Brainfade Posted May 10, 2009 Posted May 10, 2009 Lekin, miyaan, haqeeqat kuch aur hi hai. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12282599 Rhetoric: "I will close Guantanamo Bay in one year." Realilty: The Obama administration might revamp and restart the Bush-era military trial system for terrorism suspects as it struggles to determine the fate of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and fulfill a pledge to close the prison by January.
veeru_rocks Posted May 10, 2009 Posted May 10, 2009 thug from chicago can't be messiha Please do not embarrass obama-groupy here
kumble_rocks Posted May 10, 2009 Posted May 10, 2009 thug from chicago can't be messiha Please do not embarrass obama-groupy here Don't embarrass urself ! Obama is certainly not a messiah , but thug, he hardly is ... And he is dead wrong about Gitmo imo... So , hardly a group thought process !
Brainfade Posted May 10, 2009 Author Posted May 10, 2009 Don't embarrass urself ! Obama is certainly not a messiah ' date=' but thug, he hardly is ... And he is dead wrong about Gitmo imo... So , hardly a group thought process ![/quote'] I agree; I have no reason to believe he is a thug. I think he is a decent family man with whom I vehemently disagree on most issues. Having said that - it is clear that it is virtually impossible to get a an "I agree" response here to any negative opinion of Obama - even if it is a reasonable disagreement. But, make a negative post about the Repubs, and the floodgates of agreement open right away.
yoda Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 LOL @ Obama-groupy. This is dissappointing. I am sure he is faced with legal and reality hassles in getting it "closed". It is not uncommon for politicians to say one thing to get elected and then end up doing something far short.
Brainfade Posted May 14, 2009 Author Posted May 14, 2009 This is getting interesting More reality checks for President Obama: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051301751.html Key quotes: "The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," Obama said yesterday. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger." Civil liberties and human rights advocates said the reversal would serve to maintain the Bush administration's legacy of secrecy. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Obama's shift was "deeply disappointing." Here is the point: Obama's government came in with little or no feel for war politics, and are now taking it on the chin. But, his charisma and a penchant for sharing his "reasons" (excuses?) with the public gets him a free pass. Bush and his cronies, on the other hand, were dismissive of the media and public, and took flak for it. The bottom line is that, when the excrement hits the rotating blades ... they all DO the same thing.
punjabi_khota Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 Cricaddict dude, you are on a mission to limbaughood, aren't you ?
Ram Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 CA, I think you’re being unfairly harsh on Obama. You’re criticizing him for not releasing the Detainee abuse photos, but you musnt forget that the important issue is not whether Obama releases the photos or not, but whether he condones or opposes torture. And he has made it abundantly clear that he opposes any form of torture, unlike Bush who gave the CIA and FBI a free hand, in so far as their treatment of terror detainees, whether it be the use of torture during interrogation or rendition sites abroad. That is one important difference you have not acknowledged yet.
Brainfade Posted May 14, 2009 Author Posted May 14, 2009 Cricaddict dude' date=' you are on a mission to limbaughood, aren't you ?[/quote'] The only thing I'd like to have common with Limbaugh is his paycheck :-)!! Seriously, though - not at all. I don't listen to him. He's over the top; a waste of time. That said, I admit that I continue to be amused/amazed how the same action by two different administrations can evoke opposite responses from educated liberals. I just try to set the record straight - that is all :-)!!
Brainfade Posted May 14, 2009 Author Posted May 14, 2009 CA' date=' I think you’re being unfairly harsh on Obama. You’re criticizing him for not releasing the Detainee abuse photos, but you musnt forget that the important issue is not whether Obama releases the photos or not, but whether he condones or opposes torture. And he has made it abundantly clear that he opposes any form of torture, unlike Bush who gave the CIA and FBI a free hand, in so far as their treatment of terror detainees, whether it be the use of torture during interrogation or rendition sites abroad. That is one important difference you have not acknowledged yet.[/quote'] What about the waffling on G'namo bay? Free pass because he "said" he's going to close it? He has "said" he is opposed to torture. Let's see what he does if another Khalid Sheikh Mohammed surfaces.
Ram Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 What about the waffling on G'namo bay? Free pass because he "said" he's going to close it? He has "said" he is opposed to torture. Let's see what he does if another Khalid Sheikh Mohammed surfaces. I think his administration is slowly coming to terms with the complexity of dealing with these terror detainees. So, they’re bound to wallow around a bit over what they intend to do with them (Yes..No..Yes..No..No.. Yes..sorta stuff) but I believe that, fundamentally, this administration is committed to treating the detainees better than the previous one. And think of it – why would he even have to bring up the issue of torture in the first place? He risked huge unpopularity among the conservatives by speaking out against torture, during his campaign. If he had supported these ‘interrogation techniques’ or even maintained stoic silence, he may have won even more people. Bottom line – He brought this issue up when it could have been a very unpopular thing to do so.
punjabi_khota Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 The only thing I'd like to have common with Limbaugh is his paycheck :-)!! Seriously, though - not at all. I don't listen to him. He's over the top; a waste of time. That said, I admit that I continue to be amused/amazed how the same action by two different administrations can evoke opposite responses from educated liberals. I just try to set the record straight - that is all :-)!! Ok. 113 ..this number means 2 things. It is equal to more or less, the number of days in office for Obama. It is also equal to the number of days Bush spent every year in Camp David and his ranch. My point being: give him some time. :orderorder:
Brainfade Posted May 14, 2009 Author Posted May 14, 2009 Ok. 113 ..this number means 2 things. It is equal to more or less, the number of days in office for Obama. It is also equal to the number of days Bush spent every year in Camp David and his ranch. My point being: give him some time. :orderorder: Time for what? He was voted into power based on his convincing rhetoric - one of which was closing G'namo Bay. We all praised him for it. But, now, his actions only show that he had no understanding of the difficulties involved, and his rhetoric was just that - rhetoric. At least - with GWB and DC - you knew where they stood. They plainly said - we cannot close G'namo Bay - the consequences are too difficult to deal with. With Obama, it is - I WILL CLOSE IT!! I WILL END IT!! But now ... "Oh ... it's too hard. How will we do this? Where will put them? Europe, please accept some of them. let's revive the military tribunals ... oh wait, that's what Bush and Cheney did anyway ..." Point? Don't make hollow campaign promises without understanding the real difficulties in getting them done.
punjabi_khota Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 Time for what? He was voted into power based on his convincing rhetoric - one of which was closing G'namo Bay. We all praised him for it. But, now, his actions only show that he had no understanding of the difficulties involved, and his rhetoric was just that - rhetoric. At least - with GWB and DC - you knew where they stood. They plainly said - we cannot close G'namo Bay - the consequences are too difficult to deal with. With Obama, it is - I WILL CLOSE IT!! I WILL END IT!! But now ... "Oh ... it's too hard. How will we do this? Where will put them? Europe, please accept some of them. let's revive the military tribunals ... oh wait, that's what Bush and Cheney did anyway ..." Point? Don't make hollow campaign promises without understanding the real difficulties in getting them done. How do you know that ? Do think an average American who voted for him gives a flying **** about a bunch of suspected terrorists somewhere in Cuba ? I seriously don't think so. It was by no measure the biggest campaign promise.....there are bigger things to take care of, economy being #1 and how he is being perceived right now is measured by his approval ratings which remain good so far.
Brainfade Posted May 14, 2009 Author Posted May 14, 2009 I think his administration is slowly coming to terms with the complexity of dealing with these terror detainees. So, they’re bound to wallow around a bit over what they intend to do with them (Yes..No..Yes..No..No.. Yes..sorta stuff) but I believe that, fundamentally, this administration is committed to treating the detainees better than the previous one. And think of it – why would he even have to bring up the issue of torture in the first place? He risked huge unpopularity among the conservatives by speaking out against torture, during his campaign. If he had supported these ‘interrogation techniques’ or even maintained stoic silence, he may have won even more people. Bottom line – He brought this issue up when it could have been a very unpopular thing to do so. We have differing views on this. At the time of the campaign, this was a popular thing to do - to capture young, liberal-leaning, but unsure voters. He never tried to appeal to the conservatives - they were a lost cause for him anyway.
Brainfade Posted May 14, 2009 Author Posted May 14, 2009 How do you know that ? Do think an average American who voted for him gives a flying **** about a bunch of suspected terrorists somewhere in Cuba ? I seriously don't think so. It was by no measure the biggest campaign promise.....there are bigger things to take care of' date=' economy being #1 and how he is being perceived right now is measured by his approval ratings which remain good so far.[/quote'] Didn't say it was the biggest issue. It was certainly a significant issue - at least where I come from.
Brainfade Posted May 14, 2009 Author Posted May 14, 2009 CA' date=' I think you’re being unfairly harsh on Obama. You’re criticizing him for not releasing the Detainee abuse photos.[/quote'] Nossir. I am criticizing him for saying one thing (I will release photos), and then doing another (oh ... I am not releasing them). Mr. President, please study the pitfalls before making bold statements - that's all one asks. It's like some people here at work - "Oh ... no problem, I can do this ... I'll have it for you in like a couple of days ..." A week later, you hear every possible excuse for why it couldn't be done. Well ... you should have thought of it in the first place.
punjabi_khota Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 Didn't say it was the biggest issue. It was certainly a significant issue - at least where I come from. Economy and managing bailouts, healthcare, ending war in Iraq, Afghan war, education.....etc etc ..come WAY before Guantanamo for majority of Americans. Bush ****ed up in each of those areas.
yoda Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 Economy and managing bailouts' date=' healthcare, ending war in Iraq, Afghan war, education.....etc etc ..come WAY before Guantanamo for majority of Americans. Bush ****ed up in each of those areas.[/quote'] :hatsoff:
Ram Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 Nossir. I am criticizing him for saying one thing (I will release photos), and then doing another (oh ... I am not releasing them). Mr. President, please study the pitfalls before making bold statements - that's all one asks. It's like some people here at work - "Oh ... no problem, I can do this ... I'll have it for you in like a couple of days ..." A week later, you hear every possible excuse for why it couldn't be done. Well ... you should have thought of it in the first place. Yes, but my point is, reversal of a stand on the release of detainee abuse photos is not an issue worth significant criticism. Its something you can certainly point a finger at him and day ‘See, he did not do what he said he will’, but Obama should be judged on the larger issues of War on Terror, ending the illegal war in Iraq, treating terror suspects according to law etc. If he does not live up to his commitments on these, then I shall join you in the protest.
Recommended Posts