It's just another example of reality impinging on the unicorn world of the progressive nut cases Obama panders to. Every time he yields to their demands he damages his reputation and threatens the security or prosperity of the nation.

Reality bites.

Hmmm. It's almost as if NIMBY was a big part of the reason BushCo put them at GITMO in the first place...

In a way this makes sense, because there has been no set plan on where to move the detainees. I would want to know where they are going first, before funding a move. I would also want a better clue as to whom is actually being detained, and their background.

I have some doubts, though. If Obama is not releasing the torture photos, in an effort to protect American soldiers, why go ahead with a prisoner release in January 2010 without any set provisions? There seems to be a pattern here.

What's this? The dems want a plan before they'll approve funding?
Well, that's something we haven't seen before.

Move all the dem politicians there and let them pay their own way for once.

Wow! Maybe Bush got something right....not that any Dems will ever admit it.

Good move. Obama,by trying to impress the extreme left issued an executive order with no real plan or thought. Pretty stupid for a supposedly intelligient thoughtful man. ww

@WildWillie - Wow, you ARE here and posting! I thought maybe you'd gotten tied up and busy in the real world. Otherwise, you'd certainly have carried through on my request in the Hitler thread to provide a single example of MSM comparing Bush to Hitler.

Surely you didn't forget about that thread, did you?

@Hank said: "What's this? The dems want a plan before they'll approve funding?
Well, that's something we haven't seen before."

Hell, it's not just Dems, it's Congress!

Personally, I think this is a good decision and one I'm glad that was made. And yes, I'm a huge supporter of shutting down Guantanamo ASAP.

I was glad to see the folks in MN talking about bringing 100 detainees to their SuperMax, so hopefully the Admin can put a solid plan together sooner than later. THEN funding can be granted vs. the other way around like a WH and a Congress tend to do.

@LaMedusa said: "I would also want a better clue as to whom is actually being detained, and their background."

Exactly. Before we start shipping anyone off to other prisons, I'd sure like to put them through at least some due process.

@LaMedusa said: "...why go ahead with a prisoner release in January 2010 without any set provisions"

To be clear, the Jan 2010 date is for *moving* not *releasing*, necessarily the prisoners in Guantanamo. VERY big difference.

Jake, stop being an as*hole and remedial. Just because I used the wrong word in your mind, doesn't mean you need to instruct the class and correct me. Leave that to whatever "field" you specialize in. Sales? Crowd kumbaya? Who cares. BTW, with their transfer pretty much determined in Jan 2010, how can you be certain some won't be released? You can't.

"Hell, it's not just Dems, it's Congress!"

Hell, it's the Democratic congress! It's in the title! They are Democrats!

Jake, do you go around correcting and educating everyone in your circle of friends, or have you driven them away?

@LaMedusa -- two things: First, my apologies that my humor about Congress didn't through via text. I was just saying that generally, Congresspeople of all stripes don't tend to think before they put the stamp of approval on handing out money. Hell, I thought that was the entire concept of the Tea parties, no? Anyway, trying to make light, sorry it didn't translate.

To your second point that releasing prisoners and moving them from one prison to another is somehow a matter of semantics. Are you kidding me? You're honestly trying to make the case that "release" and "move" are basically the same thing?

They're not, and not by a long shot. Release means they're free to walk the streets. If they're moved from one prison to another they're in custody, unable to leave the facility they're placed in. How can you possibly think they are the same thing?

This is not some silly "remedial" issue, since many of the Americans who are against closing Guantanamo incorrectly believe, as your response supports, that terrorists are going to be *released* into the country, free to do as they please.

But I'd be curious to hear why you think my raising a valid, important distinction that you incorrectly stated is somehow "remedial"?

As far as releases, perhaps. Due process sometimes releases people. Sometimes they're innocent, sometimes we just don't have the evidence against them. That's the justice system at work, and part of that "freedom" thing we're all fighting so hard to maintain.

But the point is valid that until we know the full plan, including transfers, releases, and due process, hold the money. I completely agree on that point.

Jake I answered your request in the thread you spoke of. LaMadusa is corrent. You tend to be juvenile in your comments.

Also, anyone who thinks the MSM did not say or imply Hitler like tactics were being carried out by GW loses much credibility with me. ww

So I agree with the the blogger of this post and LeMedusa and I'm an a$$h0le and juvenile? WTF?

Willie, you absolutely DID NOT answer my question. I asked a specific example, your "example" was: "MSNBC Keith Oberman. Chris Matthews. etc.". That's not an example, that's nothing more than a general, sweeping statement. You say that I lose credibility with you for not blindly believing things existed that you refuse to point to or source? Uh...OK. I'll just assume you're making it up until you can prove otherwise since you refuse to do so.

This is not some silly "remedial" issue, since many of the Americans who are against closing Guantanamo incorrectly believe, as your response supports, that terrorists are going to be *released* into the country, free to do as they please.

Knock it off, Jake. The "remedial" issue is when you swoop in and give your "much better" take on how things are and tell three commenters in a thread "how it really is". My point is, you don't need to correct everyone in a comment thread, or even a few. Make your point about the post. If you want to have a discussion, I can do that, but the commenters here don't need you to "say something better" for them. I obviously wasn't saying that "released" was correct when I first said it, but the question now still stands. How do you know for sure some detainees won't be released, maybe, because of lack of evidence. We still don't have those photos, and there has not been a determined date as to when we will.

Jake,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/05/20040105-114507-1007r/

Just a couple out of:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,100,000 for bush and hitler are the same. (0.23 seconds)

Maggie, thanks. I really didn't care to provide specifics. I am just amazed that he doesn't know. Seems almost impossible. ww

You can also "release" a prisoner into someone else's custody. Another countries custody,civilian custody,moms custody,what ever works. At least that was my take on what LaMadusa was saying. Maybe I should have read more into it.

You're right, Rich. You read it correctly. Prisoners do have to be released into custody before they can be relocated, but I should have said transferred to clarify.

@LaMedusa - So basically I'm not allowed to have discussion, I'm supposed to respond to the original blog post and then get out? Gee, thanks. Personally, I thought that this blog was very much about discussion, since we've all bantered back and forth in the comments. Clearly I mistook that bantering for welcomed debate. Even when I agree with you.

As far as as semantic discussion we now seem to be having... if you actually meant "release into other custody" vs. simply "release", then my apologies. Text isn't always the best medium to understand such things, especially when the context includes ongoing discussion and fear that Gitmo prisoners would simply be set loose (aka released) into the country.

@Maggie & Willie: I don't disagree that Bush=Hitler comparisons have been made many, many times. The issue at hand, however, is the fact that Willie boldly claimed that Bush=Hitler references had been made in the mainstream media. I mentioned that I'd not seen those in *MSM* and asked for at least ONE example.

@Maggie, you point to one article that talks about ads from advocacy groups making such connections. Not MSM. (And deplorable, IMHO)

Then also point to an article talking about the connections GWB's grandfather had to Nazi businessmen during WWII. While MSM, not the topic that Bush=Hitler. Even if you believe the facts the Guardian outlines are false, the story still doesn't deal with the issue that Willie refuses to provide proof of: That MSNBC, Olbermann, or Matthews called/showed references using Hitler=Bush or Bush=Hitler.

Again, I'm not saying that Bush=Hitler references weren't made by those folks, I'm saying that I never saw any and that I can't find any by MSM (!!) sources. If they're so overwhelming, You'd figure that a googling of "MSNBC hitler bush" would find tons of results of this direct connection, as Willie claims are so overwhelming.

I thought that this blog was very much about discussion, since we've all bantered back and forth in the comments.

Discussion doesn't mean critiquing other comments, Jake. It means interacting with a point of view. I already said, "If you want to have a discussion, I can do that..." Which means you are selectively reading my comments, and using only parts of them to support your argument.

Clearly I mistook that bantering for welcomed debate. Even when I agree with you.

Jake, your first comment to Willie, saying he didn't answer you, and "Wow, you arehere, and posting!" already set the tone for your need to be "answered". Bantering, as you call it, doesn't come with a report card on which commenter quickest to get "caught" by you at something. If you are not sure what someone is saying, then ask. Maybe you are just used to being in charge of whatever situation you are in, but this is not the environment to be expressing it.

jake - "Otherwise, you'd certainly have carried through on my request in the Hitler thread to provide a single example of MSM comparing Bush to Hitler."

You've already been given a couple examples although I don't really agree the second one fits the criteria.

Have you forgotten Susan Roesgen? She was quick to play uber-partisan at a Tea Party but didn't raise a whisper (Jan, '06) in condemnation over someone wearing a Bush "head" complete with Hitler mustache and Satan devil horns.

The now unemployed (thank goodness for small favors) Ted Rall had many "Bush as Hitler" cartoons published (Via the Universal Press Syndicate) in MSM outlets.

Jake, also:

One of the most important works of history of our time. The New York Times

http://www.ballot.com/hotwire/1307-adolph-hitler-vs-george-w-bush.html

jake... for the sake of fairness Ted Rall was'is an equal opportunity slanderer.

Here he has compared President Obama to a chimp gunned down by police. He called the cartoon a "misfire." (more like a mis-fire, or lack of brain synapses)

In short, he's a despicable little turd.

Jake,
I see why WW didn't make any effort to supply
links. Nothing apparently is good enough for you.
Thanks a bunch, next time you can find your own,
or do without.
Moving goalposts, again.

Maggie, that is exactly correct. Except for Paul Hooson and a very few others liberals, the rest are just detractors,bomb throwing juveniles that always want something proved even though we all know it has been. Moving the goal posts is right on target.(no pun intended) I have had my dust ups with Paul Hooson,but at least he is kind and respectful with thoughtful debate. ww

@maggie - Certainly things are good enough for me. I asked for something specific, and you gave me not what I asked for. Willie gave me names, not examples. How am I "moving goalposts" when I say "please provide an example of X" and you give me "Y" and Willie screams "MSNBC!"?

@LaMedusa - was that a published article? I'm not understanding the context within ballot.com (Don't know that site) Not being obtuse, just honestly don't know if that article was from the NYT or not. I'm also not sure how that's an example of "Bush=Hitler". The whole thing is about Bush NOT = Hitler.

@marc - thanks for the pointer. I heard about the chimp cartoon, but didn't know that was Ted Rall. Although the chimp cartoon wasn't a Bush=Hitler reference. As far as Susan Roesgen - I know the Tea Party incident (and I'd love to see her lose her job over that...she's clearly unqualified and stupid), but while there's certainly some hypocrisy in her not making a bigger deal about the George Bush mask guy in '06 she didn't MAKE the reference. She simply allowed it to be filmed and go without comment. Perhaps that's tacit support, but it's certainly not an example of what Willie was talking about.

Again, I'm not moving the goal posts, as maggie claims. I'm still looking for the same thing I always have been looking for: ONE example of MSM making an out and out reference to Bush being/equating to/looking like Hitler. Not reference to documented business dealings of this grandfather, not advocacy groups, and not articles that talk about how Bush was *unlike* Hitler. I'm looking for something that looks like this:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/05/16/great-dictator-roundup.php

Only coming from the level of "MSNBC, Olbermann, Matthews", as Willie claims there is a wealth of.

This conversation all stemmed from the fact that a Wizbang blogger posted a blog post with Obama pasted over a Nazi uniformed body. I said that the use of Hitler belittles the vileness of Hitler. Willie claimed that MSM such as those talking heads on MSNBC made such comparisons so regularly as not to require discussion.

Yet, nobody seems to be able to provide proof of that claim.... the claim that MSM figures made or showed Bush=Hitler imagery.

Willie, am I misunderstanding your claim?

D'oh! I said an example of imagery like the Wizbang post I linked to, but I also meant to add "or outright claim". Don't want to be accused of moving the goal posts by only asking for imagery!

@LaMedusa said: "Bantering, as you call it, doesn't come with a report card on which commenter quickest to get "caught" by you at something"

Fair enough. But please understand my frustration with Willie. He's called me a variety of names, not listened to a word I've said, called me some form of "crazy liberal" on multiple occasions despite me clearly articulating my background and explaining that I'm not some crazy leftist.

Then he went on to tell me that I had a credibility problem because I didn't simply accept what he said to be true, sans-proof. Then he refused to give me any detail when I asked him for it.

My goal wasn't to give him a report card, it was to get him to man up and either back up his wild ass claims (which I acknowledged he may be correct on) or admit he was wrong.

I sure has sin know that if I'd starting making wild claims and refusing to back it up with ANY information other than "Fox News!" I'd be called out for it. And rightly so.

Why the double standard for defending Willie?

Jake, I would more understand Willie's frustration with you. If you can't read the first paragraph of an article, indicating there have been a number of not just "Hitler" references, then maggie is right. There is no link that is good enough for you. But just for the heck of it...

http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Bush%20Hitler%20Comparison

@LaMedusa -- Which article are you referring to that I should have read the first paragraph of?

Your link is a confusing one - There are broken links these pointers refer to. One of the stories links to the World Socialist Web Site. One points to the ADL site's call for the Bush-Cheney reelection site to remove Nazi imagery from their site. One points to digbysblog.

What exactly are you trying to say with this link? I'm honestly confused here.

Once again, Willie's claim was about MSM. I absolutely agree (and HATE) that bloggers, protesters, and other idiots have made Bush=Hitler references. I'm just looking for a MSM reference as Willie pointed out.

It'd be easy to simply chalk up my push back to be "dissatisfied" or "moving the goal posts", but seriously, these links people are sending have NOTHING to do with the MSM.

May you have a confused and happy evening, Jake.

jake - quit being an obtuse as*hole, if you really had the intellectual curiosity you'd find them yourself, but you don't it's easier to piss and moan about it.

Here.

If that's not enough read the transcript of a cnn report on the same bush=hitler story

Thanks marc and LaMedusa. I really do not care what a liberal demands of me. I do not have to "man up" as Jake so pitifully stated. This is not a "wild accusation" but what I know and witnessed for the past 8 years. Should I have given examples, Jake would have never accepted the proof given but demand more,etc. That is the game they play. I know Jake is new to the site, but he is not fully aware that we know the game they play. ww

True, Willie. I should have seen this as a calling card:

I'm just looking for a MSM reference as Willie pointed out.

Keep looking for the needle in the hay stack that's already been provided, while the T-Rex looms over your head.

Ha ha - this is just getting ridiculous. @marc calls me an "obtuse a$$hole" because I'm pushing Willie to backup the idea that MSM personalities called Bush "Hitler". Then as an example, you give me a news story about a *Congressman* calling Bush "Hitler".

Since when did Congress become part of the MSM?

Look, everyone seems to be backing Willie's claim that the MSM personalities spent 8 years calling Bush "Hitler". Yet not one example of that has been presented. There have been examples of people *reporting* on news stories involving people in the world saying/showing Bush=Hitler. But Willie claims that "MSNBC, Olbermann, Matthews" made such direct references. And apparently they did it so many times as to make curiosity about the actual incidents unworthy of discussion.

Yet, Willie and the rest have yet to provide even a single example of "MSNBC, Olbermann, Matthews" or any other MSM figure calling, showing Bush as Hitler or a Nazi.

Again, I fully agree (and loath) that *people* have made such references. ANYONE making X=Hitler references is crossing the line.

But the claim Willie threw out and refuses to backup is that "MSNBC, Olbermann, Matthews" all called Bush "Hitler".

Where are those examples?

To my conservative friends, I just spent one half hour reviewing clips and transcripts of Olberman and guests on Matthews show as well as NPR comparing Bush to hitler or hitler like tactics. I read a story in the Washington Post about the comparison of Bush to hitler. So easy to do. Jake, find someone to help you with search engines. ww

Jake,

Back off and CHILL.

jake - "@marc calls me an "obtuse a$$hole" because I'm pushing Willie to backup the idea that MSM personalities called Bush "Hitler"."

Sorry jake, I was sadly mistaken.

You're just a plain everyday asshole, the obtuse adjective isn't needed as evidenced by your very first mention of anything related to MSM in comment #9, and I quote:

"Otherwise, you'd certainly have carried through on my request in the Hitler thread to provide a single example of MSM comparing Bush to Hitler."

You have been given exactly what was asked for in this thread.

@marc - tell you what - I'm willing to put this to bed, acknowledging that my meaning and my typing probably weren't clear enough, at least over time if you admit that calling me an a$$hole repeatedly is not cool.

I still maintain that ANY comparison by ANYONE of Hitler to someone not Hitler does Hitler's vileness a serious disservice.

I think it's curious that if Willie did so much research, he's still unable or unwilling to provide links. But whatever. Message has gone off the rails and any debate that causes someone to call someone else an a$$hole is an Epic Fail.