Give 'Em Head Harry (Reid) Strikes Again!

enlightenedbum

So as we know the Republicans have been fearmongering the hell out of the Gitmo closure with "terrorists coming to a state near you" and what not. And the Democrats will give them Houses and put them on welfare and probably give them the vote while they're at it. Best exemplified by this video released by Senate Republicans recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRmBsvWgdbE

Naturally, Harry Reid caved to these asshats. And then he gave the following press conference where he uttered maybe the single most incomprehensible statement made by an American politician in the last decade (which as we know, is quite a high bar to cross):

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

Later, Reid repeated that he would not support Guantanamo detainees being transferred to U.S prisons:

QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say — would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?

REID: Not in the United States.

I know Harry is a spineless coward in the face of Republican attacks, but that's impressive even for him.

So for a topic: what the fuck is the response to this from the administration? They can't close Gitmo without the money to close Gitmo, soooo...

Clint Eastwood

Clearly, Harry Reid must be...

eliminated

Pi-r8

Cloudman wrote: »

Clearly, Harry Reid must be...

eliminated

All Reids are now enemies of the Republic.

nexuscrawler

Reid is beyond fucking useless

SyphonBlue

I hate this asshole.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

What the fuck does that even mean?

enlightenedbum

On the plus side, a new poll in Nevada shows him with 38/50 favorable/unfavorable, so if Dkos gets a primary challenge going, there's a chance.

Hedgethorn

What does it take to get a new Senate Majority Leader? I'd take Nelson, Bayh, anyone. Even Arlen Specter would be an improvement at this point.

Edit: Heck, tell Collins and Snowe that we'll make one of them Majority Leader if they switch parties.

Argus

I actually read an article on CNN saying:

House Democrats told the president Monday he won't be getting money to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until he has a "concrete program" for shutting it down and moving its prisoners.

Ok, fair enough, there needs to be a plan for where to put the prisoners since we're literally going to shut the prison down.
---

This shit with Harry Reid, though, where he's saying that we aren't going to release Gitmo prisoners into any US prisons ever?

Goddamn it.

SyphonBlue

What the fuck does "you can't move them without releasing them" mean?

It doesn't mean anything, it makes no godamn sense.

I hate this asshole.

Fencingsax

Apparently he thinks that the suggestion is to have the prisoners voluntarily show up at their new digs.

DoctorArch

Harry Reid is the most spineless, idiotic fuckwit that the Democrats have ever had as a leadership figure in the party. I hope DKos and the progressive wing of the party primary him, even at the cost of losing his senate seat to a Republican, he is just that useless.

Jebu

nexuscrawler wrote: »

Reid is beyond fucking useless

werehippy

enlightenedbum wrote: »

On the plus side, a new poll in Nevada shows him with 38/50 favorable/unfavorable, so if Dkos gets a primary challenge going, there's a chance.

As much as I'd love to see him sunk at this point, since Durbin or Schumer is the likely next in line, I don't see it happening. Reid has a metric fuckton of money and the Nevada republicans are a mess. So either we're deep in the weeds or Reid is here for at least another six years, neither situation something I'm looking forward to seeing.

Dalboz

What might be happening is that some of the Dems are getting pissed at Obama for going back on his promises. So far, what I'm seeing is Obama wanting to close Guantanamo just because it's been a political target, but not stopping the reason why it's drawn such political fire. He's planning to close the base, but still wants to do military tribunal, still hold prisoners indefinitely, still deny habeus corpus, and basically just move the prisoners around without actually stopping anything. They may be demanding a public plan to be announced so it can face public scrutiny. I'm usually not one to defend a politician for anything, and I'm not doing so in this case, just throwing out a possible explanation.

Hoz

I never got why people hated Harry Reid so much.

Until now.

Quid

I generally avoid argument from authority in regards to detainees, but as someone who has guarded and moved detainees, you can move the fuckers somewhere without releasing them and anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

Since, you know, they run really fast if you do release them and you get in trouble for letting them go.

Aegis

The media has been mentioning the fact that the Democrats (Reid's 'explanation' was mindnumbingly stupid) are facing constituency pressure within their own districts to the effect of "We don't want them in the US." Which is what has been motivating the moves to the deny the president funding to close Gitmo.

It isn't entirely a Republican pressure problem, especially given that if this were just Republican pressure, then the Dems would jump on the places in the States that have already offered their prisons to hold these prisoners instead of stopping the president.

DevoutlyApathetic

I am baffled how any of this is even a fucking issue. The only lost resource from closing Gitmo is Torture which the administration has already said it won't use. The GOP concept of these super terrorists who will break free and blow up buildings would be laughable if people didn't seem to believe it.

DoctorArch

Hoz wrote: »

I never got why people hated Harry Reid so much.

Until now.

People like me (well, sensible ones anyway) don't like Harry Reid not because he's a DINO (Democrat in name only) or some other garbage like that, but it's because the man literally has no backbone. It was surgically removed. So were his balls. This is evidenced because he capitulates on every bloody thing that comes up, especially if the opposition party so much as breathes in his direction.

enlightenedbum

Aegis wrote: »

The media has been mentioning the fact that the Democrats (Reid's 'explanation' was mindnumbingly stupid) are facing constituency pressure within their own districts to the effect of "We don't want them in the US." Which is what has been motivating the moves to the deny the president funding to close Gitmo.

It isn't entirely a Republican pressure problem, especially given that if this were just Republican pressure, then the Dems would jump on the places in the States that have already offered their prisons to hold these prisoners instead of stopping the president.

The only one I've heard is Kansas isn't a big fan of storing them at Leavenworth. Represented by you know, a bunch of Republicans. Hell, there's a prison in Montana begging for them.

Hoz

"The plan to transfer the detainees to the US isn't concrete enough" is a fine point. No one should be ashamed of making that point.

But what the fuck is, "to move them we have to release them"?

That isn't just cowardice, that is pure panic. How did he get into a leadership position?

Dark_Side

Dalboz wrote: »

What might be happening is that some of the Dems are getting pissed at Obama for going back on his promises. So far, what I'm seeing is Obama wanting to close Guantanamo just because it's been a political target, but not stopping the reason why it's drawn such political fire. He's planning to close the base, but still wants to do military tribunal, still hold prisoners indefinitely, still deny habeus corpus, and basically just move the prisoners around without actually stopping anything. They may be demanding a public plan to be announced so it can face public scrutiny. I'm usually not one to defend a politician for anything, and I'm not doing so in this case, just throwing out a possible explanation.

Yeah, they're going to everything possible to make sure those poor bastards rot in a cell for the rest of their lives. They are not going to risk the gory details of these guy's treatment and initial pickup circumstances for the world public to see, we would be vilified. (But notably probably not from our own press since they are all but worthless at this point.) I have no doubt most of these guys were wrong place wrong time, or simply ratted out by a neighbor for some quick cash. And from the guys that have made it even to an inkling of a trial, it's become blatantly obvious that government has little to go on, and all of what they do seems circumstantial and based entirely on hearsay.

The other very real problem is that if they weren't terrorists before, they sure as hell are now, the countries these guys were taken from won't take them back, and US simply cannot allow them to be released in the US (which if given public trials there would incredible pressure to release them I'm sure.) I don't envy Obama's admin on dealing with the Bush Admin.'s incredible folly here. I'm not entirely sure how I would solve this detainee problem either.

Aegis

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Aegis wrote: »

The media has been mentioning the fact that the Democrats (Reid's 'explanation' was mindnumbingly stupid) are facing constituency pressure within their own districts to the effect of "We don't want them in the US." Which is what has been motivating the moves to the deny the president funding to close Gitmo.

It isn't entirely a Republican pressure problem, especially given that if this were just Republican pressure, then the Dems would jump on the places in the States that have already offered their prisons to hold these prisoners instead of stopping the president.

The only one I've heard is Kansas isn't a big fan of storing them at Leavenworth. Represented by you know, a bunch of Republicans. Hell, there's a prison in Montana begging for them.

I'd really like an actual poll to investigate this issue as a means of providing reassurance/confirmation to Democratic fears. I mean, if you get a poll saying "No, they really don't mind them having them moved to the US" then you can trot that around to the Party to gain support for actually following through on the plan.

But no, rather than finding any polls on this issue for a useful question we get polling of: "Do you think it's a good idea to close Guantanamo?" Grrrrr.

oldmanken

I just have to wonder about the position of not wanting these terrorist suspects to be transferred to a persons state. I mean, in the very unlikely event that one of these guys were to escape, are the local populations of bumfuck nowhere USA scared of one of these guys going small time and committing an attack in their shithole town?

The NIMBY attitude is just absolutely ridiculous.

enlightenedbum

You have to remember, terrorists are like the Joker and George Bush is Batman. They're an irresistible force, unable to be contained by mere mortals.

Aegis

NIMBY attitudes usually are based on alternative and/or not entirely rationally-based considerations. I mean, look at NIMBY attitudes that crop up over wind turbines, nuclear power, nuclear-waste disposal, etc.

enlightenedbum

Aegis wrote: »

NIMBY attitudes usually are based on alternative and/or not entirely rationally-based considerations. I mean, look at NIMBY attitudes that crop up over wind turbines, nuclear power, nuclear-waste disposal, etc.

Hey wind turbines aren't pretty so you can't have them fucking up the view at the Kennedy compound.

oldmanken

Luckily, Superman is in office.

Seriously though, I think a vast swath of your population has been ruined by television (ie 24). Some of the reasonings could only work in fiction.

DoctorArch

oldmanken wrote: »

Luckily, Superman is in office.

Seriously though, I think a vast swath of your population has been ruined by television (ie 24). Some of the reasonings could only work in fiction.

I don't think it's because Americans are stupid, per se, but more that they are lazy, physically and intellectually.

enlightenedbum

Our media spouting right wing talking points as if they were facts doesn't help matters.

DevoutlyApathetic

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Hey wind turbines aren't pretty so you can't have them fucking up the view at the Kennedy compound.

Dude, we have windmills in the next town over and they are fucking amazing. Seriously awe inspiring to look at.

enlightenedbum

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Hey wind turbines aren't pretty so you can't have them fucking up the view at the Kennedy compound.

Dude, we have windmills in the next town over and they are fucking amazing. Seriously awe inspiring to look at.

I was citing the stupidest example of wind NIMBYism.

Doc

What the hell is up with them using O Fortuna? The song is about how what we do doesn't matter, and we have no choice but to face our fate. I mean, people that know such things aren't their target audience, but the song features odd subject material considering what they are trying to get across.

DevoutlyApathetic

I just love looking at them.

We've got our own brand of stupid NIMBY here. So, a couple years ago we lost power along with half the eastern seaboard because the grid sucks. One of the answers was to build a giant transmission line through our area, NYRI or something. It of course died because people all bitched about how horrible it was. One notable guy I worked with bitched up a storm about the power outage but still pushed against the transmission line.

Fucking NIMBY whiners.

Crimsondude

enlightenedbum wrote: »

On the plus side, a new poll in Nevada shows him with 38/50 favorable/unfavorable, so if Dkos gets a primary challenge going, there's a chance.

Oscar Goodman for Senate.

Nartwak

Quid wrote: »

I generally avoid argument from authority in regards to detainees, but as someone who has guarded and moved detainees, you can move the fuckers somewhere without releasing them and anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

Since, you know, they run really fast if you do release them and you get in trouble for letting them go.

"No, Terrorists are vampires!! They will control men's minds and will fly away into the night!" - Republican and Democratic pundits; MSNBC, FOX, CNN.

agoaj

Why can't they just pick a new senate majority leader? Or do they all need to be from Nevada?

MrMister

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Hey wind turbines aren't pretty so you can't have them fucking up the view at the Kennedy compound.

Dude, we have windmills in the next town over and they are fucking amazing. Seriously awe inspiring to look at.

Yeah, I've actually always found wind farms to be beautiful. I don't get how people think they spoil the landscape.

werehippy

agoaj wrote: »

Why can't they just pick a new senate majority leader? Or do they all need to be from Nevada?

They can, if they wanted. Unfortunately, it would take a near unanimous decision that the Speaker needed to go, and even besides the fact we have a sizable contingent that are in the same beaten dog mindset it's extremely rare to see leadership bucked in the Senate. Pretty much the only time in recent memory it's happened in Congress as a whole was when Waxman pushed out Dingell to head Energy in the House and that only happened after a longshot fight when Dingell had been egregiously bad for years.

wwtMask

The whole "we can't have terrorists in America" bullshit needs to stop. We currently incarcerate serial killers, rapists, murderers, and gangsters. Successful escapes, much less attempts, are almost unheard of. Is it really the position of our politicians that our correctional facilities, which already handle the worst of the worst, can't handle some "terrorists"? Or are they and their idiot constituents now convinced that we live in the world of 24 instead of the real world?

SyphonBlue

wwtMask wrote: »

The whole "we can't have terrorists in America" bullshit needs to stop. We currently incarcerate serial killers, rapists, murderers, and gangsters. Successful escapes, much less attempts, are almost unheard of. Is it really the position of our politicians that our correctional facilities, which already handle the worst of the worst, can't handle some "terrorists"? Or are they and their idiot constituents now convinced that we live in the world of 24 instead of the real world?

Hi, welcome to Republicanism circa 2001-present