02 May 13
Originally posted by moon1969Did you not read my OP? The democratically controlled congress nullified Obama's executive order to close Guantanamo Prison. Keeping Guantanamo prison open was a bipartisan effort.
A veto would not work here.
The best thing for us to do is to vote Democrat and not Republican. More Democrats elected and less Republicans elected will increase the chance that Guantanamo is closed.
A veto would have worked. All Obama had to do is call for a bill with separate issues instead of a clusterfrack that gives him a piss poor excuse to keep Guantanamo prison open. This whole "he had to accept the bill" logic is is nonsense. It doesn't pass the smell test.
02 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe fact that you keep saying something that is wrong repeatedly does not cure it of its error. An Obama veto of an entire Defense Authorization bill merely because of one provision in it (which passed by veto proof majorities) would have been futile and politically foolish.
He should have vetoed it and asked for a bill with only defense funding. I have been speaking out against these cluttered bills for a long time now. This is just another poor excuse for doing the wrong thing.
Obama never really wanted what he said he wanted.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34788.htm
02 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainYes it was a bipartisan effort. Blaming it on Obama is absurd:
Did you not read my OP? The democratically controlled congress nullified Obama's executive order to close Guantanamo Prison. Keeping Guantanamo prison open was a bipartisan effort.
A veto would have worked. All Obama had to do is call for a bill with separate issues instead of a clusterfrack that gives him a piss poor excuse to keep Guantanamo prison o ...[text shortened]... This whole "he had to accept the bill" logic is is nonsense. It doesn't pass the smell test.
On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
How would a veto of the entire Defense Authorization bill '"have worked" given this political reality? The President can "call" on Congress to do whatever he pleases but they don't have to pay any attention to him.
- Joined
- 22 Jun 05
- Moves
- 19922
03 May 13
I am not an American either but I do believe in innocent until proven guilty and would be very annoyed if I had voted for Obama on the basis of his promise to close Guantanamo.
There are presently 70 people on hunger strike over their continued detention and some of them are being force fed. That is cruel.
03 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainA veto would never work. Congress would never give the President a specific bill that he could veto. You have no idea how the system works. The veto is not like a silver bullet that gives the President awesome power. Congress has a lot of power. They also have the power of the purse, and can punish the President and us in so many ways. It does not make sense for the President to lose more than we gain by a veto. Get a clue. It is called the practical political system.
Did you not read my OP? The democratically controlled congress nullified Obama's executive order to close Guantanamo Prison. Keeping Guantanamo prison open was a bipartisan effort.
A veto would have worked. All Obama had to do is call for a bill with separate issues instead of a clusterfrack that gives him a piss poor excuse to keep Guantanamo prison o ...[text shortened]... This whole "he had to accept the bill" logic is is nonsense. It doesn't pass the smell test.
And no matter what happened in 2009, you do agree that electing more Democrats than Republicans increases the odds that Congress will agree to close Guantanamo.
03 May 13
Originally posted by no1marauderIf congress had a veto proof majority why didn't you say so before? I asked that question earlier as you well know.
The fact that you keep saying something that is wrong repeatedly does not cure it of its error. An Obama veto of an entire Defense Authorization bill merely because of one provision in it (which passed by veto proof majorities) would have been futile and politically foolish.
03 May 13
Originally posted by moon1969According to no1marauder the senate had a 90 to 6 vote to stop Obama. If he is right voting democrat would not change anything, so I would be foolish to agree with you.
A veto would never work. Congress would never give the President a specific bill that he could veto. You have no idea how the system works. The veto is not like a silver bullet that gives the President awesome power. Congress has a lot of power. They also have the power of the purse, and can punish the President and us in so many ways. It does not mak ...[text shortened]... more Democrats than Republicans increases the odds that Congress will agree to close Guantanamo.
03 May 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou have no idea the basis and meaning of that 90-6 vote of a massive appropriations bill.
According to no1marauder the senate had a 90 to 6 vote to stop Obama. If he is right voting democrat would not change anything, so I would be foolish to agree with you.
By the way, how many US Senators are going to hurt the military or robbed their constituents of a hometown defense contract to close Guantanamo.
The point remains is that you are an idiot if you do not understand that congressional Democrats are more likely to vote to close Guantanamo than are congressional Republicans.
03 May 13
Originally posted by moon1969The vote was on the amendment, not the entire appropriations bill.
You have no idea the basis and meaning of that 90-6 vote of a massive appropriations bill.
By the way, how many US Senators are going to hurt the military or robbed their constituents of a hometown defense contract to close Guantanamo.
The point remains is that you are an idiot if you do not understand that congressional Democrats are more likely to vote to close Guantanamo than are congressional Republicans.