AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

That's the same argument Cheney is making, and it seems his popularity is going up!

The problem with this is that you actually believe it.

Actually I think the theory is that if you reduce the overlord to managing on crumbs too, that there will be more crumbs for everybody. They don't consider where the crumbs came from in the first place or that there has to be something for the crumbs to fall off of. So, they don't see that if the overlord is reduced to crumbs, there will likely be a lot less or no crumbs for anybody else. We might point to the evidence in the 600,000, give or take a few, who are losing their jobs every month for the last several months, but they still want the fat cats taken down and make it more difficult for them to look ahead and hire more folks.

Today's politial cartoons on the GITMO 'war':

your's were pretty funny, but this one was hysterical!

Yup! This is the very first time in American history that an ex-VP is seen more than the active/current VP. Cheney knows how to make himself look like the fear-monger that he is - still trying to justify torture to "keep America safe."

have you ever noticed that the only place he ever seems to give these little pep talks is at the american enterprise institute ?

neo-cons of a feather, paranoid together.

Yup, and Cheney is on the Board of Trustees of AEI.

Talk about the feather, Cheney is the whole bird. BIRD BRAIN

I think that Old Europe does not remember or does not want to remember that fanatic fringe Muslims KILLED people on trains in Spain and England. I am sure that if OLD EUROPE was not an immoral monster, he would think that kind of massacre is to be avoided at all costs.

Any group that is fanatical enough to steal airplanes and fly them into US buildings as in 9/2001 could blow up a Federal Prison with a horrific loss of life.

Before that happens, OLD EUROPE does not know that the life the fanatic Muslims had at Gitmo would have been very easy compared to a US FED. Penitentary. Especially if some Prisoners who are ex-Marines get hold of the Muslim prisoners.

But, OLD EUROPE does not know that NO Senator, Republican or Democrat, will allow that kind of transfer to happen without raising a ruckus that would threathen the Obama Administration.

. Harry Reid: No Gitmo Detainees In U.S.
" President Barack Obama's promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison suffered a blow Tuesday when his allies in the Senate said they would refuse to finance the move until the administration delivers a satisfactory plan for what to do with the detainees there.

As the Senate took up Obama's request for money for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats reversed course and said they would deny the request for $80 million for the Justice and Defense departments to relocate the 240 detainees at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They would also indefinitely bar the government from transferring of any of the facility's prisoners into the United States, though the ban could be relaxed in subsequent legislation.

A vote is expected Wednesday on an amendment by Sens. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and James Inhofe, R-Okla., that would put the restrictions in the war-funding measure.

While allies such as No. 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois cast the development as a delay of only a few months, other Democrats have made it plain they don't want any of Guantanamo's detainees sent to the United States to stand trial or serve prison sentences.

"We don't want them around," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The Senate move matches steps taken by the House and threatens to paralyze the Obama administration's entire plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility by January. In recent weeks, Attorney General Eric Holder had sought to reassure skeptical lawmakers, but Congress appears unconvinced and may force the detention facility to remain in operation.

It's also evidence that a weeks-long GOP effort against Obama's order to close the Guantanamo facility is paying off.

"Guantanamo is the perfect place for these terrorists," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

*******************************************************************

Reid got heavy pressure but still is not really on board.

Note:




Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday he was open to discussing with President Obama the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and the relocation of detainees.

That discussion will include the possible relocation of detainees to the United States to stand trial and, if convicted, be sent to prison. But Reid did not back off his previously stated opposition to such a transfer, stopping short at a willingness to talk about it.

First, said Reid, Congress needs to see a detailed plan.

"Many Americans have had concerns about terrorists coming into our communities. We received today a broad vision from President Obama and that's important that he did that. We're all awaiting the details of his plan. And he's going to come up with one," said Reid. "We're wanting and willing to work with him to come up with a responsible solution."

Pressed as to whether he'd allow the relocation of prisoners to the United States, he said, "I think I've answered the question." Reid is up for reelection in 2010.

Why don't you tell us about the way Japs tortured American soldiers in Bataan, Cicerone Imposter?

Cicerone Imposter says that Cheney is on the Board of Trustees of AEI. Cicerone Imposter does not know that Obama was on the Board of the entity that stole thousands of votes to elect him--mainly ACORN.

Foxfyre wrote:

Re: Cycloptichorn (Post 3656537)
I believe you don't take anybody's word as Gospel except the 'messiah' and yourself Cyclop. You've informed us of that many many times. Nor do you ever feel the need to support your own vanity. I've at least provided a rationale for my position. You haven't even been able to do that.
*******************************************************************

Of course he doesnot provide any rationale. Since he is from the Communist heaven of Berkeley, he never has any disputes with the left wing loonies there.
He doesn't feel he has to give evidence.

Of course, he is a craven coward!!!

Cyclops wrote:

We don't need to build a new prison whatsoever, stick them in our existing ones, specially made to house sensitive and dangerous criminals.
*******************************************************

l. The Senators in California will not vote for funds to close Gitmo if any of those prisoners are sent to California.

The populace just destroyed five of the six propositions floated to get more money for the government of California which is in very bad financial shape.

The people of California would demand to know just how much any proposed transfer of GITMO prisoners would be.

**********************************************************

On the other hand, there may be room in Berkeley. That place will take any criminal or lunatic since they will tolerate anything except Republicans.

The imbecile, Cicerone Imposter, wrote:

"In a position to know" is an oxymoron without explaining why. Foxie is loose with her so-called resources.

**********************************************************

An oxymoron is defined as "conjoining contradictory terms" as in deafening silence. There are no contradictory terms in--"In a position to know"

I am afraid that since Cicerone Imposter's teachers in his special education class referred to him as MORON so often, Cicerone Imposter is very fond of any term containing MORON--nostalgia, you know!!!

Setanta--The reigning "genius" ( or so he thinks) on these threads wrote:

This does not answer why you think they would be dangerous if put in maximum security prisons. One can only assume (since you won't answer the objections to your statement) that you believe maximum security prisons would be unable to neutralize the danger you claim they represent. In effect, you are now appealing to authority, and you continue to ignore the reasonable assumption that they will pose no danger housed in maximum security prisons.

You have not, even with this pointless appeal to authority, made any argument to support a claim that they would represent a danger to American citizens in the continental United States which they don't represent now. Remarks about being housed in someone's home, or Woiyo's inane question about being in someone's neighborhood are distractions which don't answer the reason for your claim that they would endanger Americans. You haven't provided any support for your statement.

*****************************************************************

And yet, the Senate will NOT vote to give Obama the funds to close GITMO.

Could it be that they know something you don't know, you senile old fart?

The New York Times speaks:

Arguably on the defensive over policy for the first time since taking office, Mr. Obama is gambling that his oratorical powers can reassure the public that bringing terrorism suspects to prisons on American soil will not put the public in danger.

At the same time, he must explain and win support for a nuanced set of positions that fall somewhere between George W. Bush and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Rather than an easily labeled program, Mr. Obama is picking seemingly disparate elements from across the policy continuum " banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques but embracing the endless detention of certain terror suspects without trial, closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but retaining the military commissions held there.

“A surgical approach,” the president called it in his address on Thursday at the National Archives.

But surgical approaches are rarely satisfying to those on either end of the political spectrum who tend to dominate political dialogue in Washington, particularly when it comes to an issue as fraught with emotional resonance and moral implications as the struggle against terrorists.

In the reductionist debate in Washington, either any sacrifice must be made to win a pitiless war against radicals, or terrorism does not justify any compromise with cherished American values.

“Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right,” Mr. Obama said. “The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common sense.”

In his rebuttal speech across town, former Vice President Dick Cheney in effect argued that absolutism in the defense of liberty was no vice.

“In the fight against terrorism there is no middle ground, and half measures keep you half-exposed,” Mr. Cheney said shortly after Mr. Obama’s address. “You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy.”

The debates over Mr. Obama’s latest decisions " to establish a legal basis for holding detainees indefinitely without charge and to withhold photographs of past abuse while reauthorizing military tribunals with greater due process " have become a proxy for a broader struggle that could shape his presidency. With the economy in dire shape, Mr. Obama would prefer to focus on domestic issues and put the polarizing security-versus-liberty argument of the Bush years behind the country, but it stubbornly persists.

With Mr. Cheney accusing the president of endangering the country and liberal allies expressing outrage at what they perceive as his betrayal of progressive principles, the White House concluded that it had no choice but to address the matter head-on.

Mr. Obama has never lacked confidence in his ability to educate and win over people when it comes to complex and combustible issues, as he tried to do on the issue of race in the campaign last year or on abortion in his commencement address on Sunday at the University of Notre Dame.

“The issue skewed off into a lot of different directions in the last couple of weeks,” David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, said in an interview.

Mr. Axelrod expressed confidence that the public would grasp the new multilayered approach articulated in the speech. “It was a thoughtful speech that treated the American people like adults,” he said.

Yet even as the White House argued that Mr. Obama always recognized the complexity of the issues before him, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Thursday acknowledged some surprise at the difficulties involved. Speaking with reporters at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, he described going through portfolios on “every single detainee” at the detention center at Guantánamo Bay.

“We knew we were inheriting a system that was not functioning,” Mr. Biden said. “We knew we were inheriting a system that was causing us great difficulty around the world.” But he suggested that the administration’s approach had been shaped by what it learned after taking office.

“It’s like opening Pandora’s box here,” Mr. Biden said. “We don’t know what’s inside the box. Now we know a lot more than we did in January.”

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Cheney used the term “ad hoc” to scorn the other party’s policy toward terrorism. But the case-by-case approach of the current White House " officials there describe it as pragmatic " has generated confusion and disappointment across the political spectrum. While Mr. Obama dismissed concerns among fellow Democrats about “30-second commercials” attacking them as weak on terrorism " “I get it,” he said " the reality is that the debate could replay in harsh fashion in the midterm elections next year.

James Jay Carafano, a national security expert at the Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Obama risked being left with no supporters on either side for his program.

“The people on the left know there’s more in common than not between the Obama policy and the Bush policy,” he said. “And the people on the right know there’s a credibility problem because there’s a gap between what he tells the left and what he’s doing.”

Sarah Mendelson, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who led a commission study that urged the closing of Guantánamo, said the fusion of Bush and anti-Bush policies was untenable. “They’re literally trying to combine these paradigms,” Ms. Mendelson said. “And that means nobody will be happy.”

Nicholas Kulish contributed reporting.

Senate Approves $91.3 Billion War Spending Bill
The 86-3 vote demonstrated widespread support for increased U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.

AP

- The Senate on Thursday passed a $91.3 billion military spending bill, shorn of money President Obama wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but allowing him to significantly ramp up the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

The Senate voted 86-3 to pass the bill, which provides money for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, setting up House-Senate talks on a compromise measure to present to Obama next month.

The spending measure closely tracks Obama's request for war funds, although the $80 million he was seeking to close the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was dropped Wednesday.

A three-day Senate debate on the bill featured little of the angst over the situation in Afghanistan that permeated debate in the House last week on companion legislation.

Obama is sending more than 20,000 additional troops there and, for the first time next year, the annual cost of the war in Afghanistan is projected to exceed the cost of fighting in Iraq.

With support forces, the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is expected to be about 68,000 by the end of the year -- more than double the size of the U.S. force at the end of 2008.

Among the few cautionary voices was Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

"I want to give this administration ... the resources it needs to successfully end these wars," Boxer said. "I don't support an open-ended commitment of American troops to Afghanistan. And if we do not see measurable progress, we must reconsider our engagement and strategy there."

Debate pretty much fizzled after Democrats retreated and moved to delete from the bill money to close Guantanamo, where about 240 terrorism suspects still are held. The companion House bill had already taken that step.

The underlying war funding measure has gotten relatively little attention, even though it would boost total approved spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars above $900 billion.

The Pentagon would receive $73 billion under the legislation, including $4.6 billion to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces; $400 million to train and equip Pakistan's security forces, and $21.9 billion to procure new mine-resistant vehicles, aircraft, weapons and ammunition, among other items.

The House version adds $11.8 billion to Obama's request, including almost $4 billion for new weapons and military equipment such as eight C-17 cargo planes, mine-resistant vehicles, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker armored vehicles. The House measure also adds $2.2 billion to Obama's request for foreign aid, much of which appears to be designed to get around spending limits for 2010.

The Senate measure contains less for weapons procurement and foreign aid, setting up potentially nettlesome negotiations.

In the end, several Senate amendments were added, including one to block the release under the Freedom of Information Act of government photographs showing the abuse of detainees. The administration is fighting the American Civil Liberties Union in federal court over the release of the photos, and the move was intended to bolster the government's legal position.

Republican Sen. Bob Corker won approval Thursday of an amendment requiring the president to set forth U.S. objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan and issue quarterly reports detailing whether those goals were being met.