama that the public option was removed, completely ignoring that Congressional Dems weren't running so hot for it, either.

Duh-bya got everything and anything he wanted because why? Because the majority of Dems you erroneously believe would side with a President of their party; a president who wanted to bring health care to all; a president not of their elitist standing thus beneath them, that those Dems would rather stand with a warmongering Repuke than a Democrat. That's because, contrary to the label their wear, they're Repukes in heart and soul, too, and there are huge profits to be made with war.

Unlike the Repukes, Dems rarely used the filibuster during Duh-bya's reign even when I wished they had. They could've stopped the war if they wanted to, but like I said, the profits were just too tempting.

This is the Congress President Obama had to deal with. I wish you'd see it instead of choosing to blame him rather than the enabling Dems who sided with a unified, hate-everything-Obama GOP, and who continue to side with them.

The problem isn't President Obama. The problem is Repubs-In-Dem-Clothing cluttering our Congress. The President is ONE branch of government, and it's the branch that does not draft laws or hold the purse strings.

[A Simple Game]

120. Thinking that there are people that think President Obama

can get everything done is being naive. I don't think that nor does anyone I know.

But one of the main measures of who is a great, or even just a good, President is if you can get things done. If you are able to overcome obstacles. President Obama isn't doing that. He seems to have no will to even try.

Would we have a public option with or without a true Democratic majority? We will never know, Obama took it off the table before the table was even set up. And did he really want to bring health care to all? The first thing he did was strike a deal with the drug companies and the insurance companies.

"The problem isn't President Obama." No not totally, but it is becoming more obvious every day that neither is he the solution.

[Arkana]

139. This is complete crap and you know it.

The President is able to authorize certain military actions without the approval of Congress. He's not allowed to close Gitmo without Congressional approval, any more than he's able to enact single-payer health care without Congressional approval.

Seriously, it's like all of DU suddenly became fans of the unitary executive overnight, just because it was our guy in office now.

[TheKentuckian]

75. Why can you not admit that he didn't need to request a cent to release, relocate, or put

these folks on trial?

Did Bush have to ask Congress for money to release the hundreds he did? No.

Did Bush have to ask for a red penny to put those on trial in civilian courts? No.

Was he in violation of ANY law on either of the above counts? No, in fact he was legitimately exercising his Constitutional authority.

Did ANY President need to go to Congress for funding to relocate a prisoner? No.

Obama played a game of not doing something but being able to say he did and got crapped out.

He attempted to MOVE the prison, which meant funding would be required to build or otherwise modify an existing one. He got put into check because he was trying to thread the needle and then SUBSEQUENTLY had handcuffs put on which HE SIGNED INTO LAW and then COUNTERMANDED his own order.

Yeah, poooooooooor Obama and the mean old Congwess!

He played a stupid game and so did they and now both are responsible with Constitutional violations and should all be run out on rails. This is fucking indefinite detention here, folks.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Apparently, it's difficult to relocate people without funds to do so

or places to relocate them to.

Wait a second! I'm sure our so-called progressives have a solution! It's the...wait for it...wait for it....wait for it...

BULLY PULPIT!

Yes, indeed! If Obama had only given prime time speeches twice a week arguing for the closure of Gitmo, it would have gotten done, by Gawd!

Bad Obama! Bad! Bad!

:rofl:

[BlueCaliDem]

39. lol Good one! You nearly had me spitting out my coffee!

But jokingly or not, what you've written is spot on.

[TheKentuckian]

78. Links to the individual appropriations for the transfer of Federal prisoners, please.

Federal prisoners are moved daily, there is no Congressional appropriation for such moves.

Bush released prisoners, link to the law he violated by doing so, please.

Bush put detainees on trial in CIVILIAN COURTS, link to the laws he violated by doing so, please.
While you're at could you link the appropriations sought and granted for each of those trials?

No bully pulpit required. No allocations for a new supermax needed.

He only had to do what his Constitutional authority already granted without worrying if it might have political blowback and how to avoid that while keeping his promise.

His solution was to pack up and move Gitmo out of Cuba and up north rather than to use our system which dictates a trial or release, which he had full authority to do or at least Holder did.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Here's a link

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22758.html

It says that the language in the legislation specifically bars any federal funds from being used to transfer GITMO detainees. Not just that it didn't appropriate the money for a new prison. It says the President is forbidden from using a dime of federal money to bring any GITMO prisoner to the United States.

Ironically, I bet there are quite a few attorneys who served in the Bush Administration, who would cite unitary executive theory and argue that such language is an unconstitutional limit on the President's authority.

[TheKentuckian]

100. You do realize that 5/20 is way after inauguration day.

When the President took office there were no handcuffs preventing him from acting exactly as I prescribed. Those restrictions came with the rejection of his lame, morally bankrupt, and still unconstitutional effort to relocate the internment camp rather than releasing those he could not put on trial and getting trial dates for those he could.


You admit he had full authority to transfer the detainees as he saw fit prior to to this bill.

You finally accept that there was no need to request appropriations for transfers, releases, or trials.

You admit it was purely the President's refusal to use his designated and legal authority to close the prison that led directly to his hands being tied.

What was it you were arguing, exactly? I mean other than Congress refused to fund the Presidents Gitmo North and in the exchange created a de facto indefinite detention situation that is a violation of our base law which the President has yet to fight (in fact, he wrote a superseding EO to support it for no legal reason) and not on the basis of an overreach on restricting his authority (which it is, and not because of the unitary executive nonsense but rather because that is where the Constitution vests such authority) but because the law it's self conflicts with the source of all government's authority and signed treaties.

There is no debate that Gitmo could not be closed, the President elected to try to have his cake and eat it too but the truth is he would have still not kept his promise if he'd gotten his way because the same unconstitutional situation would just be relocated. Promise kept by the letter but not from the intent.

Why is it so hard to just admit what happened? Why use laws passed after the fact and pretend the man was collared from the get go? It was only a couple of years ago, there is no fog of history.

Why talk to folks like they are stark raving mad, when you know good and well they are totally on target?

Now, let's us get to the meat of the matter here and discuss why President Obama refused to follow long established law and use his natural legal authority to relocate, put on trial, or if need be release the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba rather than push some convoluted scheme to move the damn thing.

Hell, you can't even argue he was caught off guard. He could have had Holder's people relocate the detainees before there was a vote or hell failing that prior to being signed into law.

You cannot logically state that "Congress tied his hands and he couldn't do anything else" because it is patently false. The link is to a bill five months after he took office and he could have sat on it and STILL have shut the gulag down before sending the piece of shit back to have a veto overturned which would have been pointless because it could not legally be applied to what had happened before the law took effect.

Damn, this a lame and easily refuted line of argument. Congress could not have stopped him for a second had his actual intention been to shut the damn travesty down and WE ALL KNOW IT.

[rury]

11. K&R for telling another of the many truths about the Kabuki

System our remarkable president has to deal with!
BTW...I'm in Texas, too!

[elleng]

12. How often is this the case?

'a closer look at the facts reveals that their blame has been misplaced.'

:thumbsup:

[vaberella]

53. Quite often. This is similar to the PO situation with the HCR. n/t

[jenmito]

13. K&R. Of course this thread goes largely ignored. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

14. K/R and bookmarking for facts!

[Fearless]

15. Actually I blame him. He wants it open remember. If he wanted it closed...

That's a different story entirely. He doesn't. He fell through on a very important constitutional and human rights campaign promise.

[Tx4obama]

17. Just curious, did you read the whole article that is on the link in the OP? n/t

[Fearless]

18. Oh yes. It's bull sh*t.

[Tx4obama]

19. Well, I disagree. There is not anything in there that is not true. n/t

[Fearless]

20. Because you listen to their words and believe them. I look at their actions and see their intents.

[Tx4obama]

23. The article lists FACTUAL ACTIONS.

I am not going to play your game. Ciao ciao :)

[Fearless]

25. The article states what the President said.

Not everything that comes out of politicians' mouths is factual. Democrats included.

[Tx4obama]

26. The article states Obama's ACTIONS. And the actions of Congress.

Apparently you did NOT read the whole thing.

If you want to debate the FACTS I'll oblige,
but if you want to ignore the facts then bye-bye.

[Fearless]

29. Did you know that Obama gave a SECOND executive order repealing that one?

He stated that it was because of Congress. This is bull sh*t in my opinion as I have stated. People do not stop supporting things just because others don't. What he claims is bull sh*t. Either that or he is the weakest most ineffective politician that I have ever heard of.

[Tx4obama]

31. Obama does not have a magic wand, and he is not a dictator.

The blame lies at the feet of Congress, not on Obama.

[Fearless]

32. What we need is a leader who actually takes a stand for us.

He does not. He has not. He is a detriment to this nation's credibility and to human rights because of his decision to FOLLOW Congress's lead.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

61. What we need is a dictator

Is what you are really saying. You want Congress to be irrelevant? That's what you are saying.

[Fearless]

66. We need a president who stands up for the American people. That is what I am saying.

[uponit7771]

117. ...and tells congerss the republican congress to fuck off? You're kidding right

[TheKentuckian]

79. Explain the logic and purposes of the 2nd order.

He doesn't need to support Congresses law with his own order. What is the purpose?

[treestar]

60. How does a weak ineffectual person even get elected?

I hate it when people act like Congress is nothing.

[Fearless]

65. Your statement is non sequitur

The party affiliation of Congress does not make a president weak and ineffective. It can make him/her ineffective, but weakness is self-induced.

[tekisui]

42. "Facts are the enemy of truth"

Cervantes.

[vaberella]

54. You can watch this play out on C-Span. Video didn't exist during the time of Cervantes.

There's enough footage to see how this played out. Even Rachel Maddow showed how the Democratic Congress bailed out on Obama. Now one of the loudest progressives voices is falsifying information as well---since the facts aren't the truth. This is well known information. Don't insult an argument you obviously cannot dispute.

[tekisui]

56. See post #43

[Jakes Progress]

16. Don't you just mean the first three words

of your headline . . .all ways . . . . under any circumstances . . . all the time . . . . for anything, anything at all.

[CakeGrrl]

21. Bugs you that the Senate Dems share responsibility for this, eh?

[Tx4obama]

30. OT

Hey CakeGirl :)

Have you seen this yet? http://twitter.com/ltdanchoi/status/92243960260591616

I think I'd rather jump off of a bridge before ever uttering the words: 'a very good republican' - (other than in a quote that is).

[CakeGrrl]

35. I'm sure he knows "a very good Republican" when he sees one.

:hi:

[Ikonoklast]

94. Gary Johnson is Greenwald's choice, too.

Guess they both like the idea of Child Labor and the abolition of the minimum wage.

[Jakes Progress]

63. You're growing up.

Glad to see the word "share" in your post. Too many refuse to admit that Obama shares blame in any fault.

No one said that the Senate isn't full of faux-Democrats. Too bad that our president sides with them so much. But at least you acknowledge this. Good show.

[CakeGrrl]

71. Condescension is unbecoming. Is that your most "effective" tactic

when anonymous posters piss you off so badly?

[Jakes Progress]

85. You take compliments as condescension? Sorry.

I'm not pissed off. But boy, your insecurity is really giving you a fit. I'll leave you alone then.

I noticed you didn't have anything to say about my comment that you are acknowledging Obama's fault in this. I hope that means that you really are getting it.

There are a number of factors that keep progressive goals from being a part of the Washington agenda. When they are not labeled progressive or attached to a party, most Americans support those goals. But Washington is controlled and contrives to thwart the desires of the electorate. Republicans are the main malefactors here. But a soft-on-neocon-goals administration and blue dog centrists only help the wrong side regardless of intention.

Many of us have decided to fight all the problems and not exempt any person or group from the blame they deserve just because of party or hotness. I really thought your post indicated a change in previous absolutism.

I'm not pissed. Hope you aren't either. As you say, it is a piece of anonymous posting, but the ideas aren't less important because of that.

[woo me with science]

45. +1

:eyes:

[Hand_With_Eyes]

24. Zero senators voted to open it

Bush ordered them detained there, not the congress. No 'Bill' needed to close it.

[Tx4obama]

27. And where do you suggest the money come from to close it, to move the detainees?

Congress voted against the funding needed to move the detainees to a new location.

Funding comes from Congress, not from the President.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

64. Money to close it?

Just move them to the US. We somehow have the money to keep them there, us it to move them. We already have a military budget. Congress didn't have to approve them being moved there, congress doesn't have to approve them leaving.

[TheKentuckian]

73. Only AFTER he asked them for the money to relocate it.

Congress doesn't vote individually to fund Federal trials or individual military movements.

Yes, he could have ordered them relocated, released, or had them in front of a judge for a trial date well before any restrictions were place or any funding was denied.

Why won't you folks admit that he was trying to relocate the prison rather than close it and got caught being too fucking cute.

No restrictions were in place when he took office, don't even lie.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. KICKING THIS SHIT WAYYYY UP!!!! n/t

[StarsInHerHair]

40. & HE COULD HAVE GIVEN ORDERS TO STAND DOWN IN GITMO, stopping any

torture going forward.




yet he didn't

[WonderGrunion]

44. Wait! Do you have ANY evidence that torture is occuring at GITMO now?

Do you have ANY evidence that torture is being conducted by ANY American forces anywhere? Your claim sounds so much like the BS claim that "Obama still tortures". Enlighten me if it is not.

[vaberella]

55. WTF? What kind of allegations are you making here?

Please give substantiating evidence. Obama has clearly stated on several occasions that torture IS condemned. People need to stop talking out of their ass just because they obviously hate the guy. I always find ridiculous arguments to stem from pure dislike and a lack of reason than a rational person with legitimate concerns.

[StarsInHerHair]

113. allright.....then explain to me THIS-NO TORTURE TRIALS! NO CAMERAS

ALLOWED IN GITMO, ABU GHRAIB.



Since Obama has continued "going forward" with TOO MUCH of W policies & ticks.....what else am I supposed to think?

[tekisui]

43. Obama failed on this promise. He either didn't know how or

was naive to think he could do it. Either way, he was ineffective on this issue. Or else it would be closed.

Putting that to the side, his administration has claimed the right to hold around 50 indefinitely, without charge. That order has nothing to do with Congressional acts or the desire to close Gitmo. He just wants to transfer them to a US prison and deny their rights there.

Putting that to the side, he has also double the size of Baghram prison.

Putting that to the side, he currently okays the CIA to operate a black site prison, with rendition and secret interrogations in Somalia.

There is more here than one filed promise. I know that many only care about whether Obama get a political win check-mark or a political blame-someone=else mark. But, his continuation of bad policies that he inherited are his own.

[woo me with science]

46. +1

[mistertrickster]

48. "YES, WE CAAAN . . . uh . . . can't." Note to Obama: sometimes you have to try. nt

[vaberella]

57. He did. However more have said he hasn't.

You should see if you can get Rachel Maddow's account on this which supports the article posted. But believe what you want, you will anyway.

[TheKentuckian]

88. What did he try to do? Did he attempt to relocate the prison which dictated appropriations

Or did he try to put the detainees on trial or release them if they could not be tried?

What laws did Bush violate by putting detainees on trial in CIVILIAN COURTS or by releasing those he couldn't put on trial?

What special appropriations did Bush require from Congress for said actions and if ANY of them did not require appropriations what illegal shenanigans did he use to pull them off?

[mistertrickster]

98. I remember now, Obama said, "I will close Gitmo as long as Congress agrees with me

and I don't lift a finger to persuade them."

Or not . . .

[BklnDem75]

80. Perhaps you should look the word 'we' up

He didn't say 'Yes I can' and we didn't say 'Yes he can.'

[mistertrickster]

97. Did Obama ask for my help to close Gitmo? No. He didn't try, he didn't care. nt

[BklnDem75]

107. You mean you don't know to pressure your congressperson unless Obama asks?

Or were you expecting a personal letter filled with pins, buttons and other goodies?

[mistertrickster]

109. Your snarky attitude suggests that anything I say will be demeaned, but here's

what I mean:

when Obama trotted out his health care plan, he asked for house parties, a day of service and to tell our stories.

I personally did all of that.

He still sold us out.

As for contacting my congressman, he is Mike Pompeo. Look him up . . . he's like Paul Ryan or Jeff Sessions.

Writing to him will have the same impact as writing to Satan.

On edit: Like millions of other Americans stuck in Red State hell, Obama is our only hope. If he doesn't do it, it won't get done. I've been the co-chair of the local DFA chapter since Howard Dean ran for President -- we meet every month to figure out how to save this country.

If you have some good ideas on how to do that, I'm all ears. But telling me to "do something" is like telling Mother Theresa to be good. I'm doing everything I can, and I realize all too well that everything I can is not very much.

[BklnDem75]

112. Being from a Red State...

one would think you'd appreciate the kind of stonewalling Obama's been going through since he's been elected. He sold you out because he didn't give you everything you wanted? How would you feel if people downplayed and discounted your efforts in your state because it's not showing any results? That's what you just did.

[mistertrickster]

114. False equivalency. I'm not the president of the United States.

And it's not so much that Obama "didn't give me everything I wanted."

It's more that he didn't deliver on anything he promised . . . and worse than that, refused to mobilize the huge grass-roots machine that was willing to fight for what he promised.

[BklnDem75]

119. 'he didn't deliver on anything he promised'

You actually expect serious discussions with that stance?

[mistertrickster]

123. What he promised that is important to me and progressives, he hasn't delivered.

Obama promises . . . FAILED

Close Gitmo.

Shut politician - lobbyist revolving door.

End no bid military contracts.

Disallow Co.'s in bankruptcy giving bonuses.

Allow judges to re-negotiate mortgages to avoid foreclosure.

Increase taxes on capital gains.

Repeal Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Allow re-importation of prescription drugs.

Walk with picketers when collective bargaining is at risk.

Sign no health care bill without a public option.

Passing the FAIR "card check" act to make it easier for workers to unionize.

Re-negotiating NAFTA.

End the Iraq War. (50,000 troops remain and dozens are killed every month)

*****

Even the one high-profile promise he followed through on--ending DADT--has yet to be implemented.

[BklnDem75]

125. Can't even take half that list seriously

Dozens killed every month in Iraq? 44 died this year. 60 died all of last year. Can't get the quote right on the health care bill. Disregard that Obama's involvement with the picketers would've been more harmful. Giving Congress a free pass on Gitmo. Like I said, nothing fruitful can come from a list of your personal gripes.

[mistertrickster]

126. Yeah, you're right. Progressives are unsatisfied with Obama because we just don't understand

all the good he's done.

(Chortle.)

[BklnDem75]

127. And by Progressives, you mean the 15%

Thankfully, you don't speak for all of us.

[mistertrickster]

133. By "progressive," I mean the people that Obama's people call "dirty hippies."

Or more specifically, his FORMER base . . . but I am done.

[BklnDem75]

135. Ah so that would be less than 1%...

since he never said that.

[Dawgs]

49. What are you saying? Obama's should only get credit if something passes?

Bad/Not Passed = Congress's fault
Good = Obama did it with no help from anyone

Got it.

[tekisui]

51. Yes, "The List" only includes what was passed.

"The List" omits all failures and extension/expansion of bush policies.

[treestar]

62. No.

Bad congress, for not allowing the closure. Good POTUS for trying.

If you want to be that simple about it. And it's not worse than the reverse - blame Obama for not getting congress to agree, give congress only credit when they do pass something.

[JoePhilly]

58. But Russ Fiengold is 2nd in today's "who should primary Obama" thread ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1505785&mesg_id=1505785

At least he was second last I looked.

[TheKentuckian]

87. Why would Feingold vote to approve funding for an extra-constitutional prison?

I'd vote no as well. No, way in hell that I'm caught dead or alive with a vote to continue indefinite detention.

You act like the problem with the prison was location rather than function.

Granting you the torture was over, you still just have an internment camp.

That vote would be supporting violating the Constitution. We already have a system in place, it is called trial or release. Those are the only Constitutional options.
To make that Yea vote, you'd also be signing off on the "enemy combatant" happy horseshit.

Until folks will admit that the vote had nothing to do with closing the prison and everything to do with relocating it in a PR move then we will continue to butt heads.
We are talking about related but not equivalent things here.

[JoePhilly]

102. Ahhh ... so you just release everyone ... yes?

Bring them to a FEDERAL PRISON creates the environment in which you can TRY THEM in FEDERAL COURTS.

As they stand now, they are, and REMAIN, in LIMBO.

The administration has actually divided those who remain in to 5 groups based on what they can be charged with, or the extent to which they can be returned to a home country.

I used to think that only the far right saw the world in simple black and white terms, and that the left saw nuance, and complexities, and then they worked to navigate those.

I have found that is not true. The left can be just as black and white. In this case ...

The right wing concludes everyone who was every in GITMO was a terrorist and should be killed. Part of the left assumes they are ALL innocent of any crime, regardless of how they came to be there.

Neither of those views is correct.

Not all are terrorists trying to kill us, and plenty were innocent.

Bottom line ... if you want EACH of them to get a federal trial, you need to move them to federal prisons first.

My favorite part of your position is that Obama fails even if GITMO closed. Apparently, he just needs to open the doors and let them out. Something he never said he would do.

[TheKentuckian]

105. He could have relocated the detainees to existing Federal prisons, Joe.

I never once stated that ALL of them were innocent, I do state if we cannot put them on trial then they must be released. Those aren't the same things and it is disingenuous, to be kind, for you to conflate the two very distinct arguments.

Yes, he FAILS if his plan succeeded because he has log stated they cannot all be put on trial at all nor is he willing to release them and some he expressed intent to use the tribunals which is also bullshit, these people aren't soldiers and shouldn't be elevated to such.

They are criminals and should be tried in civilian courts. Obama had no need to create a new supermax and it was fully within his authority (or rather and/or Holder's) to transfer them and bring them before a judge to commence proceedings.

There was no need whatsoever to get any special funding, build/buy a prison, or get permission to transfer detainees. Zero. Zilch. None.

Gitmo could have been closed for business well before Superbowl Sunday 2009 but he choose to go for straddling the fence.

Joe, won't you explain to us black and white simpletons what exactly would have stopped the President from transferring the whole lot out any time between being sworn in and when he signed his own handcuffs into law some five months later? What would have stopped him from ordering the transfers? What would have been illegal? What would he have required special appropriations for?

Hell, he could have got the crap from Congress, ordered the move, allowed the moves to happen, and signed the bill into law with zero impact on appropriations or the status of the now prisoners because there would be no detainees at Gitmo. He's got a week to decide to veto or not he had time to bust the move even then..

If the argument is politics then it is politics but you cannot honestly pretend he had no choice but to leave the damn gulag open and those people held indefinitely in violation of the whole basis for our laws.

I'm still waiting for links that show there were restrictions in place when he took office or that the previous pResident violated any laws by releasing detainees or by putting them on trial in our courts and I will probably wait forever because such law did not exist.
Nor were special appropriations required to transfer detainees to Federal prisons to await trial.

I don't know what you guys remember and I suspect that it doesn't matter as this bogus talking point will be flogged, true or false rather than admit Gitmo North was a political stunt to appease the loons who didn't gnash their teeth when Bush did the same, to appease chickenshit politicians, and still attempt to keep his word.

The real story is Obama was adverse to the often lobbed charge he was "soft on terror" and wanted a consensus. The consensus went over like a turd in the bathtub and he backed off.

[JoePhilly]

108. He tried to move them to an EXISTING Federal prison.

Not a new one. Not one that needed to be built.

Here is an example from Feb 2009.

http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/18733473/detail.html

http://www.progressillinois.com/2009/2/4/indy-gop-freaks-out-gitmo

Another ...

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/NY_Dems_sour_on_terror_trial-83000692.html

Huffpo said ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/senate-votes-to-block-fun_n_205797.html

MSNBC said ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826649/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/senate-blocks-transfer-gitmo-detainees/

Or this ...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/House_panel_votes_to_block_Obama_Gitmo_plan.html

Or this ..
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-30/news/ct-met-house-vote-gitmo-05-30-20100528_1_democrats-split-gitmo-center-in-guantanamo-bay

He tried to move them to existing prisons. House and Senate Dems folded up.

And Fiengold was one of them.

[TheKentuckian]

129. Buddy, you must be counting on blowing a motherfucker off the plate by pitching junk.

I can't believe you wasted my fucking time going through this pile of nothing but I'm going to deflate this dead horse that I just KNEW was being beat.

The first two links are not a restriction (probably because a state can't dictate Federal prison movements but it doesn't matter because), it was two links to the same "urging" the detainees not be moved to Indiana (except to be on death row, which is bullshit).

The third link is not even a bill but rather Bloomberg talking about money and Gilibrand "understanding" concerns.

No law yet.

The Huffington Post link is to the same 5/20 bill that I referenced. No hand cuffs to be found there for five months.

The MSNBC link is of course the same damn thing.

The Politico link is....THE SAME 5/20 bill. Five months.

The Chicago Tribune article fucking May, 30th.

Sir!?!

Are you stupid or do you think we are or both?

Why can you not back off your argument when it is false? Just admit you are conflating what you see as bad politics with legal handcuffs.

I know you aren't a dumb person and never treated you as such but this is either stupid or it is dishonest. You are a bright enough kat to know that if I read those links that I was going to spike them back into your grill like Karch Kiraly.

[treestar]

59. And yet they want Feingold to primary Obama

[tekisui]

67. If only the Democratic Party had had a leader at that time.

Someone in a position of power. Maybe like the highest office in the land.

[CakeGrrl]

72. To do WHAT? Make Congress EARN their money and do the will of the people who hired THEM?

Get real.

[tekisui]

77. To do what? Lead. Set a strong frame instead of giving it up to the repukes.

[Ikonoklast]

93. Bully Pulpit ! Bully Pulpit! Bully Pulpit!

Bully Pulpit! Bully Pulpit! Bully Pulpit! Bully Pulpit!


That's all Obama needs to do!!

Then the Republicans will vote the way he wants, but HE WON'T USE THE BULLY PULPIT!11!1!!!




Magical Thinking from the PL.

How tiresome.

[tekisui]

121. He didn't need repukes. He needed his own party.

He couldn't work out, deal or pressure his own party to work with him. That is the epitome of failed leadership.

[BklnDem75]

82. LOL!

I'll take failed memes for $300, Alex.

[tekisui]

83. I'll take failed campaign promises.

This is but one of many.

[BklnDem75]

84. Doesn't stop the 'leadership' meme from being a failed one

Can you name a single president that followed up on every campaign promise? I won't hold my breath.

[tekisui]

86. A failure is a failure. And this was one of the big ones of his campaign.

He either didn't know what he was getting into, or just failed to get it done. Either way, it is a major political failure.

[BklnDem75]

89. It's so much of a failure that not many off this board is talking about it

There's such a thing called perspective. Very few blame Obama for Guantanamo because they know he got stonewalled. It's only major to you and the very few.

[tekisui]

91. Yeah, human rights aren't a very big deal.

[BklnDem75]

92. Take it up with Congress

You know, the actual branch of government responsible for preventing Guantanamo's closure?

[BDavinciNY]

68. Tx4Obama this post needs to be in the Greatest Threads category in DU

But it won't because Obama bashing is a bloodsport here in DU. Its a shame that Obama gets blamed for everything for an uncooperative Congress that have their Corporate matsters to answer to. The Ultra left fail to realize that Obama is not a dictator but has to WORK WITH A COOPERATIVE CONGRESS to get progressive legislation done. If the democratic leadership can't or won't do anything Obama wants to get done we end up with shitty results. Remember the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts last year? I the Democratic leadership took this up before the midterms (because they figured that they lose many seats) and not after then maybe the Bush Tax cuts would have ceased. But we had Repukes holding up everything UI extension, Help for 9/11 workers and DADT repeal and Obama had to make that deal so we COULD get those things in the lame duck session. The left need to stop believing the hype and investigate and think about what is being said in the MSM or RW media about Obama before bashing him. We are just people stating our opinion about what goes on in DC here in this forum . However it should but backed up by facts and figures not by political rhetoric and distortions. My thanks to ClarkUSA, Tx4Obama and others for their steadfast defense of stating the true facts about the Obama Administration against the whiners on DU. We do need to hold Obama accountable for his actions but they have to realize that Obama is trying the best he can with the huge opposition against him in Congress in getting things done.

Also see my post about the lesser of two evils in politics:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=711992&mesg_id=712224

[TheKentuckian]

69. I blame Obama for attempting to thread the needle by trying to just relocate the

prison northward.

He didn't need any special funding or to seek a Congressional consensus at all. He could have transferred the whole lot day one and had trial dates set. He wanted to minimize blowback and he also had zero intention of releasing or putting many on trial at all. He wanted to maintain the bogus enemy combatant status for some of that population while playing a little three card monty by symbolically closing a shame magnet.

He then turned around and signed further handcuffs into law as part of an appropriations bill rather than saying fuck no.

You are right about Congress but you are wrong to stick to the dodgy argument as the one and only way to skin this particular cat.

Yes, they refused to fund Obama's solution. No, Obama's solution wasn't the way to close Gitmo. It was a political solution to relocate it. Obama could have ordered the base closed. He certainly could have released anyone he couldn't put on trial and had those he could on US soil in the dead of night.

This was never a voting matter until he made it one. Bush released and tried in civilian courts with nary a vote.

[tekisui]

76. Exactly.

[hughee99]

70. I think this is the problem "This is me following through..."

But he didn't follow through. He got a health care bill passed, admittedly not the one we wanted, but he got SOMETHING passed, and he's arguing he couldn't get any funding for THIS? Is this really an argument that he just couldn't do it? I'm sure he wants it closed, but after the bill signing and photo-op, he wasn't willing to spend any political capital to get it done. In my book, that's not "following though".

[AtomicKitten]

81. K&R for the facts.

Thanks for posting this.

:patriot:

[Tx4obama]

136. You're welcome :) n/t

[Springer9]

90. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is a United States military

installation. President Obama is the Commander in Chief of said military.

He summons Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations to the White House and orders him to close the detention center and transfer the detainees to another suitable location.

Problem solved, promise kept.

[The Big Vetolski]

96. Oh, stop making sense. You'll upset the...you know. nt

[AtomicKitten]

101. Congress has legislatively blocked that action and also the funding required to do it.

Next.

[Springer9]

103. What legislative action did Congress pass

And was signed into law by the President? What funding? Does congress specifically authorize every movement of every ship the Navy has?

Hell, I'm sure the funds to blow Bin Laden away weren't subjected to a vote of Congress, Obama ordered it and it was carried out.

[AtomicKitten]

104. here ya go -

Senate blocks transfer of Gitmo Detainees
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826649/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/senate-blocks-transfer-gitmo-detainees/

Senate votes to block funds for Guantanamo Closure
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-20-senate-gitmo_N.htm

Barack Obama abandons Guantánamo closure plan after Congress Veto
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/20/barack-obama-guantanamo-congress-veto

[mistertrickster]

110. Or the Justice Dept. could just give them a trial? nt

[AtomicKitten]

122. What part of his being blocked legislatively do you not get? nt

[mistertrickster]

124. What part of "Obama can end this WITHOUT Congress" do you not get?

Give everybody trials, and then they can legally be imprisoned (in Gitmo or anywhere else) for as long as their sentence lasts.

[AtomicKitten]

130. FFS you really need to review an 8th grade Civics course. nt

[mistertrickster]

132. Wow, great argument. (sarcasm) Impressive use of profanity though . . . nt

[brentspeak]

106. "The president tried repeatedly to close GITMO"

:spray:

Really? When?

[uponit7771]

118. Read the article, its RIGHT THERE!!!

[uponit7771]

116. FUCK FACTS!!!!

[Doctor_J]

128. Maybe he should try leading on an issue

instead of throwing up his hands because the Congress, whom everyone in the country despises, doesn't agree with him.

[TheKentuckian]

131. I've made the case, your best people have offered fluff. You need to concede this one

or break my argument, which you will not be able to do because there was no restriction whatsoever on closing the gulag, relocating detainees, releasing detainees, or putting them on trial in civilian courts.

The problem was purely lack of will and/or political cowardice.

[mistertrickster]

134. The Obama-fans can offer nothing but

1. you didn't get a pony. ad homenim

2. take a Civics course. ditto

3. Congress wouldn't fund it, so end of story. question begging

4. it's YOUR fault because you didn't pressure Congress. blaming the victim

5. we don't want Obama to be the dictator that Bush was, even though Obama said nothing about only closing Gitmo if Congress approved it. inconsistency

*****

You're right, you won this one. No one arguing for Obama can explain why he doesn't simply order his Justice Dept (or his military as CIC) to give the imprisoned-without-trial a trial.

[Arkana]

140. Wow, can you say "butthurt"?

I guess Obama erred in his assumption that the people who voted for him knew he'd need Congressional approval for his agenda. Guess what? Government doesn't work by executive fiat. If you want that, move to a country that's an absolute monarchy.

He didn't HAVE to say anything about only closing Gitmo if Congress approved it--that's the ONLY FUCKING WAY IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. The prisoners needed to go somewhere, and every asshole in Congress, including our illustrious Senate Majority Leader, voted against it because NIMBY.

And you know what? By and large, the far left washed their hands of Obama after he took the oath in 2008 and just figured he'd get it done himself. We didn't get the public option because the teabaggers made their Congressmen more afraid of them than us. You Obama-bashers accuse us of "cheerleading" but you people have been singing the same one-note tune since Obama named Rahm Emanuel CoS in December 2008, and it's getting REALLY fucking annoying.

[sudopod]

142. I imagine that the complications of having one's civil rights violated are on the same order

as unwanted anal penetration. They often come hand in hand, in this country.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

137. Typical Slimegold.

This, lest we forget, is a man who liked to boast on his website about how fiscally conservative he was, including quotes from partisan Republicans to back him up. That his duplicity continually fools some of the uber-left is typical and unsurprising.

[Creideiki]

138. Can you say, "Lack of Leadership?"

I knew you could!

[sudopod]

141. People being incarcerated indefinitely without trial is a totally appropriate venue for smilies.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[woo me with science]

143. THERE's the 2012 bumper sticker:

DON'T BLAME OBAMA 2012