Bush Vindicated

So says The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama, for his part, still wants Gitmo closed, and he cited South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham in saying that the idea that the detainees could not be securely held in the U.S. was “not rational.” Apparently also irrational is FBI Director Robert Mueller, who this week told Congress that bringing the detainees even to U.S. prisons raised serious concerns, “from providing financing, radicalizing others, [to] the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States.”

Yet for all of his attacks on the Bush Administration, which he accused of making “decisions based upon fear rather than foresight,” Mr. Obama stuck with his predecessor’s support for military commissions, adding some procedural bells and whistles as political cover to justify his past opposition. For the record: Both the left and right, from the ACLU to Dick Cheney, now agree that the President has all but embraced the Bush policy.

But if Obama does close Gitmo, you may already be a winner! Check here to see if your state could become the storage location for detainees.

This entry was posted in Politics, War. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Bush Vindicated

  1. ben acton says:

    The assurance that “no prisoner has ever escaped from [a supermax prison]” pretends that prisoners in the US may not be freed through access to US courts with the assistance of anti-American lawyers and judges.

  2. martian says:

    FLIP-FLOP! I have seen this one coming for a couple of weeks now. Sooner or later the Chosen One is going to have to admit that promising to close Gitmo was a stupid idea and he will decide that it must stay open – for the good od the American people. He will still try to blame Bush by claiming that it wouldn’t be a problem if Bush hadn’t opened Gitmo in the first place. What he will leave completely unspecified is what Bush should have done INSTEAD. Why? Because he has no real answers, just naive idealistic notions of what’s ‘right’ that have no bearing on the real world.

    I wish I had kept count on the number of flip-flops the Obamessiah has made in regard to Bush policies since he got in office. There have been a number of them. What IS certain is what the WSJ pointed out – every time he does flip-flop on an issue he vindicates another Bush policy – while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that he’s doing so and claiming that his policies are better than Bush’s because of the cosmetics he has applied to them. Why is the public still buying this load of crap? Why are his personal poll ratings still so high? I am at a loss to explain it. Virtually every week he has had to admit he was wrong on something and yet nobody notices. What is wrong with my fellow Americans?

  3. nabi says:

    What’s is more amazing, is that President Bush is sitting in Texas and not saying a word. Each time Obama slams him and his administration, Bush says nothing.

    I find that an amazing character trait in President Bush. But then, maybe he sees it as Obama is hanging himself and all He (Bush) needs to do is continue to feed the rope…smiling as he feeds more and more and more…..

  4. Reagan Democrat says:

    Bush is quiet because he acted in the best interests of the Nation, not politics or his personal popularity, with every decision. He was villified by those who have now dissembled into incoherency in the face of governing. And he won’t gloat, because he wasnt doing it for the popularity like the current President.

    I wonder if you listed the reasons the Daily Kos and Huffpost readers dogmatically state that Bush was the “worst President ever” what would be on the list — detention of the most dangerous terrorists? warrantless surveillance? massive government spending? a military surge of more troops into a theatre being described as a “quagmire”? hmmm….sounds familiar.

    History determines legacy and President Bush’s legacy is improving with each and every day of the Obama administration.

  5. David Obst says:

    Do you think that if the terrorists in Gitmo are transfered to a prison in the US, they could sue because they would be getting worse treatment here than there.