Obama takes steps to promote terrorism and ruin America's image, while stoking a climate of fear and creating more terrorists

Rick Moran
Well - at least that's what he accused Bush of doing during the 2008 campaign. So where does he stand now with his promise to close Guantanamo in one year already a year and two months overdue while news comes today that he is not even bothering with civilian trials for the terrorists and will resume military tribunals?

Won't anyone call this guy a liar to his face? This isn't a flip flop; it's a lie. The administration is trying to pretend that they have indeed, changed policy when they haven't.

Dana Milbank was at a press briefing where "anonymous lawyers" answered questions about the tribunal restart:

This still wasn't working for Yochi Dreazen of National Journal. "It seems like what is happening now with this executive order is effectively ratifying the status quo," he said. "Is that a fair read?"The Anonymous Lawyers did not think this was a fair read. Over and over again, they repeated their theme: "The basic message is the National Archives speech remains the framework under which Guantanamo closure is being done."

Oh? Let's review.

Anonymous Lawyers were referring to Obama's speech at the National Archives in May 2009.

There, he said: "Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. . . . By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year."

It was then, too, that Obama said detention policies "can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. . . . In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime."

In a sense, Monday's announcement was an acknowledgment that Obama had set expectations unrealistically high during the campaign and early in his term. "The president has now institutionalized a process that a lot of his political base imagined he was going to get rid of," said my former Post colleague Benjamin Wittes, now a Brookings authority on detention policy.

While it is true that some criticism is coming from the left - the far left - most Democrats and liberals have been deathly silent about Guantanamo. They couldn't yelp loud enough during the Bush years about war crimes and extra legal tribunals. Now that Obama is in charge, are we to believe that his reiteration of Bush administration policies is somehow legitimate where Bush's weren't? What's the difference? Why not make a stink, liberals? Sure, they're "disappointed" - a euphemism for "We don't care, we're going to vote for him anyway." Where are the calls for an impeachment inquiry? Where are the angry editorials demanding that Obama be sent to the Hague and stand trial in the World Court for violating the Geneva Convention?

Note that Congress hasn't been consulted any more than Bush trusted Congress to get it right. Note also that the reforms initiated by Bush regarding the tribunals have not been touched by Obama. They will proceed as if George Bush were still in office.

And that's the bottom line. Here's Allan Goodman writing at Commentary magazine:

In reality, there were serious roadblocks to closing Guantanamo, ones that the administration still hasn't been able to overcome. It wasn't Obama's critics who "refuse[d] to deal with these issues" back in 2009, as he claimed. It was Obama himself who ignored the legitimate problems with his proposal and is now being forced to eat his words two years later.

The nauseating stench of hypocrisy permeates everything about this issue. And it's emanating from every single Democrat starting with the president who set themselves up as morally superior beings to Bush due to their "principled" stand against Guantanamo and military tribunals. Where are those principles now, Democrats? What happened to your "moral superiority?" Check the trash if you're really looking for them.

And the only people who can truly hold them accountable - the national press - are in Obama's hip pocket.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky




Well - at least that's what he accused Bush of doing during the 2008 campaign. So where does he stand now with his promise to close Guantanamo in one year already a year and two months overdue while news comes today that he is not even bothering with civilian trials for the terrorists and will resume military tribunals?

Won't anyone call this guy a liar to his face? This isn't a flip flop; it's a lie. The administration is trying to pretend that they have indeed, changed policy when they haven't.

Dana Milbank was at a press briefing where "anonymous lawyers" answered questions about the tribunal restart:

This still wasn't working for Yochi Dreazen of National Journal. "It seems like what is happening now with this executive order is effectively ratifying the status quo," he said. "Is that a fair read?"

The Anonymous Lawyers did not think this was a fair read. Over and over again, they repeated their theme: "The basic message is the National Archives speech remains the framework under which Guantanamo closure is being done."

Oh? Let's review.

Anonymous Lawyers were referring to Obama's speech at the National Archives in May 2009.

There, he said: "Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. . . . By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year."

It was then, too, that Obama said detention policies "can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. . . . In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime."

In a sense, Monday's announcement was an acknowledgment that Obama had set expectations unrealistically high during the campaign and early in his term. "The president has now institutionalized a process that a lot of his political base imagined he was going to get rid of," said my former Post colleague Benjamin Wittes, now a Brookings authority on detention policy.

While it is true that some criticism is coming from the left - the far left - most Democrats and liberals have been deathly silent about Guantanamo. They couldn't yelp loud enough during the Bush years about war crimes and extra legal tribunals. Now that Obama is in charge, are we to believe that his reiteration of Bush administration policies is somehow legitimate where Bush's weren't? What's the difference? Why not make a stink, liberals? Sure, they're "disappointed" - a euphemism for "We don't care, we're going to vote for him anyway." Where are the calls for an impeachment inquiry? Where are the angry editorials demanding that Obama be sent to the Hague and stand trial in the World Court for violating the Geneva Convention?

Note that Congress hasn't been consulted any more than Bush trusted Congress to get it right. Note also that the reforms initiated by Bush regarding the tribunals have not been touched by Obama. They will proceed as if George Bush were still in office.

And that's the bottom line. Here's Allan Goodman writing at Commentary magazine:

In reality, there were serious roadblocks to closing Guantanamo, ones that the administration still hasn't been able to overcome. It wasn't Obama's critics who "refuse[d] to deal with these issues" back in 2009, as he claimed. It was Obama himself who ignored the legitimate problems with his proposal and is now being forced to eat his words two years later.

The nauseating stench of hypocrisy permeates everything about this issue. And it's emanating from every single Democrat starting with the president who set themselves up as morally superior beings to Bush due to their "principled" stand against Guantanamo and military tribunals. Where are those principles now, Democrats? What happened to your "moral superiority?" Check the trash if you're really looking for them.

And the only people who can truly hold them accountable - the national press - are in Obama's hip pocket.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky