Ya know, I’ve got a lot of experience reading between the lines…

Ya know, I’ve got a lot of experience reading between the lines…

Unless you’re living under a rock (and you’re probably not if you’re reading my stuff), you already know about the blowback from the trade of former POW Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl for five former residents of Gitmo, Afghan detainees we were preparing to keep indefinitely. As in forever. As in we never ever intend to close Gitmo, so long as That Black Man is President.

That’s precisely what I read right here:

In a tweet Monday morning, Johnson noted that Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) had said “if Obama’s trying to liquidate and close Gitmo through deals to release detainees, that’s illegal too.”

Illegal. Say whut?

You read that right. The GOP think it’s illegal because of this law it appears they passed.

That’s hilarious, considering we’re already in violation of the Geneva Convention. So what law are they talking about? Why, it’s our old friend, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

That’s right, friends. Almost one year ago to the day, by a 59-2 vote, the GOP secured Gitmo and are in a position to keep us from closing this facility because it would look good for the President to bring this chapter to a close.

These same disingenuous bastards will hold up the continued operation of the prison as a failing step in the President’s agenda of change. It must be HIS fault the base is still in operation. It CAN’T be us! We had NOTHING to do with it!

I call BULLSHIT.

Not only did the President talk about this with the GOP in advance of the swap, but three years of negotiations have gone by since the process began. The only ones with egg on their faces here are the GOP who worked to ensure the language got included in the NDAA, which authorizes payment to our troops on the ground.

I can’t do justice to the justifiable indignation, the gut wrenching prose and points Jim Wright has written in his latest Stonekettle Station post, but I can sure boost the signal.

We have just five months left before the 2014 elections and you have an OBLIGATION to do something about these sanctimonious, lying, manipulative bastards.

Show these obstructionist GOP bastards the door.

 

 

Rah…

Rah…

Gimme an M!
Gimme an E!
Gimme an H!

What’s it spell?

My opinion of the current presidential race.

I know I need to go and read the stuff people are saying and writing about the front runners. Sooner or later I need to make a decision. (Primary is in just a few weeks. Better get cracking, huh?)

So, riddle me this, Batman:

Do any of these geeks promise to follow up on impeachment? Do they even discuss the topic? How about Guantamo? The environment is a big deal, and I know most folks on my side of the fence have already declared where they stand. How about this one: If elected, who would Hillary take as VP? Obama? Edwards?

Can a President turn around and serve as VP?

I’d like to thank Andy for providing the Fact-Check RSS link. I know I need to make a decision soon, but my head is so wrapped up in local crap (see my living room for a clue), I just have no desire to dive into the load of crap reading material and talking points. I was cynical before. I’m not apathetic now. Just numb. I can’t concentrate enough of my energy to unpack a box, let alone choose a president.

If you have strong opinions, one way or the other, and you want to share why you think I should vote one way or another, feel free to drop a comment here. At least it will be entertaining…

Maybe…

Comments:

  • DF: Ron Paul!! 🙂
  • CD: Kucinich is serious about impeaching Cheney.

    Not that I’m voting for him. I already decided about a year ago that I would vote for Obama in the primaries.

  • AM: Kucinich is the only one talking impeachment openly and unabashedly from what I can see. He really can’t get the nomination, so it depends on whether you believe in voting what you believe which is also splitting the vote, or whether strategy has some place in your decision. Of the front runners, I find that Edwards is the only one taking any risks that could be conceived of as *leadership*. Heck, the repubs are calling him both “ungenuine” and “a socialist.” But, he does seem to be the one to scare them. Yes, he’s kind of a golden boy, but he worked his way up from nothing with smarts and hard work, and he has always talked relentlessly about *for the people* and benefiting those who have not been so lucky as to advance as he has. On a balance of issues, leadership, and electability, I go John Edwards.
  • LM: No way Hillary takes either of her competitors. None.
    Wesley Clark seems likeliest to me.

    Edwards is an actual Democrat who won’t scare the stupid people or give them too much negative ammo right off the bat. Please remember that these candidates are fighting the media first and any competitors a distant second.

    Obama is smart, and Hillary is smart. But the media and its attendant narratives will work ceaselessly to destroy either while flattering and mollycoddling whichever lame asshole the Reichwing picks.

Well, it’s about FREAKING time!

Well, it’s about FREAKING time!

White House: Detainees entitled to Geneva Convention protections

Lawmakers to draft legislation in response to high court decision

Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Posted: 1:24 p.m. EDT (17:24 GMT)

WASHINGTON(AP) — The Bush administration, called to account by Congress after the Supreme Court blocked military tribunals, said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

Read more…

(Now, if we can just get the high court to admit spying on Americans without warrants is equally illegal, we’ll be in business again.)

Theme: Elation by Kaira.