Gibbs Presser: MILITARY TRIBUNALS ARE GREAT!

What President Obama said in 2006 was misconstrued and he was quoted out of context. The president never was against all military tribunals. Besides, these are completely different than the Bush tribunals. You see, the Bush tribunals had a judge, no jury, a prosecutor and no defense witnesses. Ours have no defense witnesses, a prosecutor, a judge and no jury. See? ours are way different than theirs. So comparing them is like comparing apples and macintoshes.

Besides, we keep our word. We promised that real rules will apply to all trials. And the rules we are picking are fair. The fact that the rules are similar to the Bush rules of tribunal procedure was simply coincidence.

And lastly, President Obama's promise to close down tribunals was made as a senator. Now, he's president, and his senatorial promises stay in Vegas. Heh heh. That's a joke, folks. Heh. And no cell phones, please. Or else.

Also, we are announcing that the Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation is being reviewed. We expect to finish this review in 2017, to determine whether any changes need to be made. Our strong support of the military remains unblemished. Broken promise? No. President Obama NEVER promised to change or remove DADT. Never. Who ever claims that he made that promise is taking his words out of context.

On another note, we have decided to stay in Iraq for another 6 years. The need to maintain the security of this country is paramount on the war on terr. . . . sorry, we changed the name. Please call it the Defense Occupation for America, or DOA. In conjunction with an expanded Patriot Act, the president firmly believes that the DOA will aid us to insure security of our country, while insuring that warrantless surveillance will be preserved, for the time being. Our plans are design for the short term, allowing full democracy to return when we deem it appropriate. This is consistent with all of President Obama's campaign promises, and if you disagree, you are taking his words out of context.

No, we don't have any current plans to comment on Nancy Pelosi's statement. We think it speaks for itself, except where it doesn't. If she wants to take on the CIA, more power to her. Heh heh. That should be fun to watch. Not. No we have no plans to ask for a special prosecutor or a separate investigation. Besides, some very good people worked very hard to create the 9/11 report, and we stand by its findings. Except where we don't.

The new administration? more and more like the old one.

defendants/detainees have the right to counsel, can take part in their own defense, and torture evidence is inadmissable? WTF is wrong with that, exactly.

Opposing the tribunals that Bush inacted, which did not afford appropriate rights to detainees is not the saem thing as opposing ANY military tribunal ever.

God, it must really suck to be you.

try getting some sleep at night.

But I will admit, I am not happy with the credit card collapse, the failure to push single payer, the DADT turn around, the Stay in Iraq change, the refusal to investigate war crimes and torture by Bush Cheney, the . . . . everything else. I am impatient. I seriously doubt that major change can be made in the second term. We have to move now, we have to move quickly. Is it a long list? you betcha, only because Cheney and his puppet screwed americans so badly.

It doesn't help that we have too many DINOs in the senate, either. Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Arlan Spector, and others? bah.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

?

bush..just fuck it. You're only succeeding in making yourself look Stupid.