Free for All: 03/19/09
Have to leave early again today so blogging will resume later in the day. This should be the last time and blogging should finally return to normal. So, what’s on your mind?
Have to leave early again today so blogging will resume later in the day. This should be the last time and blogging should finally return to normal. So, what’s on your mind?
March 19, 2009 at 6:44 am
Democrats wonder why some voters question if they’ll be able to keep us safe. Gee, I don’t know, maybe because of un-f’n-believable crap like this from our new Attorney General Eric Holder.
They’re considering releasing some Gitmo detainees into the U.S.:
For “people who can be released there are a variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility is that we would release them into this country,” Mr. Holder said.
Several former Gitmo inmates immediately return to the battlefield, including the Taliban’s new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan. That’s exactly who I want showing up in my neighborhood.
March 19, 2009 at 8:37 am
You may recall that then Deputy Attorney General Holder was the Justice Department official who publicly defended the decision to seize Elián Gonzalez at gunpoint and transfer him to Cuban custody. It was also under his advice that Attorney General Reno authorised the use of the Independent Council Statute to expand Ken Starr’s investigation to include the Lewinski matter… a totally unnecessary political miscalculation.
He’s not exactly among the brightest and the best in terms of thinking ahead.
March 19, 2009 at 8:51 am
Between Holder & Geitner, I’m not sure who is the more inept. Not impressed at all with the Obama appointees.
March 19, 2009 at 8:53 am
This is funny and going viral Barack Obama’s Teleprompter has a Blog.
http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
March 19, 2009 at 9:15 am
You realize, of course, that just being held at Gitmo is no guarantee that one is a ‘terrorist’? Far from it – it has long been known that many of the detainees were simply people who happened to be caught by indigenous bounty hunters (often people with a grudge against them or who wanted their property) and turned over to the US for money.
This from Colin Powell’s chief of staff:
So some people who did nothing wrong have not only lost five to seven years of their lives, were tortured to obtain information they didn’t even have, but are going to be branded ‘terrorist’ in perpetuity by people unable to admit they made a mistake.
Nice.
March 19, 2009 at 10:43 am
“Democrats wonder why some voters question if they’ll be able to keep us safe. ”
LOL! No, we don’t wonder that. I think it’s wonderfully cute that you think we do though.
This is a case of you guys saying something so much that you begin to believe your own BS.
March 19, 2009 at 10:45 am
Laree, I noticed the teleprompter site earlier. It’s HILAROUS.
Elmo, there is ZERO evidence that innocent Gitmo detainees, if there are any, were tortured. THREE detaines, including the far from innocent KSM, were waterboarded.
NONE of these people should be released into the U.S. There are numerous who have gone back to the battlefields, KILLING AMERICANS.
Why do people like you care more about likely, or even proven, terrorists than you do innocent Americans?
March 19, 2009 at 10:47 am
smh, I didn’t know you were running for office. Lord help us.
March 19, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Funny. Big Red raises an interesting topic. I may disagree with Uncleararthur, but he gives a reasoned, thought-provoking response. Then we had another SMH eruption.
March 19, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Art, I called you elmo. My mistake.
March 19, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I am sure Art took it as a complement.
March 19, 2009 at 1:26 pm
As much as I hate to do it, I’m gonna have to back SMH up here. No Democrat wonders why some voters question if we’ll be able to keep them safe. There’s no mystery to it. Conservatives think they’re the tough guys that keep the bad guys away and Democrats won’t do the job. They’re wrong….and Dick Cheney is a complete moron for publicly suggesting otherwise.
March 19, 2009 at 1:53 pm
B.S. John Kerry spent his entire convention trying to convince the nation of his national security credentials…because he served in Vietnam.
March 19, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Wikipedia has Barack Obama’s Teleprompter’s Blog entry slated for deletion. WHY it is a real blog. It has over 1,500 followers on twitter, that’s right The President’s teleprompter is twittering:) That’s more the Joe Biden’s teleprompter.
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/03/all-hailtotus.html
More about Barack Obama’s Teleprompter’s Blog…..here
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-am-baracks-brain.html
March 19, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Joe, it actually dates back to the Peace Movement of the 60′s & Democrats shift from being tough on defense & national security to becoming more passive.
In addition, Jimmy Carter’s complete inability to handle the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis inflicted great damage onto your party. If Carter would have been a stronger President with both his domestic & foreign policy then in all likelihood Ronald Reagan would have never been elected.
March 19, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“They’re considering releasing some Gitmo detainees into the U.S.”
That is why I question if (some) Democrats will try to keep us safe. Also because of stated preferences by some to prosecute enemy combatants in the civilian court system. Foolish.
As for being tough, yes. Sometimes we have to use that big stick. Usama Bin Ladin, himself, proclaimed Americans were “soft” and unable to stomach death, and that Americans cower even at the accusations of killing innocent civilians. Said he first got the idea when from America’s hasty retreat out of Vietnam and how we high-tailed it out of Beirut, Iran, and Somalia after suffering “mere pin pricks”, and that we “trembled” at the thought of putting boots on the ground in Bosnia.
I don’t give a flying leap about detainees held in Cuba. It’s a war and, as such, POWs are held indefinitely without charges until there is a conclusion. If they die there of old age, fine by me.
March 19, 2009 at 4:20 pm
For the record, I was specifically addressing the “Democrats wonder” part, which is probably beside the point. We know the history of our party and the reasons why conservatives distrust us on national security. That’s all I was saying, but I realize it’s kind of a silly point. My particular (as some of you know) type of brain sometimes sticks on a specific point and wrestles it to the ground (I win! I win!).
As to my other specific point, I disagree with Cheney that we are less safe under Obama. When it comes to airplane-crashing suicide bombers, I would say we’re equally unsafe under either administration.
March 19, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Some very good changes were made while VP Cheney was in office, and I’m interested in hearing his “take” on things. Having said that, you’d think eight years later there’d be equipment at our airports to scan the luggage before its loaded into the planes we board after surrendering our tweezers, nail clippers, etc.
You’re funny, joe. Nothing wrong with your type of brain.
March 19, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Army Hospital May Have Spread Disease With Shared Insulin Pens
March 19 (Bloomberg) — More than 2,000 people may have been put at risk of AIDS and hepatitis by sharing insulin pens and cartridges in two Army hospitals, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said.
The FDA posted a warning today against sharing the disposable insulin shots after the William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas, last month said 2,114 diabetic patients may be at risk “as a result of incorrect procedures.” The sharing occurred from 2007-2009, the FDA said in a statement issued today.
March 19, 2009 at 7:11 pm
The above story posted by Terance is unbelievable. It more than makes me just angry, it’s pathetic. This is something that I would expect from a third world nation. The USA blood banks have been screening blood for hepatitis since the late eighties. Very Sad!
March 19, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Agreed Jay. This is unconscionable.
March 19, 2009 at 9:23 pm
NONE of these people should be released into the U.S. There are numerous who have gone back to the battlefields, KILLING AMERICANS.
Why do people like you care more about likely, or even proven, terrorists than you do innocent Americans?
it’s not the PROVEN terrorists that bother me, it’s the people who got swooped up by bounty hunters that have been determined to be no threat to us, that have done NOTHING against us and never had any intention of doing anything against us, that are still being detained YEARS after they have been declared falsely detained.
If people can be unjustly detained forever with no ability to challenge their detention, this is no longer America but some tinpot dictatorship.
Please note this from the Washington Post news story of October 5, 2008
That is, this organization was officially considered a persecuted minority who only wanted the freedom to practice their faith UNTIL the Bush administration needed an excuse to keep some of them locked up indefinitely. THEN and only then did they become a ‘terrorist’ organization.
Are you cool with the administration being able to define anyone they want to detain a ‘terrorist’ when it suits them?
March 20, 2009 at 4:27 am
My favorite part has to be:
Wilkerson told the AP in a telephone interview that many detainees “clearly had no connection to al-Qaida and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head.”
I don’t suppose that was BigRed’s tax dollars, eh?
March 20, 2009 at 4:56 am
Seems all the talking heads feel they have a duty to discuss the president’s ‘Special Olympics” quip last night on Leno’s show, and that “he needs to apologise.” Apologise for what? I know what he meant. I also happen to know a few who’ve competed in the Special Olympics – turns out they have a sense of humour, too. Go figure.
March 20, 2009 at 5:21 am
Al, I’m in agreement that many people are extremely thin skinned. However, even before the talking heads were talking about Leno’s “Special Olympics” quip the Presidential Press Staff & the President were back-tracking from his statement. I’m just asking, why would the President apologize if he did nothing wrong?
This was posted on Politico by ABC News:
President Barack Obama called Special Olympics Chairman Tim Shriver to apologize Thursday night over his remarks comparing his bowling to Special Olympics. He called before the remarks aired on the Tonight Show and invited some Special Olympics athletes to the White House for basketball or bowling.
“He expressed his disappointment and he apologized, in a way that was very moving,” Shriver said on “Good Morning America.” “It’s important to see that words hurt, and words do matter. And these words that in some respect can be seen as humiliating or a put-down of people with special needs do cause pain, and they do result in stereotypes.”
March 20, 2009 at 7:22 am
A few points regarding Gitmo detainees:
–First of all, this stuff is all coming from Lawrence Wilkerson, who has had an ax to grind with the Bush adminsitration for several years. That mainly stems from WILKERSON being the one who reviewed the CIA’s WMD report, and prepping it for Powell’s UN speech.
He got his stuff DEAD WRONG, and since has tried to shift the blame elsewhere.
–Secondly, IF, and I do mean IF, there are purely innocent detainees there, I sincerely feel bad for them and believe they should be released. But I also wonder what they were doing in AFGHANISTAN or PAKISTAN, of all places, after 9/11 & the U.S. invasion.
Doesn’t seem to me to be a real smart place to be.
–Third, even if they were totally innocent, the LAST place any of the should be released in inside the U.S.
–Fourth, DOZENS of former Gitmo detainees go right back to their terrorist ways. Were they “innocent” before, too?
March 20, 2009 at 7:54 am
“But I also wonder what they were doing in AFGHANISTAN or PAKISTAN, of all places, after 9/11 & the U.S. invasion.
Doesn’t seem to me to be a real smart place to be.”
Yes BR, imagine the NERVE of people being in the place where they live. GASP!
You’re freaking kidding us with this crap, right?
You do know that most people that live in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are not terrorists, right? Do you truly, honestly think that there are two hundred million terrorist (combined populations of both countries) extremists running around over there? With this statement, you show that everything is black and white in your eyes. If you’re in Pakistan or Afghanistan, you deserve to go to Gitmo because you didn’t leave when 9/11 occurred in America.
Unbelievable.
March 20, 2009 at 8:03 am
The Special Olympics joke was stupid and harmless. The only one who cares is the poor guy that did it and feels like crap. Nobody else cares.
March 20, 2009 at 8:10 am
> But I also wonder what they were doing in AFGHANISTAN or PAKISTAN, of all places, after 9/11 & the U.S. invasion.
>Doesn’t seem to me to be a real smart place to be.
Are there any psychiatrists in the house? BigRed is need of a major consultation!
March 20, 2009 at 8:17 am
I realise that there can be a fine line between humour and disparagement and so if the president felt an apology was warranted for his remark I’m fine with that. I’m not fine with the chorus questioning if that remark was disparaging, because it clearly wasn’t or at least it clearly wasn’t intended to be.
Had he, for example, made a quip about drinking too much during his youth and said he would have “fit right in with a bunch of drunken Irishmen”, would that be disparaging? I think not. It’s an unfair association but we all know that and I’m sure everyone of Irish heritage would see it for how it was intended.
Most of us, myself included, tend to be very blunt whenever we wish to disparage. We need to consider the intentions of the words used before being too quick to attack them.
March 20, 2009 at 8:18 am
See? Red needs a prompter, too! Iraq wasn’t a very smart place to be 6 years ago yesterday, either, but SOMEBODY’S gotta live there.
March 20, 2009 at 8:31 am
Tools, I’m not talking about people from Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Art is going on and on about these CHINESE MUSLIMS….
“Some of the Chinese Muslims — known as Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurs) — believed in establishing a breakaway state from China that they called East Turkestan. Others said they were in Afghanistan because they just wanted to live some place where they weren’t persecuted for their faiths.”
I found is VERY hard to believe Afghanistan was the best place they could go.
March 20, 2009 at 8:34 am
Secondly, IF, and I do mean IF, there are purely innocent detainees there, I sincerely feel bad for them and believe they should be released.
You made my point, I believe. But until very recently, they have had no avenue to make the case that they were unjustly detained. Are you comfortable with that?
But I also wonder what they were doing in AFGHANISTAN or PAKISTAN, of all places, after 9/11 & the U.S. invasion.
I guess all the non-terrorists should have upped sticks and left when they heard we were coming? are you serious?
The Uighurs specifically had left China because they were being persecuted for following their religion. I would have thought conservatives would have more sympathy for that, but I guess it’s only Christians who deserve religious freedom?
March 20, 2009 at 8:38 am
I found is VERY hard to believe Afghanistan was the best place they could go.
You do realize that they merely crossed the border? that Afghanistan was NEXT DOOR to where they were already living? Should they have, say, bought plane tickets and flown to France? Once again, are you serious? Do you not recognize a ‘let them eat cake’ cluelessness in your argument?
March 20, 2009 at 9:34 am
Art, I know where Afghanistan is. I also know, as did the whole world, that A WAR WAS COMING.
Do you think it’s a good idea to just hang out there?
They should go before military tribunals and have a chance to plead their case. They should not be allowed access to U.S. courts.
They CLAIM they’re innocent, as do most people who are caught, whether it’s speeding down the highway, or planting IEDs.
Again, you & I don’t know all the facts. Maybe they were fleeing religious persecution.
Or maybe they were following a jihad.
And yes, I am all for religious freedom.
I’m also for fighting the War on Terror. In a war, you’re not innocent before proven guilty. There are no Miranda rights. Our soldiers can’t be expected to collect evidence on every suspected terrorist they capture.
If they are innocent, stand before a military tribunal, plead your case, and if they’re found innocent, we owe them an apology & reparations.
March 20, 2009 at 9:39 am
I agree Red. Where’s the tribunals? That’s the part I don’t understand. I support military prison rules. What I don’t support is someone sitting in prison indefinitely like they do in China. Let’s do the damn trials and move on.
Hey, Tucker Carlson is on The Live Desk. He doesn’t work for MSNBC anymore?
March 20, 2009 at 10:31 am
They should go before military tribunals and have a chance to plead their case. They should not be allowed access to U.S. courts.
Did you miss the part where a federal judge ruled they shouldn’t be held at all? the only reason they’re still detained is because the Bush administration appealed.
It’s certainly not clear to me that a ‘military tribunal’ has anything to say in this matter. Bountyhunters SOLD these people to our forces.
I’m also for fighting the War on Terror. In a war, you’re not innocent before proven guilty.
Pretty handy then, that the ‘war’ has no possible end. You’ve just justified dictatorial powers to the executive in the US. But of course there’s never been a dictator conservatives didn’t first love (before they hated him). See: Dick Cheney and his BFF Sadddam.
I should at least give you points for consistency. Most conservatives who insisted that the President had king-like powers quickly decided otherwise when a Democrat took the office. So you’re cool with Obama having the ability to lock up forever anyone he doesn’t much care for, I guess.
March 20, 2009 at 11:12 am
Give me a break Olberm…I mean Art.
LAWRENCE WILKERSON, your source for this pap, says they were captured by bounty hunters. Lawrence Wilkerson will say ANYTHING to slam the Bush adminsitration and Republican party in general. He has an ax to grind to deflect his own culpability in preparing Powell’s UN speech.
I’m for Obama detaining suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield at Gitmo.
No, I’m not cool with the President locking up anyone he doesn’t much car for. Bush/Cheney didn’t do that, despite the outrage
from the left lemmings.
Once again, you care more about the rights of suspected terrorists than you do in protecting America from future attacks.
And your leader & his staff are apparently for releasing suspected terrorists into the U.S. I was wrong. He IS the “smartest president ever”.
March 20, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Once again I learn the uselessness of trying to have a conversation with a conservative. You can point out that a federal judge said there was no excuse for keeping certain people locked up and all you get is ‘yur a terrorist-lover – why do you hate amurica?’ or words to that effect.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
March 20, 2009 at 3:43 pm
And what was the basis of the federal judge’s decision?
March 20, 2009 at 3:45 pm
And what was the basis of the federal judge’s decision?
Uh… The LAW? just a guess.
Sheesh.
March 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Don’t argue with him, Art. If he loses, the terrorists win.
March 20, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Art, I’m asking, did he base it on their individual case, or illegal detainees in general.
Good grief.
March 20, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Nevermind. I looked it up for myself…and the federal judge’s ruling was overturned by the appeals court last month.
It seems no country wants to take the Uighurs, and the U.S. doesn’t want to send them back to China.
There is no proof they were enemy combatants, so yes, I do sympathize with their plight….but don’t believe they should be released into the U.S.
March 20, 2009 at 10:05 pm
There is no proof they were enemy combatants, so yes, I do sympathize with their plight….but don’t believe they should be released into the U.S.
So we… what? Keep them in prison forever? Maybe we should just shoot them all?
Too late to suggest we shouldn’t have imprisoned them in the first place, but now what? We broke it, we bought it.
March 21, 2009 at 10:30 am
Art, there is some evidence they received arms training while in Afghanistan. That’s not a good sign. Doesn’t make them enemy combatants, but it’s not good.
Find somewhere else for them. Not here. Sorry. I don’t want these people in my neighborhood. Do you?
March 21, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Red, they received arms training to defend themselves against the CHINESE, who were (and are) trying to ‘ethnically cleanse’ them.
After seven years of unjust captivity, I would be very much surprised if they had kind feelings towards the US. But guess what? THEY’RE OUR RESPONSIBILITY NOW. That’s what happens when you kidnap people – you’re stuck with the consequences.
Moral – don’t go around picking people up and random and sticking them in prison without reason. Because then you might have to have them move into your neighborhoods.
BTW, you haven’t answered my question. What DO we do if we can’t persuade some other country to take them? Just wait long enough and they all die of old age in prison?
March 21, 2009 at 1:06 pm
If there’s no “clear and convincing” evidence (battlefield rules, so not “beyond a reasonable doubt” unless the detainment is pursuant to a trial for an alleged crime) that they were, in fact, enemy combatants and don’t pose a “clear and present danger”, we can return them to where we found them with or without Afghanistan’s blessing provided that country remains a battlefield in which we are still engaged. I believe there is also ample precedent over several past wars in which a monetary compensation was ordered by… the president, I think.
I don’t know if these are the same prisoners, but there was a report a few years back about a small group of detainees who were considered “terrorists” by the Chinese government and whose home countries either would not accept them back or were likely to put them to death if they were returned there.
March 21, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Al, yes, those are the same.
I agree with Al. We can just return them to where we found them, so that’s where they wanted to be in the first place.
Or, they can continue to live in luxury at Gitmo, which is a helluva lot nicer than a cave in Afghanistan.
March 22, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Another thing about Afghanistan while I’m thinking about it…
Both England and the Soviet Union tried to conquer that place using the conventional tactics of a larger, superior force and were soundly defeated. America’s relative success has bees due to the use of a small but tactically well trained force. It isn’t really even a country by our usual standards, and so I hope this troop build-up is only a ploy to honour a campaign promise. Whether or not taking on Iraq was a sound plan, the argument that the Iraq War took our focus off Afghanistan is pure demagoguery.
That the Taliban would regroup is not at all surprising to anyone. Once defeat was imminent, the remaining Taliban dispersed to hide where they couldn’t easily be attacked with big tanks and fighter aircraft. So the tactic to defeat them in the next round is to allow them to regroup, get a little arrogant, and then attack them again in a coordinated, head-on fashion.
Patience is a valuable battlefield tactic that doesn’t sit well with politicians who are more concerned with winning elections. Doesn’t sit well with their short-sighted constituents, either.