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.

Republican Blogger Lies Insult Law Enforcement Community

Back in the winter, I was at a New Year’s party with Ben Tribbett when he twittered that “Anonymous Is A Woman is outraged!” I was laughing at the time and hitting him on his knees with a noisemaker. It was funny because AIAW is seldom outraged. I may get testy, dyspeptic, but not truly outraged very often. Today, I am outraged. And here’s why.

Bearing Drift ran with this supposed breaking story, claiming that Democrats in Congress, including Virginia’s Gerry Connolly and Tom Perriello, voted to bring terrorists to Virginia. Quoting an unnamed Capitol Hill source (you can’t even source and link, guys?) here’s the money quote:

Rep. Perriello just voted with Speaker Pelosi on an amendment to allow for funds to close Guantanamo Bay facility and move those detainees to Virginia. Perriello voted against an amendment, offered by Rep. Lewis of California, that would have prohibited the closure - the amendment failed 212-213 with Mr. Perriello casting the deciding vote.

Now, Aznew, the Virginia Democrat, Lowell, from Blue Virginia, and Drew, from Dem Bones, have all already pointed out the various logical fallacies in this piece, not the least of which is that nowhere in this bill or the amendment does it mention anything about sending Gitmo detainees to Virginia. It simply approves money for the closing of Gitmo. According to Drew, here’s an explanation and the actual amendment that was voted down:

So, today Rep. Perriello voted against an amendment (H.Amdt 220 to HR 2847) that would have prohibited the use of funds to close down Guantanamo. Here is the actual amendment, introduced by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA):

An amendment numbered 118 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to implement Executive Order 13492, issued January 22, 2009, titled "Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities".

Good for Rep. Perriello and my representative, Gerry Connolly, for voting that amendment down!

America is built on the principle that we don’t hold people indefinitely without a trial. I have served on juries, and I can tell you that an absolute fundamental of American legal jurisprudence is that we are all “innocent until proven guilty.” Judges instruct jurors on that point all the time. Now, that doesn’t give a jury permission to acquit criminals and put them back on our streets. But it means that in America every man and woman is entitled to a fair trial. It’s who we are. We don’t keep people in prisons without their day in court. Communists, Nazis, and fascists do that. We don’t.

So, if Gerry Connolly, who I am proud to say is my congressman, and Tom Perriello, from the 5th CD, voted against an amendment that would have kept Gitmo opened, I applaud them for displaying true American values. And for having the moral courage to not buckle under to conservative political hacks who use fear to win elections.

But none of this is why I am outraged. Here’s why.

Let’s concede for a moment that because of their votes, some detainees would be brought to America, and even to Virginia. Do the BD bloggers and other conservatives really believe that America’s law enforcement community - its guards, its police - would fail to keep us safe?

Here’s where it gets personal and why I am outraged. My cousin’s husband is a prison guard in South Florida. As such, he has guarded some of the most dangerous criminals in the Miami-Dade and Broward region, including members of the infamous Columbian Medellin drug cartel. So, do you really think he’s not up to the job of guarding some of the detainees and that South Florida would be less safe if they were in his care? I don’t.

But I do believe that the fear mongering in that diary is an insult to him and to his fellow prison guards who work in maximum security penal facilities throughout the nation. These are brave men and women who have guarded some of our most dangerous criminals, including the Oklahoma bombers Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols; Ted Kaczynski; and criminals like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and members of the Crips, the Bloods, and MS-13.

However, BD and other conservative bloggers, taking their talking points, robot-like, from the Republican Party Central, have a shocking disdain for all civil servants. It is rooted in their anti-government ideology and rhetoric. But believe it or not, the government in a representative democracy is us. It is “we the people.” Sometimes your side or my side loses an election. But there’s always the next one. We are governed by those who win elections. To disdain them is to disdain America and its choices. To disdain our civil servants is to disdain our neighbors, friends, and relatives, many of whom work tirelessly to fight our fires, keep our streets safe, and guard our prisons. To insult them to score cheap political points is to put party before country. And that is unpatriotic.

The disdainful Republican bloggers owe America’s law enforcement community - especially its prison guards - an apology. They owe America an apology for their unpatriotic disdain and the cheap shot they just took.