If Guantanamo Bay isn't “American soil”, then John McCain was/is ineligible for the presidency.

Period.

Congress can kiss my entire ass.

On this, Democrats are definitely wimps.

And Harry Reid has been, is now, and forever will be, a PUNK.

As for Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats – The Dems have never had much backbone when it comes to security issues – but this is a really new low. To argue that this country which is the world's largest incarcerator can't hold a few hundred so-called terrorists – is beyond absurd. But I blame the media. Questions they should be asking but won't:

1. How does the level of security at Guantanamo Bay compare with federal super-max prisons holding domestic terrorists and drug cartel kingpins?
2. Where are the people released from Guantanamo by the Bush administration? What are they doing?
3. What about alternative approaches – rather than a blanket refusal to take any – why not individualized assessments of public safety risks to isolate the few that may pose a significant threat.
4. How can US officials criticize foreign governments for refusing to take any of the Gitmo detainees and turn around and do the same? it makes us look ridiculous and hypocritical.
5. What ever happened to the principle of American jurisprudence that one is innocent until proven guilty. Most of the folks at Gitmo are DETAINEES that means they've been accused but not found guilty of crimes.

Many have never been charged with anything and have no idea why they've been detained. Because so many have been subjected to torture and inhumane treatment, we may never be able to try them. Is it right to assume their guilt and leave them in permanent limbo because (a) we're so afraid of terrorist attacks we're willing to suspend any commitment to 'due process'; or (b)because they've been labeled 'terrorists' they are less than human in our eyes and therefore whatever we do to them to protect ourselves is justified.

We can be angry with our leaders – like Harry Reid – which I am, but they are just acting as the scared rabbits they've always been. Politicians have never been leaders in generating change and reform – especially not progressive change. They've only ever acted when the people have forced them to, this time is no different. If we want Congress to do the right thing we have to make them. Check out <li>www.hearmyvotes.com<li> where you can download an app that helps you find and contact your federal officials.

Obama's single biggest deficiency is having been in the Senate for too short a time, so he has no bag of favors owed to him.
This raises a very interesting line of discussion. Regarding Reid, I think even more to the point is the fact that Reid was already entrenched as Senate Democratic Leader long before anybody even heard of Obama. Reid is a holdover from the “W” era. And so are the senators who, as Booman suggests, pull his strings. It is more a question of these guys than of Obama.
I think there's more involved here than Obama's alleged lack of political capital and pull. That would have been an accurate reading, I think, of a president like Carter, in a very different situation. With Obama, I think it's different. We're talking about a guy who pretty much wrested the leadership of the Democratic Party away from the DLC. But nobody, not even Obama with all his capabilities, could have done that alone. Many senior party members flocked to his side because they correctly recognized that he was the future of the party and of the nation. And these folks did have pull.
The only trouble is, there weren't enough of them. There were enough to get him elected and enough to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats — and these are tremendous achievements. But there remains a faction of Democrats whose careers were built on kissing the butt of the GOP, and now that the actucal GOP has been reduced to a walking corpse, these rearguard DINOs are the the effective “axis of evil” in Congress. The best we can hope for is that in the present political climate, which is not going away soon, they can be picked off in primaries. In other words, when Obama won control of the Democratic Party by winning the nomination, that was only round one. Between the years 2004 and 2008 the Democratic party figured out that there was no future in trying to win elections by pretending to be Republicans. But there are still too many Democrats in the Senate who have NOT figured out yet. The question is, how do their constituents feel about this, and will the party back candidates who oppose them?
I don't know enogh about the present internal power relations of Democrats in the Senate to speculate whether it would be possible to wrest the position of majority leader from Reid if he does win reelection. He was not even a good minority leader under the Republicans, but under Obama he is a complete anachronism, not to mention an embarrassment and a liability. by priscianus jr on Wed May 20th, 2009 at 11:10:17 AM EST

If Guantanamo Bay isn't American soil, then John McCain was/is ineligible for the presidency.

Period.

On this, Democrats are definitely wimps.

And Harry Reid has been, is now, and forever will be a PUNK.

As for Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats – The Dems have never had much backbone when it comes to security issues – but this is a really new low. To argue that this country which is the world's largest incarcerator can't hold a few hundred so-called terrorists – is beyond absurd. But I blame the media. Questions they should be asking but won't:

1. How does the level of security at Guantanamo Bay compare with federal super-max prisons holding domestic terrorists and drug cartel kingpins?
2. Where are the people released from Guantanamo by the Bush administration? What are they doing?
3. What about alternative approaches – rather than a blanket refusal to take any – why not individualized assessments of public safety risks to isolate the few that may pose a significant threat.
4. How can US officials criticize foreign governments for refusing to take any of the Gitmo detainees and turn around and do the same? it makes us look ridiculous and hypocritical.
5. What ever happened to the principle of American jurisprudence that one is innocent until proven guilty. Most of the folks at Gitmo are DETAINEES that means they've been accused but not found guilty of crimes.

Many have never been charged with anything and have no idea why they've been detained. Because so many have been subjected to torture and inhumane treatment, we may never be able to try them. Is it right to assume their guilt and leave them in permanent limbo because (a) we're so afraid of terrorist attacks we're willing to suspend any commitment to 'due process'; or (b)because they've been labeled 'terrorists' they are less than human in our eyes and therefore whatever we do to them to protect ourselves is justified.

We can be angry with our leaders – like Harry Reid – which I am, but they are just acting as the scared rabbits they've always been. Politicians have never been leaders in generating change and reform – especially not progressive change. They've only ever acted when the people have forced them to, this time is no different. If we want Congress to do the right thing we have to make them. Check out <li>www.hearmyvotes.com<li> where you can download an app that helps you find and contact your federal officials.

Obama's single biggest deficiency is having been in the Senate for too short a time, so he has no bag of favors owed to him.
This raises a very interesting line of discussion. Regarding Reid, I think even more to the point is the fact that Reid was already entrenched as Senate Democratic Leader long before anybody even heard of Obama. Reid is a holdover from the “W” era. And so are the senators who, as Booman suggests, pull his strings. It is more a question of these guys than of Obama.
I think there's more involved here than Obama's alleged lack of political capital and pull. That would have been an accurate reading, I think, of a president like Carter, in a very different situation. With Obama, I think it's different. We're talking about a guy who pretty much wrested the leadership of the Democratic Party away from the DLC. But nobody, not even Obama with all his capabilities, could have done that alone. Many senior party members flocked to his side because they correctly recognized that he was the future of the party and of the nation. And these folks did have pull.
The only trouble is, there weren't enough of them. There were enough to get him elected and enough to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats — and these are tremendous achievements. But there remains a faction of Democrats whose careers were built on kissing the butt of the GOP, and now that the actucal GOP has been reduced to a walking corpse, these rearguard DINOs are the the effective “axis of evil” in Congress. The best we can hope for is that in the present political climate, which is not going away soon, they can be picked off in primaries. In other words, when Obama won control of the Democratic Party by winning the nomination, that was only round one. Between the years 2004 and 2008 the Democratic party figured out that there was no future in trying to win elections by pretending to be Republicans. But there are still too many Democrats in the Senate who have NOT figured out yet. The question is, how do their constituents feel about this, and will the party back candidates who oppose them?
I don't know enogh about the present internal power relations of Democrats in the Senate to speculate whether it would be possible to wrest the position of majority leader from Reid if he does win reelection. He was not even a good minority leader under the Republicans, but under Obama he is a complete anachronism, not to mention an embarrassment and a liability. by priscianus jr on Wed May 20th, 2009 at 11:10:17 AM EST

Reid Spokesperson Signals Wiggle Room On Guantanamo
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/afte…

A spokesperson for Harry Reid is signaling some wiggle room on the issue of Guantanamo Bay, opening the door for Reid to possibly support the imprisoning of detainees in America once Obama produces a plan, despite appearing to rule that out yesterday.

Reid’s spokesperson emails that Reid actually opposes the transfer to America “at this time,” adding that when the White House produces a plan, he will “evaluate it carefully and make a judgment at that time.”

Reid made big news yesterday at a press conference yesterday when he appeared to say he could never support the detention of Guantanamo inmates anywhere in America. “You can’t put them in prison unless you release them,” he said. “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.”

Reid’s office later said he hadn’t meant to say that…

It's ironic isn't that it the Dems, not the Repubs who might give Democratic President B H Obama his first major legislative defeat.

GOP to Dems: “Great job Guys!!!”