 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
November 18, 2009
A STRONGER SENATE VOTE ON DETAINEES.... Five months ago, the Senate voted to deny funding to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The vote was 90 to 6 -- most Democrats said they were waiting for a better plan from the Obama administration. Yesterday, a related vote went much better.
The measure, championed by right-wing Sen. James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma, garnered three votes from the Democratic caucus: Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). In a statement, VoteVets.org chairman and Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz called out the amendment's sponsor: "Nearly 200 terrorists were tried and convicted in U.S. courts, most notably Zacharias Moussavi who was brought to the U.S. by President George W. Bush. All the while, Senator Inhofe was quiet. Playing politics with security like this is a disgrace." On a related note, David Kurtz posted an item from a reader yesterday that resonated with me: "Let me get this straight: we kept KSM and his buddies in Gitmo for eight years, no trial, no process, under harsh conditions including torture -- and now that we're finally giving them a trial in civilian court, NOW Al-Qaeda wants to retaliate? NOW they're going to kidnap the mayor's daughter and demand that KSM be released? It doesn't even make sense on its own terms." Quite right. The standard Republican rhetoric suggests terrorists are necessary magnets for more terrorists -- where one goes, others follow. If there's a terrorist on trial in NYC, terrorists will go to NYC. If there's a terrorist locked up for life in Illinois, terrorists will flock to Illinois. As Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) put it the other day, he fears "al Qaeda would follow al Qaeda." So, there's the follow-up question: if the Republican reasoning is correct, shouldn't the area around Gitmo be the single most dangerous place on earth? Or put another way, if there mere presence of terrorists invites violence, shouldn't al Qaeda have launched countless attacks against Gitmo at some point in recent years? —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)Comments
Actually, by that reasoning, you would expect Cuba to now be an Islamist state. Since (according to the Right) Cuba is already a terrorist-sponsoring state, alQaeda would not only flock there, they would be welcome there. And the uncompromising natural of their beliefs would demand that the Castro government convert or die. Thus, we should now have a fundamentalist Islamic state 90 miles from Florida. Posted by: Domage on November 18, 2009 at 8:05 AM | PERMALINKIf the senator from Oklahoma says it is a helmet , I suggest that you agree . Posted by: FRP on November 18, 2009 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINKSorry, your logic doesn't work. "So, there's the follow-up question: if the Republican reasoning is correct, shouldn't the area around Gitmo be the single most dangerous place on earth? Or put another way, if there mere presence of terrorists invites violence, shouldn't al Qaeda have launched countless attacks against Gitmo at some point in recent years?" It is much easier for wanna-be terrorists to enter New York (or Illinois) than it is to get into Cuba, particularly the US-controlled part. But yes, those Repukes are bed-wetting cowards. That doesn't entitle you, however, to pose "questions" like this. Posted by: Brian on November 18, 2009 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINKBrian- "bed wetting cowards" OOOOOH I like that. Describes the mentality perfectly. Posted by: john R on November 18, 2009 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINKBut don't you see, Gitmo is surrounded by Cuba and Cuba is Communist, and we've been benefited by the Cuban Communist keep our inerested at heart. Once in the US, the prison will be surrounded by US law enforcement, and you know you just can;t trust those people to do the right thing. Posted by: jeff In Ohio on November 18, 2009 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINKGlad to see that clown car senate fall fashions -- diapers for the mature figure -- have swooned the whole Repugnant caucus, and even some of the "you-can-count-on-me-honk-honk-honk" Dims and that dried up gefilte fish, joey lieberman! Mark Pryor want to know if he can get his in cranberry... Posted by: neill on November 18, 2009 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINKAlso, Gitmo and Cuba are both controlled by authoritarian systems that rely heavily on armed enforcement, which is the kind of arrangement nearest and dearest to the hearts of the Right. Bad Brown People won't go there because manly men with big, thick weapons are in charge. But anyhoo, rational argument is beside the point. It's just about stoking an emotional response. Bad Brown people are coming to the Big Apple -- the same place my sister's kids went on their senior prom trip just a few years ago! Oh, the virginity! We've gotta launch some missiles or something! That's why the bed-wetter "argument" is such a good response. It hits 'em where it hurts. Posted by: bleh on November 18, 2009 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINKI liked John Stewart's take that the guards will be there to protect KSM from NYers, not the other way around. Posted by: Th on November 18, 2009 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINKSorry, your logic doesn't work. It is much easier for wanna-be terrorists to enter New York (or Illinois) than it is to get into Cuba, particularly the US-controlled part. Agreed that logic is flawed. But here's another try. By Republican "logic", we should disband the rule of law in the U.S. almost entirely because anytime an armed criminal organization (e.g. mafia, drug cartels, street gangs, etc. etc.) is brought to justice, we risk bringing "retribution" from their fellow members. Bed wetting cowards, indeed. Yeah, pretty pathetic when a comedian can point out in a few minutes, what the alleged news media can't do in 24/7 reporting. On a different note, pirates tried to attack the Maersk Alabama again and were thwarted. Seems to be a success for the Obama admin on advice from central command to mariners, arm yourself. Posted by: Dave on November 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK"... Or put another way, if [the] mere presence of terrorists invites violence, shouldn't al Qaeda have launched countless attacks against Gitmo at some point in recent years?" No, because Cuba has an authoritarian police state, which is what Dick Chaney and the Rethugicans want for the US to make us "safe." Posted by: OKDem on November 18, 2009 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINKAs Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) put it the other day, he fears "al Qaeda would follow al Qaeda." ter·ror·ism the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Osama 1 Manzullo 0 Posted by: Osama on November 18, 2009 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINKManzullo is my supposed Representative. He is a BushCo rubber stamp. He also is an idiot. Posted by: SteveGinIL on November 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINKSenator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) --> Profile in Cowardice Posted by: Chris on November 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINKBut, but, in Gitmo we can keep them in plexiglas cages and keep metal filings away from them so they can't use their supervillian powers! Didn't you see that movie about what could happen if we let our guard down?! OMG! OMG!!!!! Posted by: biggerbox on November 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK... kidnap the mayor's daughter ... The dumbass wingnut (apologies for the redundancy) was trying to conjure up an image of a pigtailed third-grader. In fact, Mayor Bloomberg's daughters are 30 and 26. Posted by: Thlayli on November 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINKPost a comment
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
