5 replies to this topic

[ranrod]

This is about Obama swearing up and down the '08 campaign trail that he was going to close down Guantanamo, but then not doing it once in office.  I think after he became President, he even gave a date for when it had to close by.  Shortly after, the CIA, NSA, HLS and God knows who else had a little chat with him and he unexpectedly retracted his position on Guantanamo.  Why?  What was he told by the security agencies?

I remember a previous head of the CIA talking about the initiation of a new President.  He said the new President would get a talk with them where they would explain everything they are up to and why.  This includes people who used to be Vice-Presidents since only the President is allowed in these conversations.  The previous head of the CIA said that after the conversation the new President would be a changed man.  The President's world view would be changed forever.  At the end, the CIA head would say, "we'll never discuss any of this again.  We'll keep doing what we're doing.  If you want any of this to change or stop, you have to make it happen on your own."  The only example given was when a new President was told about Nukes (still secret then), and the US could eventually blow the whole world up if they wanted.

After Obama's meeting with the security agencies, he did a 180 flip *fast*.  When I had this conversation with a Republican, he said "I think Obama was just lying.  What possible reason could there have been?  I can't think of one".  An obvious fallacy - just because *you* can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.  I came up with a scenario, as a for-instance, "Mr. President, we know a nuclear bomb was stolen from a Russian facility and made it all the way to US soil.  One of the men in Guantanamo hid it, but we don't know which one.  Do you really want to let them go now?  Do you really want to move them to a much less secure American prison where messages routinely make it out of the prison system?"  

Of course, I made up the previous scenario, but I'm surprised I can't find conspiracies according to what was said to him that changed his mind so completely?  As a matter of fact, Obama - a strong supporter of peace and human rights before becoming President - became very strong of foreign matters, terrorism, and policies on the middle-east.  Any ideas?

[Hasina]

It may be that we've obtained a lot of information from many of the prisoners that hasn't and probably never will be revealed. The example you gave is a very good one, it's possible that the 'government' knows that something has happened but don't know the ends and outs, but do know the people they're holding know something. Along with this recent revelation in the Benghazi consulate attack, where Al-Qaeda may have been helped by a former Guantanamo captive, it just proves these people (at least some of them) are very dangerous people indeed who should probably never be released nor tried in civil courts.

[Mike D boy]

Camp Gitmo only made some hard criminals more hardened and any released suspects could strike again, Obama failed to keep the one promise to close Gitmo and now the connection of recent anti-American violence with Al Qaeda operatives furthers risks his reelection. The US Armed forces and "get tough" pro-War on Terror types in the federal government wanted Obama to keep Gitmo open, so that explains on keeping it open. Critics claimed Obama ended the "war on Terror" language only, not the actual program to appear friendly to the Islamic world and for P.C. ness sake "we're not at war with Islam". It's been a week and 1 day after the US embassy attacks, the wave of anti-US protests continue to grow and break out: when one protest ends, another one begins.

[ninjadude]

It is sad. But I think there are several reasons. First, a lot of the Gitmo prisoners HAVE been released with NO charges. Don't cha just love the government? lock people up for years and then release them with not even a sorry about that. Do you really have to think hard about what that makes them want to do to us? Second, there was a big conservamedia hysteria about having trials in a US city. I think the administration wants to avoid that spectacle. Third, I agree, there are probably reasons we don't know about.

[Babe Ruth]

Good point about CIA briefings of incoming newly elected presidents.  Jesse Ventura tells the identical story regarding incoming newly elected governors, at least in Minnesota.  It is safe to assume the same thing happens in all states.

Obama does not know right from wrong, or at least acts that way.  Even as a Senator he voted in favor of amnesty for corporate heads who did Dubya's dirty work for him regarding illegal wiretaps and communication interception.

Obama has never met a war or illegal invasion that he did not like.  A belligerent coward, like so many in government.

[Rafterman]

ranrod, on 21 September 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

This is about Obama swearing up and down the '08 campaign trail that he was going to close down Guantanamo, but then not doing it once in office.  I think after he became President, he even gave a date for when it had to close by.  Shortly after, the CIA, NSA, HLS and God knows who else had a little chat with him and he unexpectedly retracted his position on Guantanamo.  Why?  What was he told by the security agencies?

I remember a previous head of the CIA talking about the initiation of a new President.  He said the new President would get a talk with them where they would explain everything they are up to and why.  This includes people who used to be Vice-Presidents since only the President is allowed in these conversations.  The previous head of the CIA said that after the conversation the new President would be a changed man.  The President's world view would be changed forever.  At the end, the CIA head would say, "we'll never discuss any of this again.  We'll keep doing what we're doing.  If you want any of this to change or stop, you have to make it happen on your own."  The only example given was when a new President was told about Nukes (still secret then), and the US could eventually blow the whole world up if they wanted.

After Obama's meeting with the security agencies, he did a 180 flip *fast*.  When I had this conversation with a Republican, he said "I think Obama was just lying.  What possible reason could there have been?  I can't think of one".  An obvious fallacy - just because *you* can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.  I came up with a scenario, as a for-instance, "Mr. President, we know a nuclear bomb was stolen from a Russian facility and made it all the way to US soil.  One of the men in Guantanamo hid it, but we don't know which one.  Do you really want to let them go now?  Do you really want to move them to a much less secure American prison where messages routinely make it out of the prison system?"  

Of course, I made up the previous scenario, but I'm surprised I can't find conspiracies according to what was said to him that changed his mind so completely?  As a matter of fact, Obama - a strong supporter of peace and human rights before becoming President - became very strong of foreign matters, terrorism, and policies on the middle-east.  Any ideas?

I don't really see a conspiracy here.  It's simply the reality of being President vs being a candidate and having the luxury to stand on the outside throwing stones.

Life's a lot different when you're sitting in the big chair.