Never mind, part #3457732

[IDBillzFan]

Frankly I think that it was more like, "Hey, I can campaign on this and folks will forget about it when I'm elected. It shouldn't be that difficult to place the detainees in a friendly congressional district. Right, Jim Webb?"

I really don't think Obama was intentionally being deceptive. I think he honestly thought he could just shut it down without a plan in place.

[GG]

I really don't think Obama was intentionally being deceptive. I think he honestly thought he could just shut it down without a plan in place.

 

I don't buy that, because I'm guessing that the advisors were telling him the issues behind the scenes. They're not naive. But it is plausible that he thought that he could convince someone to place the detainees as part of "change." Guess not.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't buy that, because I'm guessing that the advisors were telling him the issues behind the scenes. They're not naive. But it is plausible that he thought that he could convince someone to place the detainees as part of "change." Guess not.

He could also have believed that the stimulus plan really was going to fix the economy by now. Nothing shuts up critics faster than a recovering economy.

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't buy that, because I'm guessing that the advisors were telling him the issues behind the scenes. They're not naive. But it is plausible that he thought that he could convince someone to place the detainees as part of "change." Guess not.

I honestly don't see what the issue is. It's exactly the same as the timetable for the Iraq war. It was part of the campaign to immediately put a stop to the Iraq war, and part of the campaign to close down Gitmo. He had set a timetable for the Iraq war at 16 months but always said he would listen to his commanders. And he set a timetable for Gitmo to be closed in a year.

 

He immediately put the military in charge of getting out of Iraq as quickly as reasonable and safe, which, after consultation with generals and new plans, became 19 months instead of 16. In the article you linked, it said he has members in every applicable part of his administration working around the clock to close Gitmo as quickly as reasonable and safe. It looks like it's going to be more than a year but again, according to your link, the Pentagon seems to say it's right on schedule.

 

Who cares if it takes two years instead of one? I think it will fall somewhere in between. The Congress will give him all the money it needs and it will be closed as soon as all the extremely complex issues are addressed. It's what he said he would do and exactly what he should do.

 

He may make mistakes on where these detainees will go but there shouldn't be any outrage now at all.

[DC Tom]

He may make mistakes on where these detainees will go but there shouldn't be any outrage now at all.

 

The only reason for outrage directed at Obama is at the difference between campaign promises and actual real-world capabilities and results...which really isn't much of a reason for outrage. Anyone who was too dumb to expect the difference doesn't deserve to be outraged over it.

 

Outrage at the Senate Democrats...that is a little more understandable. After pushing the previous administration for years about closing down Gitmo to score political points, they now look like they're bailing on it...to score political points. I don't necessarily share the outrage (except in as much as I hate self-serving Congresscritters in general), but I understand it.

[Kelly the Dog]

The only reason for outrage directed at Obama is at the difference between campaign promises and actual real-world capabilities and results...which really isn't much of a reason for outrage. Anyone who was too dumb to expect the difference doesn't deserve to be outraged over it.

 

Outrage at the Senate Democrats...that is a little more understandable. After pushing the previous administration for years about closing down Gitmo to score political points, they now look like they're bailing on it...to score political points. I don't necessarily share the outrage (except in as much as I hate self-serving Congresscritters in general), but I understand it.

 

I think they are just deflecting it, and they will give him money as soon as there is a sufficient plan for most of the detainees. That doesn't mean tomorrow when he outlines some of the plan, I am talking about months from now or whenever it is. I also think it's amusing that people think HE THOUGHT it would just be an easy thing to do and is now finding it harder. I bet they always knew it would be an enormous undertaking and that there was no good, let alone perfect solution, and that it would be a huge political battle. That was obvious a year ago.

[finknottle]

I honestly don't see what the issue is. It's exactly the same as the timetable for the Iraq war. It was part of the campaign to immediately put a stop to the Iraq war, and part of the campaign to close down Gitmo. He had set a timetable for the Iraq war at 16 months but always said he would listen to his commanders. And he set a timetable for Gitmo to be closed in a year.

 

If by always you mean after the nomination was safely locked up and he could move away from the positions he took for the Democratic primaries, then ok.

 

Personally, I think he expected the Europeans to take them, and that there wouldn't be an uproar over the remaining few which would go to federal prison.

[Kelly the Dog]

If by always you mean after the nomination was safely locked up and he could move away from the positions he took for the Democratic primaries, then ok.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statem...-his-iraq-plan/

[blzrul]

What's to be outraged about? They have no idea where else to hold the detainees, so the Senate refuses to close the detainment center until they do. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.

Send them to LA. Who'd notice?

[IDBillzFan]

Send them to LA. Who'd notice?

Not me. I don't live in LA. So I'm with you on that. In fact, we should send half to LA and half to Sacramento.

[finknottle]

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statem...-his-iraq-plan/

 

So you are basing his consistancy on this, which summarizes as

 

But does this mean a 16-month clock starts ticking the moment Obama enters office? We could not find a direct statement from Obama saying that, and found statements he made throughout the campaign that contradicted that.

:

Weighing all these statements together, we find that Obama has not flip-flopped on Iraq, but that he has emphasized different aspects of his plan under questioning. This rates a No Flip on the Flip-O-Meter scale.

 

Talk about splitting hairs! By that logic the clock is yet to start ticking on Bush's expectation that the occupation will end quickly.

 

But to the original point, the earliest comment they cite is after half of the debates had already occured, and all of the rest are from when either only Clinton remained (and Omama was moving to the center) or during the general election. Are we to believe there was nothing relevant said by Obama in the earlier debates when timetables for withdrawing from Iraq were extensively and contentiously discussed, and the get-out-now crowd was up for grabs? That he just sort of stood there with Kucinich and Richardson without saying anything? That is definately not the way I remember the summer of 07.

[IDBillzFan]

So you are basing his consistancy on this, which summarizes as

 

 

 

Talk about splitting hairs! By that logic the clock is yet to start ticking on Bush's expectation that the occupation will end quickly.

 

But to the original point, the earliest comment they cite is after half of the debates had already occured, and all of the rest are from when either only Clinton remained (and Omama was moving to the center) or during the general election. Are we to believe there was nothing relevant said by Obama in the earlier debates when timetables for withdrawing from Iraq were extensively and contentiously discussed, and the get-out-now crowd was up for grabs? That he just sort of stood there with Kucinich and Richardson without saying anything? That is definately not the way I remember the summer of 07.

What you are seeing is what I have been pointing out about Obama. He is the master of walking the line between implied and inferred. You often hear his supporters saying, "No, that's not precisely what he said" or "No, what he actually said was..."

 

I just finished listening to Gibbs' press conference, where he was getting hammered on the Gitmo issue. Reporters were asking "Well, why did he put forth the request if he had no plan? Why did he put a timeframe on it? Did he just not know what he was doing?" To which Gibbs responded, "Well, I think it depends on how you interpret..."

 

People live by soundbites and headlines. Obama supporters live by the very letter of his word. So it's not that Obama is wrong. It's not Obama's fault that you don't spend all day reading his speeches.

[Magox]

Do you have to hijack every single thread with this crap?

Crap???

 

He is absolutely on point with what he is saying. The only solution that has been offered is printing and spending money.

 

Banks are in trouble, give them taxpayer money.

 

Auto industry is in trouble, give them taxpayer money.

 

Rates are too high, print more money and buy our own debt.

 

Healthcare an issue, spend more money to address the issue.

 

Toxic assets drowning the economy, finance 85% of it and assume 90% of the risk and package it as an investment to hedgefunds.

 

There are going to be some serious unintended consequences of all this spending and printing. It's gonna happen.