Comments on: Obama Won’t Label Terrorists As ‘Enemy’

By: Barbie

Barbie — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:49:58 +0000

A rose by any other name is still a rose, and an enemy combatant by any other name is still a (insert new name here) – they’re still stuck down in gitmo and Obama’s policy is no different from Bush’s policy.

And IMO if Bush’s policy has been sticky, wait until Obama starts to prove or disprove ‘substantial support’.

By: cjokry

cjokry — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:18:05 +0000

I think brad and lipstick are both correct here. We have a system in place to deal with criminals of all kinds, even war criminals, terrorists, whatever you call these guys now that you don’t call them “enemy combatants” (“smurfs”, someone said.) They should be processed and prosecuted. Apparently, Mr. Obama is too busy setting all of our money on fire and throwing it in a great big bottomless hole to get around to that, so he’ll just do the same thing Bush did while claiming it’s doing something different cuz he calls it something different.

This Gitmo thing was a huge sticking point of the liberals, one of the major reasons they all gave for hating the crap out of Bush. If Obama can’t even do the right thing when it’s totally to his political advantage, what hope do we have he’ll ever do anything right?

By: Lipstick on a PIAPS

Lipstick on a PIAPS — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:06:46 +0000

It is wrong to hold these Terrorist. They need to be shot right away and get it over with and we can close Gitmo and save money. I guess even a broken clock like Obama is right two times a day. LMAO

By: Liberals Demise

Liberals Demise — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:25:02 +0000

I suggest that before any are brought here to the States, they be lobotomized. That’s right, turn them into foot shuffling zombies that mess in their sheets!!
Problem solved and a smile put on LDs’ face forever!!

By: canary

canary — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:15:47 +0000

Their countries are refusing to take them back. I’d think we should send them to their countries, before we bring them to this country. But, bascially, the ones being kept are so violent now, they can’t be released. The ones still imprisoned keep saying they will kill the minute they are released. It’s more of an insane asylum. They have this problem even in prisons in this country. There are certain prisoners that are max security, because they are killing machines.

By: canary

canary — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:07:19 +0000

The Obama’s and Ayers worked on lienecty of criminals. Obama’s has forgiven all his team for not paying taxes, and doesn’t call for any punishment, but reward for bad behavior. Now he wants to the worst Muslim terrorists, whose own countries are to fearful to take back, to not to go free, but come to this country and sue us.

By: brad

brad — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:12:00 +0000

Any way you slice it, it is wrong to hold people forever without charges. Either present your evidence, or let them out. I don’t like it either, but it is an example of a lazy and oppressive gov’t that can’t even make up a good excuse to keep these guys in prison. They may be scumbags, but you have to prove it, and do something about it.

It just seems so antiquated to lock someone in a bell tower without charges, just because you are pissed off at them.

By: joeblough

joeblough — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:17:56 +0000

Steve Gilbert nailed it.

For why should Mr. Obama or his ilk consider the bravos detained in Guantanamo as “enemies”?

These terrorists were simply seeking ‘social justice.’ And they were going about it in the best way they could given their difficult circumstances.

Indeed.

B.O.’s sophomoric Frantz Fanon understanding of the world is going to create hell.

By: canary

canary — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 06:41:27 +0000

Don’t forget. The Obamas and homegrown bomb terrorist Ayers campaigned for criminal lienency.
Damaging photos
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....review.jpg
http://exposingliberallies.blo.....speak.html

By: 12 Gauge Rage

12 Gauge Rage — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:56:53 +0000

These people are terrorists plain and simple. Technically they do not have the protection of the Geneva Convention nor the personal liberties afforded to the American citizen such as Habeas Corpus. Obama and his cabal can change the names they give to these murderers but it won’t change their true inner nature.

By: Jason Gillman

Jason Gillman — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:56:54 +0000

I hate to have to point this out. This is not a departure from what the outgoing administration was going to /had done.

I was talking to Pete Hoekstra at a breakfast in Traverse City in 2007, and he mentioned even then he was disappointed with the Bush administration’s decision to stop using terms which were considered NON PC..

Pete was rightly indignant..

By: Barbie

Barbie — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:16:14 +0000

I am curious about the ‘substantial support’ which the administration did NOT define leaving yet one more open-ended term subject to personal definition. Obama wants to keep his options open. This is just a shell game using words in order to convince Obamabots that Odumbo has accomplished something. This guy is scary – he twists things to make them appear different – when they’re the same.. What’s he going to call them now – smurfs?? Because the smurfs are still in Gitmo and Odumbo is saying he still has power to keep the smurfs there. Just like GW did. Except GW didn’t play games – at least not with Gitmo. Odumbo is trying to distance himself by slamming GW, but Odumbo’s not changed much except a name.

By: TwilightZoned

TwilightZoned — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:22:49 +0000

Here are the definitions:

enemy
One entry found.

Main Entry:
en·e·my Listen to the pronunciation of enemy
Pronunciation:
\ˈe-nə-mē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural en·e·mies
Etymology:
Middle English enemi, from Anglo-French, from Latin inimicus, from in- 1in- + amicus friend — more at amiable
Date:
13th century

1: one that is antagonistic to another ; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2: something harmful or deadly
3 a: a military adversary b: a hostile unit or force

I believe O would fit definition #1 with what’s he’s doing to Americans & #2 with his cigarette addiction. Someone please forward him definition #3 since he has no clue there are three.

By: sheehanjihad

sheehanjihad — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:37:37 +0000

It’s unfortunate….really unfortunate that this administration, in it’s attempts to appease the PC vocal minority, are going to be totally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American Citizens. This is just the tip of Obama’s doormat appeasement policy. This clueless idiot is going to get a lot of people killed. And for what? So some douchebag pundit doesnt get offended? I have to go sit outside for a while…..and ponder what the horizon will look like with two suns rising at the same time…..

By: LewWaters

LewWaters — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:56:57 +0000

To Obama and the Democrats, the ‘real’ enemy is fellow Americans that are Republican and conservative, not radical Jihadists that wish to destroy America and murder its inhabitants.

By: proreason

proreason — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:46:12 +0000

You have to wonder where The Moron’s true loyalties lie.

What has he done in 50+ days to help OUR country?