Big speech covering lots of ground that would take days to deconstruct.

My favorite: 'I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.'

As long as the media built today up as a "Cheney vs. Obama" thing, where they give "equal time" to both "viewpoints", the impact of Obama's speech will be minimized.

Mission accomplished from the paranoid fringe, aided by the liberal media, I'd say.

The president went on to note the political dynamic: "Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country."

Republicans, I think he's talking to you.

LA LA LA LA I can't hear you ...
Nobody's hearing nothing here.
Booga booga scary brown Muslim terrists
in our communities want to kill us all.

He was a little vague on the details. I'm not surprised -- Obama was describing a system of indefinite detention without charges. He added that his administration would submit such a system to checks and balances, and "will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

Good luck with that.

A little snarky today are we, Steve? Actually, I'd love to hear how you would deal with the situation in your infinite wisdom. Good Luck with that.

As long as the media built today up as a "Cheney vs. Obama" thing, where they give "equal time" to both "viewpoints", the impact of Obama's speech will be minimized.

Actually, as I understand it, the Obama administration wanted this "show down" built up by the media. That's why soon after Cheney booked the date for his "rah rah keep Gitmo open speech", the Obama's announced a speech on the subject the very same day.

I'm glad Obama took on the Republican fear-mongering head on.

I also remain seriously angry that Senate Dems put him in that position in the first place. Dog dammit, when are they going to learn that THE WORLD HAS CHANGED?

Then again, why am I assuming most of them care about governing the country?

I suspect that Obama was speaking as much or more so to the dumbocraps in the senate and house. They appear to be afraid of the demagoguery of the rethugs.

It will be interesting to see if Obama can provide facts and truths that will be sufficient to overcome the ingrained fear dumbocraps have for all bullshit deriving from the rethugs.

I only wish that Obama wouldn't let these Repub attacks fester, with the typical Dem capitulation, before he steps in with one of his patented verbal smackdowns.
I think he'll get more attention than Cheney's speech, if only because Cheney offered nothing but empty, outdated talking points, and because Cheney looks and sounds like a bitter, angry old has-been. Not that the "liberal" media won't do everything they can to pump him up.

The entire speech was summarized by Obama's choice of venue. In contrast to Cheney's AEI background, Obama chose "The Constitution of the United States of America" etched in marble with golden veins and gold leaf lettering.

This is what this is all about.

oh well said:
A little snarky today are we, Steve? Actually, I'd love to hear how you would deal with the situation in your infinite wisdom. Good Luck with that.

Unfortunately, there is no legal way to deal with this situation and imprison the (few) people who can't be convicted but who are too dangerous to set free. Maybe Congress can try to amend the Constitution, but other than that . . . .

Just like there's no way to win in Afghanistan -- the Karzai government is hopelessly corrupt. Our erstwhile allies, the warlords, are corrupt and self-serving. The Taliban is unrepentant. Maybe we can get out in 20 years . . . .

Just like there's no way to avoid another financial crisis in eight or ten years. Congress won't be willing to reform the system enough to fix it and Obama is unwilling to press the issue. Maybe after the next crash . . . .

Two hopes make me feel better. First, with Dubya finally gone he can't create any more unsolvable disasters. And second, if Cheney keeps talking, eventually he'll talk himself into an orange jumpsuit and we'll get to watch him shuffle his way to prison in shackles.

"Republicans, I think he's talking to you."
The senate vote was 90-6. I've heard just as many dems spouting dumb shit as repubs. He's talking to all of us

I've heard just as many dems spouting dumb shit as repubs.

Well, Harry Reid, anyway.

Didn't a federal judge just the other day rule that the Gitmo prisoners were POWs? And didn't he imply rather strongly that POW status expires at the cessation of hostilities? And isn't there at least a medium-good chance that at some point within the next few years, the enemy covered under the AUMF will no longer exist? And then won't according to this logic these people have to go free to their home countries?

The "fifth group who "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people," are obviously the people against whom there is a huge amount of evidence, all of which has been tainted by statements obtained under torture. Thanks, Bush/Cheney, for guaranteeing that they could never be convicted.

Outstanding speech - truly brilliant from end to end.

My only quibble - Obama: "But nothing will contribute more than that than an extended relitigation of the last eight years. "

Relitiga-mamasayswhat? I must have been asleep when the first litigation happened.

Expanding a little bit:

Obama: "And it's no secret that our media culture feeds the impulse that leads to a good fight and good copy. But nothing will contribute more than that than an extended relitigation of the last eight years."

OK - but the solution is media reform, and not shying away from litigating the last eight years.

"And then there's a fifth group who "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people," which includes those who've received training at al Qaeda training camps. Obama said, "We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."

He was a little vague on the details. I'm not surprised -- Obama was describing a system of indefinite detention without charges. He added that his administration would submit such a system to checks and balances, and "will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

Good luck with that."

This falls under the saying made famous by Colin Powell: "You break it, you own it."

You got two options:

1. Keep these people indefinitely without charges and sacrifice the foundation upon which this country was built. -or-

2. Maintain the integrity of this country, release them and then do your best to recapture and convict them using legally obtained evidence.

Option 2 actually requires some (I would argue minimal) sacrifice by the American people. If so, it would be the first time the citizens of this country (other than those serving in the military and intelligence agencies) have been asked to anything (other than shopping) for the "War on Terror."

good point, bdop4.

bdop4, @ 14:40

There's a variant of your #2 option which, by channelling my inner Cheney and remembering my youth spent in a commie country, I can see quite easily: release them, track them and take them out quietly. No fuss, no muss, no trials, no nothing.

The more I think about reid and his public accusations that Obama doesn't have a plan for closing gitmo and that he is disorganized ( or whatever reid was trying to say) the madder it makes me. What a weasel. If Congressional Dems needed more information, or more time, they should have delayed a bill. I can't believe our welfare is in the hands of these incompetents who are interested only in covering their backsides so they can get re-elected to do nothing some more.

The vast majority of you people scare the hell out of me. Release the detainees and try to recapture them using "legally obtianed methods" (like, entrap them with an innocent person, as just as they are about to behead him / her...we grab 'em!)? The Bush Administration was fear-mongering (ever read up on the history of Islamic terror BEFORE 9-11)? Do any of you remember that the detainees are actually prisoners-of-war (hooray for the recent judicial ruling!)? You're always so keen to demonize the opposing side as a bunch of ignorant racist fascists but I am convinced that a lot of you don't get out much. Oh and Obama's use of the U.S. Constitution as just another prop is another vindication of my opinion of him as a poser (and a whiney one at that!).

The teleprompter lied.
And Bush made him do it.

Read Glen Greenwald on Salon.com right now; this whole Obama v Cheney is a strange farce (although I don't know what a normal one would look like): The B.O. admin, much to the surprise of the courts, is fighting to retain the right to torture; to indefinite suspension; to extradition--basically to the whole grab bag of unconstitutional goodies we Dems supposedly hated Cheney for, but have become complacent and silent now that "our guy" is doing it. There is no difference between these two in terms of what they are signing off on--just in how they like to put it. In terms of MSM, only Rachel Maddow is noting that Obama and his DOJ are in the courts right now fighting to retain all of these illegal practices.

"A little snarky today are we, Steve? Actually, I'd love to hear how you would deal with the situation in your infinite wisdom. Good Luck with that."

That's right, not having a viable alternative of his own automatically invalidates Mr. Benen's critique.

*eyeroll*

Obama is prepared for battle.

He fully understands opposition to his leadership will constantly look to challenge him on just about everything. It now comes even from within his own party. But that's politics. He's however, smart with much political savvy-- and ready to take them on. I am ready for the drama!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYkUXOvxs4w

Funny how Obama didn't point out the almost total bipartisanship of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate in regard to his lack of Gitmo plan. Senate & Republican Democrats are almost unanimous in their rejection of what "The ONE" wants to do. Of course, we had to listen to another blame Bush, blame America speech in which he poses as morally superior to the rest of us that think that water up the nose of a murdering terrorists is perfectly legal and fine and dandy to save the lives of our fellow Americans and maybe the lives of our own families. And finally Mr. President come up with a plan to close Gitmo that doesn't bring those murdering terrorists into the U.S. where they can kill our loved ones. I'd say put them all in Patrick Leahy's Vermont or your own home in Chicago, but that's out unless you will guarantee they will limit their killing to that state or that city? No gurantees....then Congress needs to know that if they let you bring just one of those murdering terrorist into this country they will lose their jobs!