Monday, January 23, 2012

What Was Supposed To Have Happened Two Years Ago Yesterday?

One of President Obama's first acts as president was to sign an executive order closing the Guantanamo Bay prison within one year. Three years later, and two years after that deadline, Guantanamo Bay is as bustling as ever:
Obama campaigned on closing the facility in Cuba and, in one of his first actions as president, issued an executive order calling for it to be dismantled within one year. But as he enters the final year of his first term, human-rights groups are dismayed that the end of Guantánamo is nowhere in sight.
He was wrong to campaign on closing it, he was wrong to order it closed, and he's a loser for not being able to enforce his own orders.

Three strikes.

12 comments:

mazenko said...

You don't want it closed ... but you criticize him for conceding and keeping it open. Hmmmm.

We know you would have chastised him if he actually closed it. And you mock him for not doing so. So you're really not open to any discussion of this.

I think we call that partisanship, Mr. Hannity.

And that is our problem.

Darren said...

Of course you try to interpret it in a way that defends your guy.

I attack him because he was wrong to campaign against Guantanamo Bay. I attack him for trying to close Guantanamo Bay. I'm glad he failed, but let's not forget that he's a *failure* at closing Guantanamo Bay.

He gets no *credit* for having his stupid ideas foiled by others smarter, and indeed better, than he is.

Karma said...

Your head is going to explode in a red fiery ball when a majority of 'dumb' Americans reelect Obama in what should be 'no brainer' given how Obama has already 'struck out' according to you.

Darren said...

He may win, and I'm sure you'll be very happy about, your protestations that you're really a conservative notwithstanding.

He's a buffoon and a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

mazenko,

I think Darren would cut our president slack on this issue if he would say something like, "Ooops, I was wrong about Guantanamo. Here's why. We're keeping it because it would be worse for us to close it."

Maybe he even has. But I haven't heard about it.

It is the sequence of (a) running on closing it and demonizing Bush, then (b) leaving it open, and (c) appearing to just ignore the disconnect between (a) and (b) that deserves some scorn.

He is certainly not the first politician to run on one platform and then act on another. But those are worthy of scorn (and ridicule!), too.

Darren?

-Mark Roulo

maxutils said...

The worst part? We're nit picking Obama while unable to come up with anyone better as a candidate. Paul will get my vote in the primary, Johnson in the general, and Obama wins again. I wouldn't have hought that possible when the season started up, but the GOP is offering crap, crap, and more crap.

mazenko said...

Sounds like we're on the same track, Max. Johnson most likely has my general election vote, though as an independent in Colorado, I have no vote in the primary. Obama does win by default because of the lack of ideas and message I hear from the GOP.

MikeAT said...

mazutils

I've often said two things.

1. Obama is weak enough to be defeated in a landslide.

2. Never underestimate the ability of the Rockefeller Republicans who run the party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Steve USMA '85 said...

Obama was definitely defeatable come this November. However, I always thought that it would take someone with the personal charm of a Ronald Reagan to make it a reality.

The GOP offers us nothing close to that. Newt Gingrich as one of the current frontrunners? Really? If he wasn't left in the dust for his past antics by his competitors, that means the competition is a bunch of buffoons themselves.

My two sons feel the same as I do.

A sad commentary on the past and future election: I just found out that they both wrote my name down as a write-in last election and plan to do so again this November. Is our current state of Government so bad that the next generation has all ready given up on it? It seems that it might be so because I learned of the above while the two boys were explaining to their sister why she should vote for me for President. 2012 will be her first Presidential election.

In their words, to vote for any of the registered candidates is to say you approve of the one for which you vote. They don't approve of any of them.

And yes, they have watched a number of the debates and read up on the issues.

Sad.

Darren said...

Taking your ball and going home, while emotionally satisfying, leaves everyone else just mulling around in the street. The other team's captain will still be team captain.

Sometimes you just have to vote against someone. I did it in the last election, and I'll do it in this one.

allen (in Michigan) said...

You don't want it closed ... but you criticize him for conceding and keeping it open. Hmmmm.

We know you would have chastised him if he actually closed it. And you mock him for not doing so. So you're really not open to any discussion of this.

I think we call that partisanship, Mr. Hannity.

And that is our problem.


I don't know which "we" is being referenced but I do know that sophistry's the first refuge of those with no substantive response.

In this case it's the implicit substitution of Darren's viewpoint for the actions, or inactions, of President Obama.

Certainly relieves you of the necessity of explaining the rationale that went into making promises he had no intention of keeping. Oh, I guess there isn't any need to explain the rationale. He was wooing a constituency whom Obama knew might be unhappy when he, necessarily, had to break his promises to them but wouldn't dream of abandoning him after having been badly used. I guess when you're in the business of screwing people it's probably just good sense to pick people who want to be screwed.

Steve USMA '85 said...

If you are disgusted with a game, you don't participate. If no one watched the Super Bowl, eventually the NFL would change things to get people to watch.

Under your statement, you either vote Democrat or Republican because any other vote using our current system is effectively taking your ball and going home. Whether my kids vote for me (I am not encouraging this action by them btw) or for the Green party, either a Dem or Rep will win.

Voting for the greater of two minor goods I can understand. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. At this point, I really don't see good in either party as they are run currently.