Gitmo to stay openFollow

It was. He was blocked on it by Congress.

So was your statement made out of complete ignorance or just half-assed malice?

You misunderstand. They were fooled into thinking he would actually succeed in closing Gitmo. At the end of the day, if you voted for Obama because he was going to "Close Gitmo, end warrantless wiretapping, get us out of Iraq immediately, and eliminate the deficit" you pretty much bought a song and dance. Given that those were all major major criticisms against Republicans (Bush specifically) which Obama promised would be part of his "hope and change" (remember that?), I think it's relevant to point out that the whole thing was basically a snow job.


He "failed" because anyone with any sort of understanding of the issue at all knew that he couldn't succeed. It was an empty promise from day one. Like a president promising to heal everyone of cancer within a year of taking office. You'd be a fool to vote for him because of that, right? But there were a lot of fools voting Democrat in 2008.

No, you were just wrong as usual and are frantically backpedaling. As usual. "Wait! No... I meant... umm..."

Do you just type stuff and hope no one will remember it five minutes later?

You were just plain wrong. Obama took multiple actions towards closing Gitmo. Now you're furiously trying to backpedal and say "Well... that doesn't count because I MEANT that it didn't work and I said it wouldn't!"

In reality, you obviously mean "Oh, shit. I had no idea about that because I was just typing my usual ideological stream-of-consciousness crap when I said that. Wait! Maybe I can start covering for myself and no one will notice..."

Nice try?

According to Gbaji-logic, Bush was totally lying when he said he wanted to reform Social Security. I mean, he failed at it (as ANYONE could have said he would!) so anyone who believed that Bush actually wanted to do it was obviously a fool.

Like I said, they're (with the very occasional exception) all as full of sh1te as each other. The mad thing is how their respective supporters bend over backwards defending their actions as though they are doing it all for something other than their own selfish reasons.

Obama was never going to be able to close Guantanamo any more than he was going to 'win' Afghanistan, develop a health service that the rest of the world would envy or stop puckering up to the right wing extremists in Israel. Its all politics, money, power and business. A cynical game where if they win, they get rich, and if they lose, they get rich. A bunch of egomaniacs all banging each others ***** in the door and toasting each other whilst having absolutely no regard whatsover for the effects of their actions on the people they are supposed to represent and contempt for the people who get trodden into the dirt as they swagger around the planet having dinner and cocktail parties with each other whilst discussing arms sales and which country to rape for its resources next.

Its all just blah, blah, in pursuit of their own personal ambition cheered on by people who really can't be ***** to open their eyes and minds and realise how obviously we're all being taken for a ride.

It's a quagmire. While shutting the whole facility down would have been a nice symbolic gesture, the fact remains that Bush left Barry all these peeps to deal with. I think Georgie-porgie is the one that is crimson-faced here.

The thing is that the way presidents (and other officials) act is pretty much exactly what the founders predicted. Read the federalist/anti-federalist papers--they're pretty much all about how to keep a gov't run by humans from becoming tyrannical, considering it is human nature to do so. They predict that each party is going to act in their own interests, which is why checks and balances exist.

In the end, everyone has an agenda. But that doesn't mean all agendas are equal, and some are much more supportable than others. For instance, an agenda that sets out to make the rich people richer and the poor people poorer is not one I want to support.

Backpedal harder. Easier than admitting that you had no idea what you were talking about.