Are you saying it was heavily weighted democrat? No more so than the house is heavily weighted Republican its not just about numbers...its how they vote and what they support...there are hawk democrats and dove republicans. I thought the issue was did Obama try to close gitmo ...I think he did.
archer wrote: Are you saying it was heavily weighted democrat? No more so than the house is heavily weighted Republican its not just about numbers...its how they vote and what they support...there are hawk democrats and dove republicans. I thought the issue was did Obama try to close gitmo ...I think he did.
Well if he is trying to close it, he's been very quiet about it. I just think that proclamation wasn't thought through very well..where will they go?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Home? I don't know...but how many years shoud we hold these guys? What was the plan when we started putting them there? Or is that another part of going to war the Bush administration never bothered to plan for.
archer wrote: Home? I don't know...but how many years shoud we hold these guys? What was the plan when we started putting them there? Or is that another part of going to war the Bush administration never bothered to plan for.
Gitmo troubles me. We are essentially condemning these men to life imprisonment on usually very flimsy evidence, often an example of feuding clans bearing false witness against rivals. And not many other options.
Release them? While they may have started out as innocents, they are now pissed of and sometimes become terrorists or AQ uses thema s poster boys.
Keep them? Expensive! You could be sending them to Harvard for what it costs to keep Gitmo open.
Release them back to their homelands? Could be picked up and tortured by the police.
But it is awful handy to have Gitmo, especially if you need to abduct and interrogate the bad guys.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
