or will it? a year ago President Obama signed an executive order to close gitmo as he said himself in the video "no later than one year from now".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/22/obama-and-guantanamo-unde_n_159849.html

It's not closing anytime soon. Huge blunder by setting a deadline without a full on strategy. Greg Craig was not the right person for the job.

It stays open. Bush's foreign policy largely continues.

Personally I think we should keep sending the Gitmo detainees to Yemen...

I still like the idea of flying them to the U.S. for trial, only to develop total engine failure. Fortunately, the crew bails out just in time.

ccrunner609 wrote:

bman618 wrote: It stays open. Bush's foreign policy largely continues.

Is that a bad thing? Obamas isnt working well. Closing Gitmo going to be the straw that breaks the Camels back in 2012.


Already proven that these war terrorists, enemies of the state are going right back to doing what they do.

If you thought Bush's foreign policy was effective then I don't even know what to tell you.

I Wear Pants wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote:

bman618 wrote: It stays open. Bush's foreign policy largely continues.

Is that a bad thing? Obamas isnt working well. Closing Gitmo going to be the straw that breaks the Camels back in 2012.


Already proven that these war terrorists, enemies of the state are going right back to doing what they do.

If you thought Bush's foreign policy was effective then I don't even know what to tell you.

Once he implemented those foreign policies, how many terrorist have attacked the US?

Since Obama changed some of those policies how many terrorists have attacked the US?

Just pointing out he is basically doing what Bush did but still gets bashed by the right. I disagree with the invasion of Iraq and torture but that is for another discussion.

bman618 wrote: Just pointing out he is basically doing what Bush did but still gets bashed by the right. I disagree with the invasion of Iraq and torture but that is for another discussion.

Actually, the stuff he is doing "like Bush" we aren't complaining about. The "right" likes the Afghan surge, the "right" just thinks it took him WAY too long to come to the conclusion that the "Bush way" was the right way.

Now, he still will get bashed on "cap and tax" and health care reform by the "right".

jmog wrote: Actually, the stuff he is doing "like Bush" we aren't complaining about. The "right" likes the Afghan surge, the "right" just thinks it took him WAY too long to come to the conclusion that the "Bush way" was the right way.

Now, he still will get bashed on "cap and tax" and health care reform by the "right".

I don't think anyone likes what has been done and the direction we've gone.

However, Obama's failure to change many of these policies shows how difficult the decisions were and a lack of good alternatives. I've said it before, I think history will ultimately view GW Bush's presidency much more favorably (or rather much less unfavorably).

I agree gut, 20+ years from now GWB will be viewed as at least a "good" President.

gut wrote:

jmog wrote: Actually, the stuff he is doing "like Bush" we aren't complaining about. The "right" likes the Afghan surge, the "right" just thinks it took him WAY too long to come to the conclusion that the "Bush way" was the right way.

Now, he still will get bashed on "cap and tax" and health care reform by the "right".

I don't think anyone likes what has been done and the direction we've gone.

However, Obama's failure to change many of these policies shows how difficult the decisions were and a lack of good alternatives. I've said it before, I think history will ultimately view GW Bush's presidency much more favorably (or rather much less unfavorably).

exactly. it's easy to monday morning quarterback it, but if you arent in the huddle on sunday, you really dont know whats going on. and i think Obama just found out what its like to be in the huddle.

ccrunner609 wrote: Hell we hire a muslim president and they still attack us. I thought he would get all his bretheren to settle down

This is the most idiotic post i've ever seen.

1.) We elected him, we didn't hire him.

2.) He isn't muslim.

3.) It is "brethren."

cbus4life wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: Hell we hire a muslim president and they still attack us. I thought he would get all his bretheren to settle down

This is the most idiotic post i've ever seen.

1.) We elected him, we didn't hire him.

2.) He isn't muslim.

3.) It is "brethren."

No, actually you just gave the most idiotic post since you didn't sense the OBVIOUS sarcasm in his post.

I didn't even post it and I got it right away.

Glory Days wrote: exactly. it's easy to monday morning quarterback it, but if you arent in the huddle on sunday, you really dont know whats going on. and i think Obama just found out what its like to be in the huddle.

And I think we're finding out we got Brady Quinn in that huddle instead of Tom Brady.

jmog wrote:

Once he implemented those foreign policies, how many terrorist have attacked the US?

Since Obama changed some of those policies how many terrorists have attacked the US?

About the same number. If you think Bush's policies kept us somehow safer, then talk to me about a bridge I want to sell.

Terrorism from Islamic radicals on US allies has increased dramatically post Iraq/Afghanistan invasion/occupation/democracy building/nation building.

jmog wrote: I agree gut, 20+ years from now GWB will be viewed as at least a "good" President.

20 years from now Bush will still be viewed as the POS that he was. Bank it.

cbus4life wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: Hell we hire a muslim president and they still attack us. I thought he would get all his bretheren to settle down

This is the most idiotic post i've ever seen.

1.) We elected him, we didn't hire him.

2.) He isn't muslim.

3.) It is "brethren."

CBus...you're gonna have that from CCRunner about twice per week.

Couple points
1.Policy takes time. Obama has been just about a year. He still has reports and reviews out in different agencies
(The Nuclear Posture Review, Missile Defense Review, Quarterly DoD Report, National Defense Strategy) All those studies and reviews take a good year and a half. Remember, Bush's National Security Strategy came out in 2002.

2. So, anyone you thought Obama would wave his hand and change foreign policy completely misses the structure and speed on policy.

3. Again, the Gitmo decision was rushed due to politics and I believe that once the administration got into the nuts and bolts of Gitmo, they figured it was worse than thought. This put off the closure and again Greg Craig was not the guy.

4. I don't think Obama is over his head, he just wants as much data and options as possible so he can make a calculated decision. Again, policy and reviews take time.

5. Bush's Presidency, foreign policy wise was so new that it will take years before the verdict is in. So,far it is mixed, but I think it will improve.

Footwedge wrote:

jmog wrote: I agree gut, 20+ years from now GWB will be viewed as at least a "good" President.

20 years from now Bush will still be viewed as the POS that he was. Bank it.

As much as you'd love to have that be the case, you have no idea if it will play that way. Hell, Truman left office with numbers even lower than W's.

Now, will he elevate to the top 10 in 20 years? Probably not. But in case you haven't noticed, his most recent number is pushing 40. I've got a 10 spot that says in 10 years he's above 50. You in?

ccrunner609 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

jmog wrote: I agree gut, 20+ years from now GWB will be viewed as at least a "good" President.

20 years from now Bush will still be viewed as the POS that he was. Bank it.

History writes itself. He will be viewed as a good president. A stable democracy in Iraq will prove that.

A stable democracy in Iraq? At what cost? Personally, I think the US could have done much better things with 3 trillion dollars in annexing a country that was no threat to us at all....and the intelligence agencies knew they were no threat to us.

Not to mention 4200 dead American kids, 35,000 permanently maimed American kids, and over 150,000 dead Iraqi citizens...all in the name of sating the lust of the neoconservatives that get their nut running war games halfway around the globe.

Yeah...20 years will "blow all that over" LMAO.

fish82 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

jmog wrote: I agree gut, 20+ years from now GWB will be viewed as at least a "good" President.

20 years from now Bush will still be viewed as the POS that he was. Bank it.

As much as you'd love to have that be the case, you have no idea if it will play that way. Hell, Truman left office with numbers even lower than W's.

Now, will he elevate to the top 10 in 20 years? Probably not. But in case you haven't noticed, his most recent number is pushing 40. I've got a 10 spot that says in 10 years he's above 50. You in?

Fishy...you need to lay off the Rasmussen kool aid. Bush is the worst president I've ever been alive for. Because of him and his prancings around the globe, he has brought to fruition Osama bin Ladin's goal of bankrupting America.

With that said, Obama is doing no better in ruining the countries financials. My take is that Obama will go down as a POS president as well. All for the same reasons.

Footwedge wrote:

fish82 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

jmog wrote: I agree gut, 20+ years from now GWB will be viewed as at least a "good" President.

20 years from now Bush will still be viewed as the POS that he was. Bank it.

As much as you'd love to have that be the case, you have no idea if it will play that way. Hell, Truman left office with numbers even lower than W's.

Now, will he elevate to the top 10 in 20 years? Probably not. But in case you haven't noticed, his most recent number is pushing 40. I've got a 10 spot that says in 10 years he's above 50. You in?

Fishy...you need to lay off the Rasmussen kool aid. Bush is the worst president I've ever been alive for. Because of him and his prancings around the globe, he has brought to fruition Osama bin Ladin's goal of bankrupting America.

With that said, Obama is doing no better in ruining the countries financials. My take is that Obama will go down as a POS president as well. All for the same reasons.

Actually, if memory serves, it was a CNN poll. As you know, a Rasmussen poll would likely be more accurate.

Where you been? Still hungover from the Limbaugh Near Death soiree?

ccrunner609 wrote: Policy takes time? Send that memo to Obama and Nancy and Harry. THey have only rushed the biggest policy changes in this country as fast as they can.

Yes he is a year in. Look at all they haev done. They have about changed everything. Dont give me that crap about its only been one year.

You are mixing domestic and foreign policy. I'm referring to foreign policy. And yes, it does take time. Again, Bush and Clinton's strategies and reviews came out well after a year into office. Just look at the date of release of Presidential reports regarding foreign policy.

Can I point out we went into Iraq not to build a democracy but to get Saddam for having WMDs - lie - and working with Al-Qaeda - lie? This building a democracy goal was crap used by the Neo-Cons after their lies were exposed. The Iraq War was one of the biggest blunders in American history as it clinched imperial overstretch and will be one of the contributing factors to our upcoming bankruptcy.

Bush and Obama will go down as two of the worst presidents in our history.