Yes, President Obama Broke His Promise On Gitmo

It still might get done by the end of his presidency in 2 (or hopefully 6) years. But it's obvious he expected it to be done by now, and it's not. There's blame to go around - Congress didn't allocate the necessary funds, but the administration didn't have a clear plan for what to do with the detainees that remained. I had hoped for it to be done by now, but in the end, there's bigger fish to fry and more important stuff going on to press too hard on this right now.

http://conversation101.squarespace.com/guantanamo-bay/2010/11/15/gitmo-than-he-bargained-for.html

leaders anymore? I think the latter. And it's a much more dangerous and meaningful problem.

-- for all of HIS military blunders either.

He will be thrilled to know that.

by the MIC. I hope your stay here is comfortable.

-- if Bush really WAS just a puppet of the MIC, then he isn't fully responsible for Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, etc. is he?

I mean, doesn't that logic make sense to you?

I wasn't trying to be vile (although, on reflection, I probably did come off that way and I apologize).

But the moment we let OBAMA off the hook for the reasons that you mentioned, do we not -- by logical extension -- have to let Dubya off too?

from his clear responsibility--nor do I want to let Obama off the hook. However, the power of the chief executive in regard to the military brass has been dwindling for decades. If they like the president they go wild, if they don't like the president, they also go wild. I know Obama demanded certain reasonable outcomes from his generals and they have basically told him sorry, can't be done. Do I believe they are really sorry? NO.

In the case of Bush, however independent his "generals on the ground" were, they had everything they wanted in Bush as CIC. Clueless, bloodthirsty, vengeful, militaristic without any of the gravity that combat experience sometimes lends, and easy to manipulate.

Obama, I think wanted to end the wars and close Guantanamo. Bush wanted to start wars and torture people in Guantanamo. It's nonsensical, really to talk about moral equivalencies between Obama and Bush on this issue, although it is shocking that Obama has been so ineffective in this regard.

-- that Obama has been so ineffectual in "corralling" the U.S. military.

And you're right: With George "Dubya", we expected it. With Obama... well, I am still trying to make sense of it all.

In case anyone's forgotten, Obama barely got to dry the ink on his order closing Gitmo before Congress passed law--with the help of a huge number of Democrats--effectively banning them from closing Gitmo, by banning the use of any money to do so.

realize all that it would entail to get these things accomplished. I think that's true for most presidents. Always looks and sounds so easy here on the 'outside', but then you arrive and get bogged down in all that is politics and Washington DC.

Much like Read My Lips in 1988.

Anyway, Obama didn't anticipate the political demagoguery from the other side, much like Gays in the Military in 1993 and Bill Clinton. Politicians used the issue to score cheap political points and Obama was blindsided.

In addition, the artificial deadline of one year was probably also ill-advised.

Geez, the rationalization that is starting to emerge in regards to Obama is becoming parody-like.

Your framing creates a false impression of Obama betraying his principles or willfully choosing to break his promise. That's untrue.

since Jan 2007, and Dems had a majority in the Senate, and a Dem was in the White House - there seems to be some validity to the complaints.

would be primarily responsible. There's no productive purpose for the misplaced blame.

NOT to look askance at the party in power when things go awry.

Not Obama. There are a lot of cowardly Democrats in Congress. Putting all the focus on Obama lets them off the hook. They need to be held accountable and that can't happen if we pretend Obama is the only elected official in Washington. We're having the same problem with the public option grudge-holders.

serious question. Is it part of the defense budget?

I would assume it's the defense budget.

We need to try ALL detainees. Sentence those that are found guilty, release those who can't be found guilty. Obama is unwilling to do that. In fact, he is claiming the power to detain for life, without charge. That is the real problem here. It isn't at all about funding.

Things have changed in the last two years. Detainees are getting trials. A new process has been established. I know some writers do their best to ignore or minimize those changes, but I believe it's important to recognize the reality that more people are getting due process.

Does anyone really believe he thought he could do it?

We may all have wanted it to happen, but was it really possible? And when you think about it, don't just think about it in an ideal situation, you have to take into account the reality of the involvement of Congress and the rest of the world.

While not closing Gitmo is a big deal, making a promise that he had no chance of keeping is the bigger issue. Maybe I'm just looking for politicians that will chose honesty over saying anything to get elected.

Oh, no. Colorado doesn't want them:

http://coloradoindependent.com/19948/nimby-cries-greet-prospects-gitmo-detainees-could-be-moved-to-colorado

Leavenworth, Kansas?

Nope, not there either:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/10/gitmo/

California?

No freaking way! You can forget, San Diego:

http://boards.ign.com/current_events_board/b5361/175989751/r175994623/

And Alcatraz too:

http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/2009/01/nimby-pelosi-says-no-to-gitmo-detainees.html

How about Virginia?

Are you kidding?

http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/gop-lawmakers-fear-terrorists-in-domestic-prisons/2608/

Texas... They love locking people up, right?

Not if you're from GITMO:

http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/02/12/35627

As does Missouri:

http://www.missourinet.com/2009/01/26/missouris-senators-adopt-nimby-approach-to-guantanamo-detainees/

North Cackalacka:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NIMBY+-+Reps+seek+to+block+Gitmo+detainees-a01611806148

South Cackalacka:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/not-in-my-backyard-the-gopers-complicating-obamas-gitmo-closure.php


Nobody wants them!




Wait a sec... A Pennsylvania Congressman said that he'd take them:


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/murtha-says-hed-guantanamo-prisoners-district/

Oh boy... Didn't Murtha pass way a year later?

Where to send them? Where?

and tried. After that, they can be sentenced or released. People keep glossing over the actual affront on civil rights, being distracted by a debate on location.

As is the fact there is no practical solution for placing the detainees anywhere in the States when it becomes the ultimate NIMBY issue.

The President is not a dictator who can wave his hand and make things so, in spite of how correct his intent would be, IF the rest of the government and the electorate that they represent works against him.

This affront on civil rights is a shame on the Nation... It's quite myopic just to place all of the blame on Obama.

his Administration is far from absolved in this.

He is the leader of the party that had two years of power to fix this, they failed. He owns the failure, along with the rest of the Democratic Leadership and the repug obstructionists (although they don't claim to want it closed and never ran on closing it).

I guess States Rights come & go, like the wind. Is their refusal even legal?

of not keeping his promises

I think it's lost some of its charm

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That promise is long gone and is not coming back.