411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 118 - Gitmo Shut Down, Obama and the Bailout, Palin in 2012, More

Posted by Brandon Crow on 02.04.2009

Can Gitmo be shut down within the year? Does the country trust Obama with the bailout more than they did Bush? Is Sarah Palin eying a run in 2012 with the creation of her SarahPAC? Is it surprising that the majority of Americans don't believe Bush committed any crimes?

Welcome to Week 118 of Politics Fact or Fiction. Sorry for this being late, but I've been spending a lot of time planning and preparing for my dad's 80th birthday party this weekend. This week, we have Sheryl Cordova, who is back for her third time with us. She was the first woman to participate in F or F, and her last appearance was against Chris Connolly, the week after the Republican National Convention. Some of you may remember that one.

Also, please welcome first time participant John Galbraith. John is a frequent comment poster n the zone. Many of you will recall that John and I had some pretty open, heated disagreements in the comments section a while back, but we've hashed all that stuff out. Most times, we just agree to disagree. Thanks to John for participating.

Now, let's get to it!

Ding! Ding!

1. On his second day at work, President Obama signed an executive order to close down Guantanamo in one year. This closure simply won't happen.

Sheryl Cordova: FICTION. Although, technically, it depends on what you mean by "this closure." Do you mean the overall shut down of Guantanamo as a US gulag, or do you mean closing up shop completely within a year?

If the former, then I think it's FICTION because Obama will see to it that Gitmo, as it was run and how it functioned under Bush, is absolutely, unequivocally dismantled. Obama has already shown that he is making sharp departures from all of the narrow-minded, idiotic and failing policies advocated with sheer stubbornness under Bush. Besides, Obama knows and understands what Gitmo represents to the world; it is the Abu Ghraib of the western hemisphere. It makes the US look every bit like the low-life punks and deranged dictators we keep saying we're saving the world from. The clear irony that we ousted Saddahm Hussein because of his torturing of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib only to turn around and use that same facility to do the same work should not be lost on anyone.

Now, if you meant that Gitmo will be completely done within the year, like by December 31 2009, then that might be a little tougher. Let's face it, there are some very practical matters that need to be sorted out before Gitmo can be closed down once and for all. Though I personally disagree maximally with Bush's crazy vision that everyone is out to get us so therefore we need to imprison everyone who even smells like a threat, the fact of the matter is Gitmo now exists with loads of people in there.

Some of them are good people, ordinary citizens who were mistakenly swept up with the dragnet some seven years ago. Some of them are terrorists. And, let's face it, some of them may have been good people but are now so pissed off at the mistreatment at the hands of the US under Bush that they're just waiting to get out and become a terrorist against the great "Satan of America."

We do need to close down Gitmo; but we need to do it judiciously.

John Galbraith: FACT. Closing down Guantanamo is going to be a logistical nightmare. There is little chance that the government is going to either give these terrorists trials or find them a new home before December. What's the biggest problem? Nobody else wants them. No one, not the countries they came from, not any of the super max prisons in the US. Maybe we can put them in Sheryl's back yard. Give your Congressmen a call and suggest it; they will laugh at you.

Most of these people are vermin caught on the battlefield fighting against our brave military. They are not "good people." If this were the case then why have 61 of these terrorists been caught a second time?
I find it funny Sheryl thinks the sole reason we ousted Sadam was because of his operation at Abu Ghraib. The reason made for going to war, rightly or wrongly, was because Hussein did not abide by the surrender terms from the first gulf war or the other 17 U.N. resolutions calling for him to jettison his weapons of mass destruction plan. I bet the dead 10,000 Kurds wished he had.

Finally, this government can't even hand out converter boxes for TVs but they are going to close down Gitmo in 11 months and do it judiciously? Good luck with that. This won't be solved until right before the mid term elections, that way Obama and the Democrats can score more political points, lauding it as some huge success.

0 for 1. And John comes out punching!

2. Most of the country seemed against the 700 billion dollar bailout begun under Bush. Now, it seems Obama is asking for billions more in bailout money. Regardless of what this sounds like, you trust Obama (and his administration) more than you did Bush & Co. with this strategy and this money.

Sheryl Cordova: FACT. I know that this may not be the most popular answer right now, but let's face it, the bailout is necessary to save millions of jobs and to prevent millions of good people, hard working blue-collar folks from having to pay for the unmitigated greed of Wall Street CEOs and other executives.

The main reason I was skeptical about the bailout under Bush was because his administration had proven again and again to be in the pockets of wealthy corporations. To hand them that much money would be like handing the herd of sheep over to the wolves.

Though I'm not thrilled that tax payer money will be spent to keep companies run aground by corrupt leaders alive and functioning, I do trust President Obama and his administration a whole lot more than I did Bush & Co. to put it to proper use, to exercise real, tangible oversight, and perhaps most importantly, in case CEOs still decide to buy $50 million private jets or redecorate their own private office with $100,000 rugs, I trust Obama and his administration to go after these guys. In fact, President Obama has already started down this path by publicly condemning CEO payouts and bonuses. The next step, is to haul these people in front of Congress of the Justice Department.

Bush & Co. would just sit on the sidelines, and let's face it, possibly…just possibly, pat these CEOs on the back behind the scenes.

John Galbraith: FICTION. Surely everyone has seen the large laundry list of pork in this "stimulus" bill so I won't bore people with a huge list of the waste. I just wonder how an $819 billion bill aimed mostly at left wing special interest groups is going to make me trust Obama's administration any more than I did Bush.
Several reports say that only 7% of the money will make to infrastructure improvements before the end of the year, 38% before 2010. Even President Obama has backed off the 3 million new jobs claim; he now states it will create or "save" 3 million. That's what $274,000 per job? Is that a good investment? No. Now if you're a ACORN member with herpes it's great. I just don't think the rest of us are being served well with spending close to 6% of the GNP on this bill.

President Obama has chosen to go after the corporate big wigs instead of looking at the vast amount of waste in this bill. Fine, that's a good thing, no one wants to see fat cats waste the taxpayers' money on frivolous things. What are we talking about though, $18 billion of bonus money handed out while he downplays several billion of lame big government spending in his "rescue" plan. That bonus money equals .02 % of his stimulus bill.

Finally, if Obama is so concerned about big payouts to CEOs then why did he have Franklin Raines as one of his advisors? Maybe Sheryl thinks Raines making 90 million over 5 years with Fannie Mae was fair compensation.

0 or 2.

Switch!

3. Sarah Palin has set up SarahPAC to help raise money. Her site claims the money will help rebuild the Republican Party, but really, this is the beginning of her 2012 presidential run.

John Galbraith: FACT. Let's face it: Sarah Palin is the most popular Republican out there. With the Republicans completely out of power, they are more likely to support an anti-government, anti-D.C. establishment candidate. Palin benefits from the fact while she has experience on the national stage, she is still considered an outsider. When it comes to raising money, she has 465,000 supporters on Facebook, the mainstream media hates her, and she has executive experience, all positives from the right.

The oil lobby will surely spend a fortune supporting her (they are scared of Obama's green energy initiatives). That, and the fact that she can claim the victim card from the 2008 election when it comes to the swine that attacked her, she will most definitely have the most support from the right.

Lastly, who else are the Republicans going to run? Romney and Huckabee can't beat Obama. Jindal is young and has expressed no interest in running yet. If they run another Dole or McCain, they will lose 40 states. By then, Palin hopefully will be more polished. Besides, who wouldn't want to see a Obama vs. Palin debate?
Sheryl Cordova: FACT. Yes, SarahPAC certainly indicates that Palin is eyeing 2012. But then again, does this surprise anyone? The old pageant queen got a sniff of national spotlight and now she can't get enough. She thinks she's God's gift to the Republican Party. Personally, as a Democrat, I'd love for Sarah to get the nod in 2012. That would just ensure four more years for Obama.

As far as John's question of who wouldn't want to see an Obama/Palin debate…um, ME! And about 72 million other Americans. What's the point of even holding a "debate" with Palin if she won't even adhere to or address the questions asked of her? Can any of you imagine, as an example, the immigration asks you a naturalization question like who's the first president of the United States and you pull a Palin? I can see it now: "Um, ya know, guys and gals, I'm not gonna talk about that; instead, let me tell you who the last president was. It was W. You betcha!" Wink, wink.

2 for 3. I guess everyone smells what Sarah is cooking.

4. Recently, a Rasmussen Poll asked if Bush and senior officials are guilty of committing war crimes. 54% said no, 25% said yes, and 21% said not sure. You are surprised by these figures.

John Galbraith: FICTION. Crow, you left out that in the same poll, 70% said it would be a bad for the U.S. to bring charges against President Bush. 53 % of Democrats agree with that opinion. Look, only 19% of people polled thought Bush should be brought up on war crimes. These people are the Keith Olberrmann faction of the left wing of America. These are people suffering from Bush derangement syndrome. They are pathetic, lost souls looking for another crack hit to get them through the fact that the boogeyman is no longer available for their angst.

Do you want me to feel sorry for Khalid Shiekh Muhammad for having some water up his nose? It's not going to happen. American lives were saved. So what if this a-hole was uncomfortable for a while? Ask Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg if water up their nose was a better option than getting their heads chopped off. We are at war people (at least some of us are). If you really think it's politically smart to bring the former president up on charges, then you are truly lost.

Sheryl Cordova: FACTION. Sorry, Crow, my brother. I know this response just messed up your count. But I am truly divided on this. Am I surprised that most Americans did not feel Bush is guilty of war crimes? Yes. That really surprises me. But then again, most Americans don't like to be bothered with the facts or with something called reading.

I won't bother you with all the details of it, but even a cursory skimming of Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" maps out a pretty tight, convincing case against Bush. And this is Bugliosi, a former prosecutor blueprinting Bush's atrocities, not just some "crazy, Bush-deranged liberal scum bag" like John likes to lump anyone who disagrees with him into. Bugliosi's strongest point is a speech on October 7, 2002 claiming that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States and was capable of attacking America at any time with his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

This rouse has been proven wrong again and again, on so many levels by so many different people that anyone who still believes it is, according to John's words, "truly lost." Even Scott McClellan, former Bush press secretary has bluntly acknowledged this point in his book. McClellan says that Bush's "permanent campaign for the war" blatantly conflated vague evidence of two chemical trucks with the "mushroom cloud" of a nuclear bomb.

Unless of course, John wants to reach for his quick and mindless attack tactic of labeling McClellan a "lost little liberal looking for a boogeyman in the Keith Olbermann part of the left wing of the Democratic party."
Plain and simple, Bush & Co. lied us into a war. Anyone who clings blindly to "Iraq had weapons" is an idiot. If there were weapons, they would have been found by now. And guess what? No weapons.

Now, if pressed, am I really, REALLY surprised that most Americans don't want to see Bush brought to trial? Not really. I mean, regardless of what anyone thought of Bush, as an American, it's kind of unsavory to have your own [former] president dragged into court, paraded on global television, and tried, regardless of the result.

On that note though, that personal distaste for seeing one's former president tried is no reason not to pursue a war crimes trial if evidence actually point to some war crimes. I'll bet that if we polled the citizens of Yugoslavia right before the trials of Slobodan Milosevic, we'd find quite a high percentage who, out of distaste for such a shame to their nation, would have responded with a "no, let's not try him; there were no war crimes here."

In fact, poll any group of people from any country in history, and you'll get similar responses from Hitler's Germans, to Stalin's Russians, to Mussolini's Italians, and Mao's Chinese. Hell, even Saddam's Iraqis. The lack of desire to see any shame befall your own country is not at all surprising.

And before I go, I just want to say, Jesus, John, what's with the Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg references? Did Khalid Sheik Muhammad personally behead these guys? Using your weird notion of "logic," I could effectively water board you because, you know, Ted Bundy once hurt some women. When you have to reach for tattered and hyperbolized comparisons, that's a big flashing red light that your argument has fallen apart on you.

2 for 4. Last one had to be thrown out...DAMN YOU, SHERYL!!! Definitely two different taks this week.

Thanks to Sheryl and John for participating this week. See you all next time.