US Politics: Thread #hbar

[The Progressive]

But we have indeed made concessions to moderate the bill. The fact that we didn't make all the concessions demanded by the GOP is sort of a dumb argument. Of course we didn't accede to all their demands. If we had, there would be no bill at all. But things like killing the public option were done to appease the Blue Dogs AND Republicans alike. It's a bit disingenuous to say that those alterations were made just for the non-Progressive contingent within the Democratic Party when these are the same demands made by some of the Republicans.

But were they proper and true Republicans or RINO? :angry2:

[Shryke]

Though some critics and observers are suggesting the Ghailani verdict -- he was acquited of all but one of more than 280 charges -- weakens the president's call for civilian criminal trials for Guantanamo detainees, a senior administration official pushes back:

"He was convicted by a jury of a count which carries a 20-year minimum sentence," the official says. "He will very likely be sentenced to something closer to life. (The judge can, and very likely will, take into account things that the jury did not, and he can and will consider conduct that the jury found him not guilty of -- e.g., murder). He will never be paroled (there is no parole in the federal system). There are very few federal crimes that carry a mandatory MINIMUM of 20 years. What that means is that he was convicted of a crime that is a very big deal."

"So, we tried a guy (who the Bush Admin tortured and then held at GTMO for 4-plus years with no end game whatsoever) in a federal court before a NY jury with full transparency and international legitimacy and -- despite all of the legacy problems of the case (i.e., evidence getting thrown out because of Bush-Admin torture, etc,) we were STILL able to convict him and INCAPACITATE him for essentially the rest of his natural life, AND there was not one -- not one -- security problem associated with the trial."

"Would it have been better optically if he had been convicted of more counts? Sure. Would it have made any practical difference? No."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/senior-administration-official-defends-ghailani-trial-verdict.html

[Shryke]

I didn't see it as him saying that it was a slam dunk case. I see it as him making a political statement about what this would do to his department if they failed to make a conviction.

Regardless, we'll see what happens when actual 9/11 terrorists go on the stand.

It's not what it would do to his department, it's what it would do to the whole process. If you think the backlash is bad now, imagine if this guy had been declared not guilty on all counts? Politically, the only way to get any of these guys a real trial is for at least the first few to be convicted of something. Otherwise the pressure gets overwhelming and they probably get shoved back into a hole to be kangaroo courted.

But that all assumes a much more thoughtful interpretation then I think the statement warrants. It's posturing. He said it in the face of cries that they shouldn't be tried in Federal Court. His answer is essentially "We can get a conviction in a real court".

[The Progressive]

Yeah, it was like Alito at the State of the Union - completely inappropriate and uncalled for.

I didn't see it as him saying that it was a slam dunk case. I see it as him making a political statement about what this would do to his department if they failed to make a conviction.

Regardless, we'll see what happens when actual 9/11 terrorists go on the stand.

To compare this to what Alito did at the SotU is completely wayoff.

I also find it bizzare that you would characterize that as "making a political statement" by Holder, while insisting that what Gates said about the wikileaks is anything but.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But we have indeed made concessions to moderate the bill. The fact that we didn't make all the concessions demanded by the GOP is sort of a dumb argument. Of course we didn't accede to all their demands. If we had, there would be no bill at all.

Don't argue with me -- it's Frum's argument. I agree there was no reason for Democrats to make additional concessions once they had the votes for passage, nor should they have. If you have the votes, you use them.

But things like killing the public option were done to appease the Blue Dogs AND Republicans alike. It's a bit disingenuous to say that those alterations were made just for the non-Progressive contingent within the Democratic Party when these are the same demands made by some of the Republicans.

It's not disingenuous as all. Sure, one effect of dumping the public option was to get rid of something Republicans hated, but that wasn't the motive. The motive was to get Democratic votes. The goal was to get the most progressive bill possible, and still have it pass.

And again, that is all completely irrelevant to Frum's point that the bill was still a disaster even after the public option was removed.

[Shryke]

Palin: I could beat Obama in 2012

After months of coyness about whether she will run in 2012, Sarah Palin is making more explicit declarations about her political future. In an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters to air on Dec. 9, Palin was asked if she could beat President Obama if she ran for president. "I believe so," she said.

This response was followed by her more standard statement on will she or won't she run in 2012. "I'm looking at the lay of the land now, and ... trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing," Palin told Walters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023152-503544.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahaha...

*gasp*

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah...