- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
How did a thread on Gitmo and Petraeus become a thread on MoveOn? Ah yes, our right wing friends need to change the subject to something they are more comfortable with.
No, that was Disneydude.
A Plan? Are you seriously saying that you do not see evidence of a plan?
Lets take a look at Gitmo. The order is pretty specific: it will be closed within a year. The prisoners cases will be reviewed and decisions will be made based on the circumstances of the cases, and other factors like the likelihood that the nation of origin will accept them. Those that are retained in custody will do so, most likely in a supermax prison, where they will eventually be brought to trail from crimes that we can prove they have committed .... in accordance with the principals of our constitution.
I suppose that is not quite as simplistic as the 'off with their heads', or 'throw the lot of them into the Ocean,' but it marks a sharp break with 'secret' tribunals under which prisoners were convicted by evidence that they could not see and had no chance to refute. It also marks a sharpe break from the political pressure to 'find' the prisoners guilty under those conditions, conditions that were repeatedly struck down by our Supreme Court.
You may not like the plan, but not liking a plan and not having a plan are two entirely different things.
Umm, it could be that how Petreaus was treated was one of the biggest scandals last year and the two are now permanently tied together...
Or it could be because we still trust in Petreaus's opinions and so there is really nothing to discuss here except how those who don't trust in his opinions feel about it. :shrug:
Why are you so uncomfortable talking about it if they don't really speak for you?
A Plan? Are you seriously saying that you do not see evidence of a plan?
Lets take a look at Gitmo. The order is pretty specific: it will be closed within a year. The prisoners cases will be reviewed and decisions will be made based on the circumstances of the cases, and other factors like the likelihood that the nation of origin will accept them. Those that are retained in custody will do so, most likely in a supermax prison, where they will eventually be brought to trail from crimes that we can prove they have committed .... in accordance with the principals of our constitution.
I suppose that is not quite as simplistic as the 'off with their heads', or 'throw the lot of them into the Ocean,' but it marks a sharp break with 'secret' tribunals under which prisoners were convicted by evidence that they could not see and had no chance to refute. It also marks a sharpe break from the political pressure to 'find' the prisoners guilty under those conditions, conditions that were repeatedly struck down by our Supreme Court.
You may not like the plan, but not liking a plan and not having a plan are two entirely different things.
Sounds like you have the outline for a plan, Do you have a link to Obama's plan? Thanks.
Or, it could be that the various political parties simply want to make Petreaus and his successes 'ours'.
Why not try the White House web site? barrackobama.com? You tell me.
It's your paranoia that led you to believe that this was a critique of the Bush administration. It was a critique of those on the far left that felt Obama should have released prisoners from Gitmo on January 21, and have been critical that he has not yet done so.
Perhaps it is not my “paranoia” but rather your lack of clarity? :2razz:
Why don't you do everyone a HUGE favor and post a link that details all this out in the executive order Obama signed that put together a TEAM to EXAMINE HOW to close Gitmo within a year.
Then while you are at it, please tell us how this translates to a plan to actually close Gitmo and where Obama has NOT already reversed himself on several of his campaign "claims/promises."
I look forward to seeing EVIDENCE of this "plan." But just to be sure we are all on the same page; here is what a plan means:
Main Entry: plan !plan
Pronunciation: \ ˈplan \
Function: noun
Etymology: French, plane, foundation, ground plan; partly from Latin planum level ground, from neuter of planus level; partly from French planter to plant, fix in place, from Late Latin plantare - More at - floor, plant
Date: 1706
Results
1. a drawing or diagram drawn on a plane: as a. a top or horizontal view of an object b. a large-scale map of a small area
2 a. a method for achieving an end b. an often customary method of doing something : procedure c. a detailed formulation of a program of action d. goal aim
3. an orderly arrangement of parts of an overall design or objective
4. a detailed program (as for payment or the provision of some service) - pension plan
Again, a plan is not speculative rhetoric, a campaign pledge or an executive order establishing a commission to study something to formulate a plan.
:2wave:
Why not try the White House web site? barrackobama.com? You tell me.
I have been to the site and it contains little substance and nothing specific. perhaps you can help find this proverbial "plan" which I cannot seem to locate?
My bad, I did not realize you all considered yourselves "kooks"..... Thought i made a distinction there. You all incorrectly infered "all".... :2wave:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:SO "betrayus" is now in vogue for the kook leftists
Well, I can do that right after you show me Bush's detailed plan as well.
However, as a porfessional military officer who has made a few plans, I can tell you that evidence of a plan, and certainly a deliberate decision making process, is moving on gitmo.
I certainly cannot provide you with THE operations order for teh changes in Afghanistan, but I can gleen that the center of gravity is securing Kabul and key cities in the country through the elections. That our soldiers are being shifted to locations either in, or next to, remote population center from which to conduct operations and build relationships with the indigenous population, and that we are shifting a great deal of our kinetic focus into advisory roles for systems (hence Gates's call for more civilians) and security forces (more advisors).
I also think that GEN McKiernan's resistence to these changes got him the boot.
I of course cannot provide you with a copy of these plans or the inner workings of the decision to fire McKiernan, but I am fairly certain that this doesn't mean there is not plan or deliberate decision making going on.
Tell you what, you prove to me that no one in the Obama administration is conducting any planning on this one. Can you?
You got any documents from white house staffers saying, "Obama, he's just talking! There is no plan!!!"
Figure it out.
If he told you, he'd have to kill you.
Op Sec.
It's not "ours". It's his and the Republican party's successes. The democrats spent so many years preaching messages of defeat in desperate attempts to get elected that they missed the "ours" bus a long time ago.
So in other words, you cannot provide the "plan" to close Gitmo because it does not exist. Thank you for admitting there is NO plan and therefore Petreaus cannot possibly endorse Obama's plan because there isn't one.
In addition, this is just a LOT of speculation on your part.
Thank you for clarifying this for us; it helps advance the debate in a productive manner and refutes the premise of the threads author.
tell you what jall, having been a part of the process of turning that burning ship around, there was very little 'Republican' support for Petreaus.
Had the Republicans continued to support GEN Casey, whom Bush promoted for some reason, we would no longer be in Iraq.
GEN Petreaus fundamentally changed the way we did business in Iraq, and this business about it being democrat and republican is about as far wide of te mark as you can get.
From GEN Petreaus, who was asked about the differences between the then candidates, his response was telling, "There is only a certain amount of room that either candidate has for manuever in theater. Whichever is elected, the resulting policies will likely look largely the same."
His point being that, even if the order were given to withdrawal, that would still take several years to be done orderly, and that efforts to professionalize and stabilize Iraq could not simply be abandoned without catastrophic costs that neither man would likely bear.
He was right. Not the Republican or the Democrats.
Umm, it could be that how Petreaus was treated was one of the biggest scandals last year and the two are now permanently tied together...
Or it could be because we still trust in Petreaus's opinions and so there is really nothing to discuss here except how those who don't trust in his opinions feel about it. :shrug:
Why are you so uncomfortable talking about it if they don't really speak for you?
It is speculation based on what has been released in the press and was in Obama's last speech.
Again, detailed plans about sensitive issues are not exactly posted on the internet, nor should they be. That they aren't doesn't mean that a plan doesn't exist.
Did you see the orders that changed Iraq? I did, they are nevertheless classified and I cannot release them to you.
Must not be a plan then?
It was hardly the biggest scandal of last year. it was a week long at best scandal,
You said:
That looks to imply that the left are kooks. I fully admit there are kooks on the left, and on the right. I have also repeatedly complained that we should not hold all of the left, nor the right, responsible for those kooks. I find it sad when you, or anyone, decides to dodge an issue by bringing up something one of those kooks does.
Yet, his vocal opposition was from democrats. I do love to read these fairy tales you create in an effort to diminish the sordid behavior of the democrats toward Petreaus by making it seem as if Republicans were doing the same. Entertaining. Really.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?