Gitmo

The Former Vice President, Dick Cheney recently was scheduled several weeks prior to speak on our nation's security at the American Enterprise Institute. President Obama decided to preempt that speech with one of his own in front of the National Archives, that houses the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. (He has always been known for his theatrics) In the President's speech he defended his position for closing the at Guantanamo saying it should never had been opened in the first place. Why not? Many of these prisoners plotted to kill Americans as well as many are considered prisoners of the war on terror. Where are these prisoners to be housed? The answer to that question is exactly the problem the President faces in trying to close the prison. No one wants these prisoners in their backyards. There is not one Congressman who wants to go back to their constituents and say these dangerous people are going to be kept in a prison in their district and that is why they voted overwhelmingly not to fund the move.

The whole debate over Gitmo goes back to politics. Candidate Obama made the country outraged over the enhanced interrogation practices employed by the military during the Bush administration. (This is not surprising, most everything the President has attempted to accomplish has been predicated by enraging the public over something his predecessor did or something that happened during his term.) Whether these techniques are "torture" is debatable but the reason they were termed "torture" was for political staging. Lawyers cleared the techniques by the constitution and all treaties the country is engaged as well as approved by leaders of the House & Senate of both parties (contrary to what Speaker Pelosi says). Even after being elected the President continued to play politics by releasing some of the documents regarding water boarding but not the ones that showed the resulting intelligence that thwarted terrorist attacks. Since making this a campaign issue the President had to attempt to follow through but gave himself a year to figure out a solution. That is the difference between selling an idea as a candidate and governing with the actual knowledge.

The President pointed out that he wants to move forward yet 28 times he referenced what he was left to contend with when he took office. White House advisor David Axelrod said they wanted to process these prisoners and move them through the system. They want to treat them as criminals and to apply the rule of American law to prisoners of war. This would afford them all the rights of an American citizen but they are not. They are enemies of state and although this administration doesn't want to use the word, they are "terrorists". They need to be treated as prisoners of war and not released back into the world community where they can continue their plots. There is also a distinct difference between terrorists and criminals. Terrorist do not plan to survive their act. They are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause. The rights afforded under American jurist prudence cannot apply to these individuals.

The President has made the case that the enhanced interrogation methods have made the country less safe than without. These practices recruit more terrorists than were ever housed in Gitmo so closing the prison was a symbol of the new regime in American policy. Although this might get a "nice round of applause in Europe" it lacks substance. The war itself, the taking the fight back to the terrorist, putting the enemy on the defensive created all the future terrorists needed. I am sure the interrogation methods used was little more than a battle cry. Even if the use of this type of interrogation is used as a recruiting tool, then why is the President passing out their recruiting fliers by releasing some of the memos detailing the technigues? Bottom line, the proof is in the pudding in this case and 7 1/2 years of being terrorist attack free out trumps any political rhetoric.

I have not come to complete resolution regarding the use of "water boarding" and whether it is truly torture especially considering the form of turture the enemy uses on our soldiers. What I do extremely object to is the politicizing of the nation's security. Closing Gitmo is strictly a symbolic gesture to the world in an attempt to regain their love. It does not make us safer. It does not answer the question of what to do with these prisoners of war and the captured enemies of state. I find it hard to question the underlining motive of President Bush's decisions. Even if you take the stance he broke the law, the reason was to protect the nation. I cannot make that argument for the decisions of President Obama. Obama has employed a strategy that the more outraged he can keep America the easier it is to pass his agenda, all of his agenda. By claiming the Bush administration used torture and releasing memos to prove it he has angered America to distract them while he reshapes the government as he chooses and that is playing politics with the security of the United States and it's citizens.

OBAMA (Not Bush)

The US wanted "Change" but what did they really want and what did we really get?

Over the past 6 years of George Bush's presidency the democrats and the media raged a pretty serious negative campaign against him. Was it just a political strategy or did they actually hate the President and his policies that much is debatable but they did (with the help of the economy)help drop the President's approval rating and caused many of Americans to have a negative felling about him and the whole Republican party. Even I was not totally happy with the end of the presidency but I cannot find too many policies in which I disagreed other than his inability to stop the spending. No matter what the specific reason, America wanted a new leader.

Americans felt dirty. The economy was going in the wrong direction, we experienced more casualties than expected in the war and we were no longer loved around the world. All that was put at the feet of the President, George W. Bush so we wanted a new President (fair or unfair.) The democrats candidate did a very good job as painting the republican and John McCain as just another George Bush so Barack Obama walked a pretty easy path to the presidency.

America wanted a President who wasn't W. and Barack Obama was really all they were given. He was the anti-Bush. They did not want anything that had to do with George W. Bush so any policy that contradicted his was alright. No one ever really cared what these policies would do for or to the country as long as it was going in a different direction, it had to be good. Even today his supporters are giving him a pass. He cares and he's trying is all that matters. The problem is by the time America wakes up and starts to CARE about the effects of his policies it won't MATTER anymore because it will be too late.

The President is a smart man and he realizes that he gets a free pass as long as he can keep America mad and blame everything wrong with America on the past administration. That is why he always reminds the country of something the Bush administration did just before he announces a new policy or a new strategy. Need to pass the stimulus ball that does little to stimulate the economy but stimulates his supporters, remind everyone that he inherited the problem (although congress definitely shares some of the blame and he was a member of the Senate). Need to pass a new radical budget that will spend our children's children's inheritance, create a firestorm over a company who received bailout money giving bonuses to their executives (although the congress and the White House approved these payments). Need to defend his international policies and errors he made on his world apology tour, release some memos of the Bush Administration authorizing some torture techniques.

America is asleep while the master of political seduction is driving the bus. Should we believe the oratorically gifted or do we believe his actions? Do we believe him when he is outraged over the AIG bonuses or do we believe him when he approved of the same bonuses? Do we believe him when he says they will pass a bill with no earmarks or the action of actually passing the bill with over 7,000 earmarks? Do we believe the man who say he does not want to run an auto company "he has enough on his plate" or do we believe his actions of setting Chrysler's advertising budget or telling GM they must cut so many dealers? Do we believe the man who tells us he does not want to grow the federal government or do we believe the facts that he has created the largest budget in history and plans to add 600,000 new government jobs?

To emphasize the desire of the American populace to find "Change We Can Believe In" they are willing to buy into the congressional leaders. With overwhelming evidence that Speaker Pelosi knew of the advanced interrogation methods being used on the prisoners of Gitmo, she turned the table and accused the CIA of lying, although they have absolutely no incentive to do so, and a large potion of Americans are buying it. 43% believe she is lying while 41% believe the CIA is lying. This is a direct result of the media's blitz against the past administration.

The worst problem with our current government structure is there are no checks and balances. Welcome to the world of un fettered liberalism! (Remember, anytime the government tries to fix a problem it creates more problems in its place.)