Sunday, June 21, 2009

GOP Gotcha Induced Giddiness on Gitmo Vote?

That's such a great line, from Drew of Dem Bones, who further deconstructs the Republican bloggers lack of logic, which began with this post from Jim Hoeft. It crackled across the blogosphere with responses from Drew, Aznew, Lowell and me. Then my post spread the fire further with Shaun Kenney piling on, taking me to task for "faux outrage" and posting manufactured Democratic talking points. Here's how Drew describers it:
Although the debate over the closing of Guantanamo is necessary and important, to be sure, I want to refocus the conversation back to the actual amendment vote, hopefully exposing the disingenuous nature of the Republican faux outrage - or is it gotcha-induced giddiness? - against Perriello. Again to recap: Last Thursday, Perriello, joined by 212 mostly Democratic colleagues, voted against Rep. Jerry Lewis' (R-CA) H.Amdt 220 added to HR 2847....
But it actually seems like the shoe might be on the other foot, as Dem Bones points out here.
Basically, Republicans did not want to release funds to shut down Guantanamo Bay, to fund the President's executive order to close the base. The amendment was voted down, 212-213, mainly along party lines, and Republican's jumped on Perriello for being arm-twisted by Pelosi, for casting the deciding vote to bring detainees to Virginia.

Just two days prior, however, the house voted for a war supplemental bill (HR 2346), and it passed, 226-202, also along party lines; Democrats generally supported the supplemental, Republicans generally didn't. There, within the bill, are several important provisions disallowing the release of detainees on US soil. Click this text link, scroll down (about a fifth or a sixth of the way) to Title III: General Provisions, This Act and let's take a look:
Sec. 30004) Prohibits funds from this or any prior Act from being used to release an individual who is detained, as of April 30, 2009, at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the District of Columbia. Prohibits any such release for the purpose of detaining or prosecuting any such individual until two months after Congress receives from the President a comprehensive plan regarding the proposed disposition. Requires the plan to include: (1) the risk to national security posed by the transfer; (2) costs associated with not transferring an individual; (3) the legal rationale and associated court demands for transfer; (4) a certification by the President that any national security risk associated with a transfer has been mitigated; and (5) a certification by the President that the President has certified to the governor and state legislature of a state to which the President intends to transfer an individual that such individual does not pose a security threat to the United States.

Prohibits any funds from being used to transfer or release such an individual to the country of such individual's nationality or last residence, or to any country other than the United States, unless the President submits to Congress, at least 30 days prior to such release or transfer: (1) the name of the individual and the country involved; (2) an assessment of the risk to U.S. national security posed by the transfer or release; and (3) the terms of any agreement with another country for the acceptance of such individual, including any financial assistance related to the agreement.(emphasis mine)

...In a fever of political gamesmanship, however, Republicans - knowing that two days prior Perriello voted to close these possibilities - have tried to create trumped-up charges against Perriello. And, in light of the supplemental, Republicans are now equally accountable to the same charges levied against Perriello. If I wanted to be similarly dishonest, I could say that Republicans, in voting against the war supplemental, voted against prohibitions - thereby either allowing or in favor of - to release detainees onto US soil.
You see, here's the thing about the Republicans - even the very best of them - they really do manufacture faux outrage, attempt to distort the Democrats' actual record, and riff off the same GOP Central talking points. The funny thing is that when caught doing so, they attempt to turn the tables and accuse the progressives of doing those things.

But when you don't make logical arguments, distort true positions, and manufacture fake outrage, you must think everybody else is doing the same thing. There are some terms for this. One is projection - that is projecting your own bad behavior or bad motives on to others.

The problem is that it's not working the way it used to. The genuine source of the real Republican outrage is that Obama won the election, the Democrats have won the last few election cycles here in Virginia, and the GOP no longer dominates the message. Rush and Newt simply don't have the whole stage and don't pack the punch they used to. And neither do the other Republican talking heads and bloggers.


Cargosquid said...

The real source of outrage is Obama's irresponsibility, deception, and incompetence while in office and the anger is against BOTH parties for allowing him to pass bills that NO ONE has read. Closing Gitmo is dangerous. If they are too dangerous to be released then Gitmo is needed. They are prisoners of war. Not criminals.

Dan said...


No, they are not prisoners of war. No one in the current or the former administration has ever maintained that they are prisoners of war. If their status was that of prisoners of war then the treatment they received at Gitmo would have violated many of our laws and treaty obligations.

You are correct about some of them not being criminals. The Chinese Uighurs come to mind. They are innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Even the Bush administration acknowledged that it lacked any legal basis for continuing to hold them as enemy combatants. And yet they were held for years when it was known that they should be released because releasing them was politically inconvenient.

There are some incarcerated at Gitmo who can not and should not be released. And closing Gitmo does not mean they will be released. But Gitmo needs to be closed as soon as possible. Because it is in our national interest to do so. We need to repair the damage done to our nation. Damage done not by the terrorists themselves, but by the craven and cowardly response of the Bush administration to those terrorist attacks.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

-Benjamin Franklin

Our response in the years following the attacks of 9/11/01 would have left Mr. Franklin wondering how America became a nation of such fearful pussies. It takes a spine to face danger while maintaining your values and principles. It is long past time we started living up to the ideals on which this nation was founded.

I give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe he had evil intent. I believe he felt he was acting correctly. But that doesn't change the fact that he was tragically wrong about so much and did great damage to America.

It's time to change course and return to our long held American values. Not run the ship onto the rocks at flank speed by continuing wrong headed policies.

Anonymous said...

How is that CHANGE working out for you. The stimulus package was suppose to keep unemployment under 8% now it is over 9% and climbing. BHO has lied and you can be sure a backlash is on the way.

Anonymous said...

Bringing Terrorist to the USA only gives other Terrorist another reason to attack us, i have to agree with the Republicans this time.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

8:40, nobody expected the Stimulus Package to work overnight. In fact, I would predict - based on what I've heard from actual economists who don't keep themselves anonymous - that unemployment will go to at least 10 percent before the end of the year.

That's because employment is a lagging indicator. That means it's one of the last stats to go up when a recovery starts. We still have a long way to go.

Not to press the point but it took Bush 8 years to destroy the economy completely. Why would you expect it to be fixed in 5 months?

Anonymous said...

Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid and blaming GWB that blame game is in over time with no more innings. Thats why his strongly approve index rating is at -1 and fading fast. BHO argued for the stimulus package saying it would keep unemployment below 8% now you say it may go over 10% in the real world that is a lie.If you look at the break down black unemploymet is at 15% i quess you might not want to mention that in your next rally black unemployment was never above 9% when GWB was in office. Just admit your man has lied and peoples HOPE are DYING. So many campaign promises of CHANGE i quess maybe he ment things were going to get worse. You can always block the anonymous comments so all you will have is the same party hacks like you. REMEMBER all the BS you gave Liberty about free speech.

Dan said...

Bush didn't do all that damage overnight. He spent eight years f'ing things up. It'll take more than five months to put things right. We'll see where we stand when Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017.

I'm betting he will hand things off to his successor in far better shape than Bush did.

Anonymous said...

2017 you must not be living in America. Joe Biden has enough sense to realize they have screwed up,the ameican people know it only you party hacks are still holding on to the HOPE.

Anonymous said...

The blame GWB game is over take a look at Obama's strongly approve index rating it is at -1 that didn't take but 5 months. Can you please tell me anything that Obama promised that he has done ?

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Oh for goodness sakes, Obama's approval ratings are at 62 percent and approval for his policies, while slipping somewhat, are still in the mid-50 range, as opposed to the Republicans' approval ratings, which are fast approaching single digits.

When Clinton came into office, he inherited a recession, high unemployment, and a record deficit from the Reagan-Bush I years. At the midpoint mark, his approval ratings were low but by the time he left office, he had a budget surplus, very low unemployment, no inflation, and a healthy economy.

Eight years later, Bush II left record deficits (larger than the last GOP administration), high unemployment, and economic meltdown that approaches the levels of the Great Depression. (Even FDR didn't fix that overnight, BTW.)

Nobody said Obama walks on water or performs miracles. Of course it will take time to fix what the Republicans wrecked. Give it a break.

You Anons (and I think you are all the same troll) sound dumb.

Drew said...

Though I am loathe to stifle voices, dialogue, and debate, taking off anonymous commenting really cleared up my troll problem (could even be the same person). I consider it a temporary measure, but it worked for me!

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Um Drew, I think your troll (and yes, it is most likely one person) probably migrated here. Thanks :)

BTW, I actually don't mind as long as they stay reasonably polite, as this one seems to be doing - no ad hominems against me or other actual commenters.

I'm actually pretty tolerant. After all, even trolls need a safe place to vent.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Drew, thats the Democrats way only let people that say what you want to hear comment, forget free speech. I guess all you want is the same old Democrats that think exactly like you to make comments. Drew i thought you were above that. What if the Republicans did what you did you would have a fit. I quess you don't loathe fair debate and dialogue as much as you loathe views that that differ from yours.

Anonymous said...

Drew with all do respect that is a little hypocritical of you. I am a Democrat and i know you wouldn't want everyone to think exactly the same would you?

Anonymous said...

Karen do you really think calling people trolls just because they have a different view is fair? I for one think it is very childish what happened to you wanting diversity i think maybe you and Drew both owe that person a little more respect the only thing they have done is given a alternative view.This is from a Democrat that works in a Republican enviroment and it would affect my job if my views were known.

Anonymous said...

Drew i quess it did clear up the problem the last 4 blogs don't have any comments at all, maybe thats what you wanted ONLY your one sided view.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Oh stop bothering Drew; I like him. You are here as my guest. Believe it or not, I do believe in free speech. But I also believe in editorial discretion.

In other words, you have a right to say anything you want and I would absolutely oppose the government arresting you for it, shutting down your blog, or otherwise preventing you from speaking or writing. Absolutely, express your opinion.

But Drew and I have a right to put anything we like on our blogs. And we have a right to not put things on our blog. But you know what?

Blogs are free. Anybody can sign up with Blogger or Wordpress and get one. So, nobody is interfering with your free speech.

You are also welcome to come here and express yourself as many times as you like. But when one anonymous poster keeps posting 10 or more times, off topic, and starts throwing around insults, that person is acting like a troll.

Unfortunately, I think it's funny. I happen to have a contrarian streak, which is why I won't remove it. But if you get truly insulting, especially to others, I will do so.

But for now, you are fine. But I do wish you would move on. I think this discussion is probably played out by now. Cheer up, I'll write something in a day or two you can have at.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Karen, I agree more with the Republican side even though i was raised as a Democrat. I have never insulted you or Drew and will not do so. If i do decide to start a blog you would be very welcomed to comment on it even if i didn't agree with you thats one of many things that makes the USA such a great place to live. I feel there is a time coming not to far down the road when Republicans and Democrats will have to put their party aside and focus on what is best for all of us. When either side votes party lines instead of for the best candidate we all loose. With the best regards thank you

Anonymous said...

You want logic and something to make sense from Hoeft and Kenney? Its a wonder that "world shaker" Kirwin didn't pipe in with some of his mental illness! Too busy losing campaigns I guess. Come on now, you can't expect this group of people to think clearly! But it was fun watching. Thanks for the entertainment. This may be why their blog has the same 5 people posting the same inane nonsense day-in-day-out-day-after-day!

Anonymous said...

Karen, you have alot more than one anonymous person on here i made the comment at 3:48 just wanted you to know i did not make the one after that.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Would some of you please start taking names - even pseudonyms - so that I can keep track of whom I'm talking too?

I mean, I don't need to know your real identities, but frankly, you are confusing me. Take a pen name so that there is consistency. :)

Thank you!

BTW,3:48, if you start a blog, let me know and I'll put you on my blogroll. I have blogs from both the left and the right and would happily add yours.

Drew said...

I can't believe I have to defend myself on Karen's blog, but I want to quickly set the record straight. Karen, I apologize for this.

I don't claim to be insulted, nor do I claim that the anonymous commenters stiffled debate on my blog. I, as my readers know, am open to and welcome constructive and fruitful dialogue. But, when anonymous commenters leave a dozen, random comments, each not having to do with the posts at large, i get emails and calls from readers upset, both conservative and progressive alike. there is something egotistical in hijacking my posts and my blog - Karen's posts and her blog - and it's unfair to my readership, those who genuinely are looking for constructive avenues to discuss important and pressing theological and political issues. Half of my loyal readers are Republican and conservative, those whom I deeply respect but disagree with. So my taking off the anonymous commenting, had nothing to do with shutting off those whom disagree, on the contrary. My move, while only temporary, was to refocus commenting back to valuable and insightful dialogue. Random-drive by commenting, thread-jacking, is not constructive to anybody.

Just my $.02.

Anonymous said...

Karen with much respect to you Drews last comment was not entirely true.Karen after yesterday i have ALOT of respect for you so i will not say anymore about this subject out of respect to you.