• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture


Well, having worked with GEN Petreaus, let me be VERY clear. He will not come out in support, even in a general way, on something that was haphazard and ill concieved.

So, either GEN PEtreaus is a complete idiot, or there is some kind of deliberate planning and decisin making process going on.

Again, how do you provide specific details about such things as facilities when the cases are still being adjudicated and we do not know how many will be rendered to trail, released, returned to their home countries, etc.?

Each of these prisoners will require his own plan, and only those who are retained in custody for trail will have general, centralized planning that you are demanding.

That these delineations are being made, mentioned in the press and in Obama's speech, is very much indicative of a deliberate planning process.

If you still don't think so? Well, I would say you are after something else at this point.
 
jallman said:
Well that right there highlights a fundamental difference in how the left and the right think about the treatment of our military heroes...
Click to expand...

Woah there. I, and many of us on the left, found the add disgraceful. It is also the same kind of thing that Rush, Newt and Coulter say about those of us on the left, so spare me your outrage until you start to challenge what those say. Outrage only when it is convenient is incredibly phony.
 
Truth Detector said:
I find the bolded part amusing; as if Obama will suffer political ramifications for not implementing the radical Left wings agenda. What are they going to do, fire him? Elect a Republican? :rofl
Click to expand...

Obama's actions will define his Presidency and be the ultimate deciding factor if the American people choose to re-elect him for a second term. I don't see how this is hard to understand.
 
I womder:
How many of the liberals that slandered General Betray-us feel pretty stupid right now...?
 

What Petraeus is endorsing is the idea that GITMO should be closed. Obama has the "plan" to close GITMO and even requested funds. What I have failed to see, which I see as a negative on Obama's part, is a detailed plan on HOW to close GITMO and what funds will specifically be needed. It's great to say "Gitmo should be closed and I need money to do it", but what is needed is exactly HOW gitmo should be closed and WHERE exactly funds will be needed and spent.

This is exactly why the Democrats in the senate denied is funding. Obama failed to provide a detailed plan of HOW and only continuously states WHY.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
I womder:
How many of the liberals that slandered General Betray-us feel pretty stupid right now...?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you'll get an answer here. How many members on this board are members of MoveOn?
 
Goobieman said:
I womder:
How many of the liberals that slandered General Betray-us feel pretty stupid right now...?
Click to expand...

The same number as that of those who thought Colin Powell was a war criminal.
 

I'm not given to watching Rush or Coulter so I can't tell you what they say. I have great respect for Newt, however, and am not inclined to disagree with his well reasoned assessments as I tend to agree with him.
 

So you still do not see the difference in a "process" and a "plan?"

Again, the false premise of the thread was that Petreaus endorsed Obama's "plan" to close Gitmo. Yet nothing in the article provided suggested anything of the sort and as WE both agree there is NO plan, he could not possibly have endorsed it.

:2wave:
 

You need funds to close something? Hmmm..

You might need funds to build a new facility? If we move them to a supermax .... umm, not a whole lot of additional construction costs there.

That also doesn't perclude the possibility of asking for the funds again when they can get into the eachs:

X are returning to Yemen
Y to Saudi Arabia
Z to a neutral country
A requires compensation because he was incacerated under false pretenses
B will be moved to supermax, and here are the charges they will face.

That is a process, at the end of which you get a detailed plan. However, as the plan firms up, in Washington, with political hacks more interested in embarassing their counter-parts across the aisle than in doing sound business for America, there are likely not going to be many leaks about how fare along said plan is until key leaders in Congress, and in effected states, are brought on board.

After all, if the govenor of say, Colorado goes ballistic at the idea of these prisoners being moved to his state, seeking alternate locations is a good idea.

Also, there are likely to be what we call courses of action in the planning process. There are many potential solutions, but as the pieces are vetted with those key leaders the process widdles itself down into the 'plan' which is at that point a decision.

You really think that the military planner at gitmo will ignore the Presidents orders to close gitmo? That they are not conducting any planning with the larger joint staff to fulfill the Commander in Chiefs directive?

If what you think is true, we have constitutional crisis on our hands.
 

Obama hasn't made any declaration to close Gitmo. He has only said it should be closed and requested funds to assist the closing. Which were denied by the Senate.

Yes you need funds to close something. It takes manpower and transportation costs to move the prisoners, equipment, and any other materials at the facility, and setup a permanent home for all these things else where.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What plan?

Can you link to this plan?


What does this plan entail?
Click to expand...

I would say it's the plan that the Department of Justice is working on that Petraeus spoke of. That would be the plan.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes they have a serious need to change the subject off of the OP and shift the topic to Moveon.org.

I suggest they start a thread about that after they comment on the Four star Generals stance on agreeing with President Obama concering the closing of Gitmo and the reasons for it.

Perteaus was the "surge hero" just four months ago and deserves respect.

Does the right still support the troops and thier views?
 
Last edited:
gree0232 said:
You need funds to close something? Hmmm..
Click to expand...

Yes you do. Demobilization of troops costs money. Relocation of prisoners costs money. Relocation of equipment costs money. Removal and disposal of equipment or supplies costs money.

Money that is line item approved for operational purchases is fairly specific in what it can be used for. There is some latitude in shifting a line item to another, but not in creating entire redeployment plans.
 

I think you are splitting hairs.

Plans at the level are not one page documents that are submitted on web sites for casual purusal.

What I can say is that there is definitely a plan in the works where most of the details are in place or GEN Petreaus would not have come out in support of the 'process' involving the closing of gitmo.

In fact, just like his brief to Congress, he came out in support of the 'process' for Iraq. If you think there is one document that GEN Petreaus and his staff wrote that moved the situation in Iraq along .... well, you are wrong.

Even a base order, is subject to review and revision as it is implimented. Plans change as the enemy votes by his response, as new opportunities open up or close, etc.

Is the 'plan' finalized? Probably not. Is there plan moving along to meet the Presidents intent and not create a constitutional crisis? Is GEN Petreaus, the military commander of the region where most of the prisoners are returning to involved in that process and is that involvement likely benficial?

Do you want a briefing from GEN Petreaus? I am sure you can head on down to CENTCOM HQ in Florida and ask. Good luck.
 

True. Logistics cost money, coming or going.
 
The plan was and is....... to close GITMO & end torture. The details of how, the actual nitty gritty details which have you all so rabid, hasn't been developed. I am pretty certain, given the detail of the other issues "planned" and executed by Obama, there will be a plan and soon.

Although there may not be a concrete plan, there is a plan of action that was outlined in the EO. Here you go, chew on this a while. Although I doubt you wanted any real debate, but rather just to divert attention from the fact that GITMO will be closed in spite of the vitriolic, PLANLESS, idea dessert of the lanscape trod by what passes for the right today. Man, you guys have as much gas as Limbaugh.

Anyway, here's the bare bones of the plan outlined in the EO and signed a few months ago:


I helpfully highlighted and bolded the part I know you're going to want to "debate" in such lucid style and grace that we'll all be eager to discuss it with you.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Sure.


uhm



NO PLAN.....






That wasn't hard. And I did all the work. :lol:
Click to expand...

So does that mean the you agree with the General decision to endorse OBama and do you support the recommendation coming from this troop?
 

ah, yeah, he did. It was one of the first thing he did. Military and civilian planners will still draw up plans, including costs, even if Congress doesn't initially approve funds.

I have seen more than a few supplemental battles .... having funding and making a plan that WILL require funds are two different things.

I suppose Obama could have use the early vote as an opportunity to throw a snit fit, bit I for one appreciate having a Pres. who was mature enough to move beyond that and continue with his intentions convinced that in the end, the right thing would be done.

Hmmm....little wonder GEN Petreaus and Obama get along so well.
 
WI Crippler said:
True. Logistics cost money, coming or going.
Click to expand...

Well, simply walking away from a building cost nothing. Leaving a facility in place for other use? That may cost money. The rest of the logistical costs are already being paid for and those costs are substantially trasferred, not increased, when the prisoners arrive at their destiniation.

Moving prisoners costs money, but the sums are likely small enough that they can be shifted within the petagon's own budget unless Congress explicitly denied the pentagon permission to do this.

When your budget is $600 billion, you have some slush to move around.

And, you can still go back and ask again when the time comes to begin moving the prisoners. Too easy. This is hardly the hurdel this is neing made into.
 
goldendog said:
So does that mean the you agree with the General decision to endorse OBama and do you support the recommendation coming from this troop?
Click to expand...




I disagree with this troop, and think it is premature to close Gitmo.


though I won't call him a traitor like some kooks did who now are sucking up to him....
 

You're being very dishonest yet again. General Petraeus is clearly endorsing Obama's decision to move forward with planning for the close of GITMO. He's obviously been brought into the loop on what's been accomplished thus far and he approves. You can attempt to spin this all you want, but it's not fooling anyone. You aren't making an actual argument, you're playing semantics (it's not yet a plan, it's it's a process not a plan) in order to avoid the real story here. And that is that General Petraeus is in agreement with President Obama about closing the camp. And that is a very good thing. That is an endorsement of the Presidents direction on the matter.

For the record, what Moveon.org did to General Petraeus was shameful. It was more than shameful, it was disgusting. But they don't represent all Democrats. They do absurd things in the name of the Democratic party and liberals but they in no way have every Democrats support. They like to pretend they do however.

I'm pleasantly surprised by his comments to say the least. Now, I want to see the administration actually close GITMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…