http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/30/gop.ad/index.html
"House Minority Leader Boehner releases Web ad attacking Obama on security"

Quote :

" "It's an issue that traditionally plays well for us," said the aide. "From a political perspective, it will be beneficial over the long run." The campaign-style video, created by a Boehner aide in his Capitol office, begins with the question, "What are Democrats doing to keep America safe?" Then, with ominous music in the background, it splices sound bites from news reports and Republicans talking about the dangers of President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay and to release Bush-era memos about harsh interrogation techniques. The video's climax races through images of Obama hugging the Saudi king, shaking hands with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and ends with an image of the Pentagon burning on September 11, 2001, followed by a final question: "Do you feel safer?" Watch the ad Boehner spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier defended using the 9/11 image. "The events of September 11 happened. Pretending they didn't won't make America any safer. And ignoring the fact that it happened is even worse," Ferrier said. When asked by CNN why he released what some will view as an alarmist video, Boehner said he is trying to "push the administration to tell us: What is the overarching strategy to take on the terrorists and defeat them and to help keep America safe?" Video Watch Boehner press Obama on security » Democrats said such "politics of fear" are scaring voters away from the GOP."

An image of the Pentagon on fire during the 9/11 attacks is used in a new GOP Web video attacking the president.

They want to attack this president using something that happened when they were in power? Do they really think scare tactics will bring people to their party? Isn't that the reason why people are leaving the party?

5/2/2009 8:56:33 AM

When I read the title and saw that you, a pretty solid liberal, had made a thread about something the GOP was doing you didn't approve of, I was ready to post about quit whining about them, etc. Then I actually read what you quoted and had a carl face moment.

Do these guys never learn? The only way that scare shit will work is if something really happens after they warn us about it. In the mean time, there is no conclusive way to show one way or another what affect keeping Guantanamo open or closing it will have on our security. Presumably there are just as bad people not locked up there that have diligently plotting to do something to us anyway. I think...I think one of them is the mastermind of it all, do they remember a guy called Bin Laden?

5/2/2009 9:02:54 AM

As much as I disagree with the direction this country is going in and the release of terrorists into the US. You all have a great point about the use of these tatics.

I think the bigger sadder picture is that these webads seem to be the only way to reach certain groups of people. They are easily influenced by these things and have no real desire or attention span to learn about events in more detail.

5/2/2009 9:57:27 AM

Quote :

"the release of terrorists into the US"

5/2/2009 11:23:28 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo-release24-2009apr24,0,1151031,full.story

there you go jwb.

5/2/2009 11:27:16 AM

This is kinda sad....and part of why the republican party keeps getting marginalized. All it is doing is satiating the base which is coincidentally the exact opposite of what they need in appealing to moderates and basically anyone that isn't god fearin' raging cultural right people.

They probably feel they have no ace left to pull but this is still not the way.

5/2/2009 11:27:24 AM

detainees =/ TERRORISTS

fucking christ

5/2/2009 11:29:37 AM

^^^ Except those people were found to be completely innocent.. We've been sitting on them forever because we can't send them home, as the Chinese will likely immediately execute them. They're no threat to us, nor have they expressed any hostile intent toward the U.S. These detainees marked exactly what was wrong with Guantanamo; they were held, without trial, with no connection to hostile actions toward us, and then when we tried to release them, we couldn't.

This is exactly the opposite of what you are making it out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_in_Guantanamo

Quote :

"The Washington Post reported on August 24, 2005 that fifteen Uyghurs had been determined to be "No longer enemy combatants" (NLEC) after all.[2] The Post reported that detainees who had been classified as NLEC were, not only still being incarcerated, but were still being shackled to the floor. Five of these Uyghurs, who had filed for writs of habeas corpus, were transported to Albania on May 5, 2006 just prior to a scheduled judicial review of their petitions. As of June 22, 2008, seventeen Uyghur men remain incarcerated at Guantanamo. Two years ago, an Administrative Review Board declared all but one to be "approved for release." The Pentagon had previously determined, reportedly as early as 2003, that the Uyghurs should be released. They continue to be incarcerated."

Why, I never knew that the Pentagon was full of terrorist sympathizers, now!

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 12:35 PM. Reason : Honestly.]

5/2/2009 12:33:34 PM

Did not our former fearless leader and savior George Dubya himself used to hold hands with the Saudi Royal family on state visits?????

I've said it before but the GOP has gone off the rocker and is using anything possible to get attention after their humiliating defeat. Unfortunately there is enough ignorant people in working class people that will see an ad like above and eat it right up.

5/2/2009 1:45:40 PM

Quote :

"U.S. officials no longer consider the Chinese Muslims to be enemy combatants and fear they would be mistreated in China."

Look, in GOP tin hat land, once you enter Guantanamo you're a terrorist for life, ok?

5/2/2009 3:09:48 PM

boehner went from one of the decent ppl to one of the worst since obama took office imo

5/2/2009 4:43:24 PM

Drsteve, I believe we had several people held at gitmo that were obtained by other countries.

Now whether or not they are a threat to us, you or I dont know completely. There are others who do have more access to info and have stated this is not a good idea releasing them into the US. Time will tell im sure.

Look they wanted a war with china, send them back and give them thier opportunity. (im only half joking) But they were not picked up at a mall shopping, they were picked up in afghanistan wanting weapons training.

yes tin hat land fail boat. I hope they move in next to you and are as peaceful as you hope.

5/2/2009 5:16:56 PM

Quote :

"Drsteve, I believe we had several people held at gitmo that were obtained by other countries."

That's really my point. We don't even know if most of the people we were holding were an actual threat to us, namely because plenty of those people weren't rounded up by us.

Quote :

"Now whether or not they are a threat to us, you or I dont know completely. There are others who do have more access to info and have stated this is not a good idea releasing them into the US. Time will tell im sure."

The Pentagon said they should be released - five years ago. Is there someone more in the know on this topic than the actual department charged with this task?

Quote :

"Look they wanted a war with china, send them back and give them thier opportunity. (im only half joking) But they were not picked up at a mall shopping, they were picked up in afghanistan wanting weapons training."

So what? It has been conclusively demonstrated that they were of no threat to us, not affiliated with al Qaida; we had absolutely no reason to hold them. So, why exactly did we hold them for more than half a decade? And isn't this a very good case for an expedient review of each prisoner's case, instead of indefinite detention?

5/2/2009 5:32:21 PM

Quote :

"The Pentagon said they should be released - five years ago. Is there someone more in the know on this topic than the actual department charged with this task? "

Correct, however the FBI and DHS both oppose them being released in the US. Why? It can range from anything from a real national terror threat to just a political liability.

My point is that some who actually have info are not recommending it. Did the Pentagon reccomend they be released in teh US? (not to be smart, Im just asking.)

5/2/2009 6:01:14 PM

Quote :

" My point is that some who actually have info are not recommending it. Did the Pentagon reccomend they be released in teh US? (not to be smart, Im just asking.)"

They recommended releasing them, period.

Look, we have zero evidence that they posed a threat. None. All of the evidence on these folks indicates that they only people they were even possibly a threat to was the Chinese. Not releasing them or granting them asylum was purely a political move - both to cover the former administration's ass and keep the Chinese appeased.

Meanwhile, if your read the Wikipedia article I already posted, you'll notice that plenty of other places have already considered offering these men asylum, including Canada and Munich, Germany. Furthermore, there has been zero evidence that these men posed a threat to Americans. None. Their combatant status review docs indicated that none of them identified America as an enemy.

The burden of proof is thus on those who claim they are a threat. And no evidence has been offered to this effect.

5/2/2009 6:17:04 PM

From the Kansas Democratic Party:

Kansas Senate Unanimously Supports Gov. Sebelius' [D] Position Against Housing Detainees from Gitmo

Quote :

"In a bipartisan vote of 40-0, the Kansas Senate stood behind Governor Kathleen Sebelius in opposition to housing detainees from Guantanamo Bay at Fort Leavenworth. Last week, Governor Sebelius wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in which she listed numerous reasons why Kansas is the wrong choice to house detainees."

http://www.ksdp.org/node/5589

Sebelius--Obama's Health and Human Services secretary--likely was too focused on "unintentional errors" in her tax returns and nearly $8,000 paid in back taxes to appreciate the nuances of "detainee" versus "terrorist," DrSteveChaos et al. To you and some others here and elsewhere: Please don't make this situation into yet another round of feigned outrage and calls of "scaremongering."

(1) The position of not wanting detainees/terrorists in one's backyard crosses party lines. And (2) the Obama administration has no plan concerning what to do with detainees/terrorists.

Obama, in Reversal of Campaign Pledge, May Use Military Commissions

http://tinyurl.com/chdtzu

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 8:41 PM. Reason : PS: BTW, this ^ is the latest entry in my "Obama Flip-Flops" thread. ]

5/2/2009 8:34:49 PM

So Obama is a hypocritical asshole. Neither a surprise, nor something which changes any relevant facts.

Put up or shut up. I dare you to produce any evidence that these men are a threat to the U.S. Any. Bipartisan scaremongering doesn't count.

5/2/2009 9:09:23 PM

If we were smart they would have just put them into some hidden secret CIA dungeon where there whereabout of these detainees would never have been questioned to begin with....

5/2/2009 11:52:12 PM

the thing with the military tribunals, etc is that bush has put this administration into a situation where there's no good answer. if they went to a normal trial, they'd be released because of their imprisonment without a charge, likely torture and god knows what else.

5/3/2009 9:06:40 AM

[Edited on May 3, 2009 at 10:10 AM. Reason : ]

5/3/2009 10:10:42 AM

House Minority Leader John Boehner

I want to design this guy's campaign stickers.

5/3/2009 1:05:01 PM

^x5

1. Way to completely miss the point. This thread was obviously started as a partisan attack, and the evidence I presented clearly shows that concern over what to do--and where to do it--with the Gitmo detainees/terrorists is far from a single-party issue.

2. Here's even more evidence supporting my point from one of Obama's own cabinet secretaries:

Democrats struggle with Guantanamo politics

Quote :

"In his testimony, [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates acknowledged that the $50 million requested to relocate the prisoners is largely 'a plug' until a better judgment can be made by the Justice Department of how many of the estimated 241 detainees can't be tried or released to another country. Gates' own 'ball park' estimate was that the number would be somewhere between 50 and 100, but he sidestepped questions as to where the military would move them within the United States. 'I fully expect to have 535 pieces of legislation before this is over saying not in my district, not in my state,' Gates testified."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21967.html

3. Has anybody looked at some of the cost estimates above concerning these moves? That's a lot of money.

4. You are the one assserting that Gitmo detainees/terrorists are not dangerous, DrSteveChaos. You prove that they are not--we know for a fact that some released Gitmo detainees/terrorists have rejoined the fight against America.

5/4/2009 2:27:25 AM

^

When did you come back?

5/4/2009 8:26:34 AM

^whenever it happened, the tooliness in soap box increased by 300%

5/4/2009 8:33:39 AM

Have they rejoined the fight against America or rejoined the fight against the invaders of their land? Big difference.

5/4/2009 8:34:04 AM

Quote :

"fight against the invaders of their land"

Invaders? We are spreading democracy and Freedums across the tainted lands of fascist islam. Along with unicorns and rainbows.

5/4/2009 8:43:49 AM

^5

I know reading is especially hard for you, hooksaw, despite your claimed superior logic skills, but let me break this down for you.

The case I was referring to was disputing the claim of the Uyghur Muslims. If you had even bothered to read the preceding comments, you'd have seen that the even the Pentagon advocated their release as early back as 2003.

I really don't care if this is a "partisan" issue or not; that's not why I posted, and it's not really relevant to the fact that we as a country are monumentally fucking this one up. Or is the fact that the Bush administration found it fit to later release 2/3 of the Guantanamo detainees simply irrelevant now, too?

5/4/2009 10:50:48 AM

Quote :

"we as a country are monumentally fucking this one up"

5/4/2009 10:52:25 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/22/rnc-uses-controversial-daisy-ad-to-target-obama/

Quote :

"(CNN) — The Republican National Committee Friday unearthed one of the most controversial political ads in American history to take aim at President Obama's decision to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. Called "Daisy," The RNC's new 30-second Web ad uses footage of the now-infamous 1964 Lyndon Johnson commercial by the same name that showed a young girl picking off the petals of a flower as a nuclear explosion is heard in the background. That ad, which only ran once but was widely criticized as being extreme, ends with the image of a mushroom crowd and Johnson declaring, "We must either love each other, or we must die." The New RNC ad splices the image of the girl with Obama's earlier declaration suggesting that closing Guantanamo Bay is "easy." This time the girl asks "To close it? To close it not?" as she picks off flower petals."

I guess blaming Obama for 9/11 & showing 9/11 destruction just isn't scary enough? We need to hint at devastation of the likes of nuclear war.

5/22/2009 4:11:30 PM

Just saw this today, not a GOP leadership thing, but definitely in the realm of conservative scare tactics:

Europe as we know it will cease to exist!!1!

In 5 to 7 years it [Islam] will be the dominate religion of the world!



Seriously, it sounds like they are saying it is better for countries to die out than to allow immigration of non-Christians.

6/3/2009 3:20:27 PM

Wow.

Why didn't the democrats think of TV commercials over the past 8 years?

6/3/2009 3:23:21 PM

Quote :

"Just saw this today, not a GOP leadership thing, but definitely in the realm of conservative scare tactics: Europe as we know it will cease to exist!!1! In 5 to 7 years it [Islam] will be the dominate religion of the world!"

This is based on a faulty assumption about Muslim demographics perpetuated by people like Mark Steyn (a theater critic, mind you) and other assorted immigration opponents/fools who want to generate a picture of a nation under siege so they can ride nationalism back to power. Well, maybe they don't want power, maybe they're legitimately fearful of Islam.

You'll need a login, but this pretty much lays waste to that: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7086222

6/4/2009 2:01:29 PM