Obama May Give Up on Closing Guantanamo

The New York Times reports President Obama has put closing Guantanamo on the back burner due to opposition, and may not make any real effort to close it before his term ends in 2012.

Another example of "change you can believe in"?

Whatever happened to the decision on where to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other four detainees the Administration decided to try in federal court until conservatives and New Yorkers objected? Months ago, Attorney General Eric Holder said it was "weeks away." Is that going on the back burner too? Why give them a trial anywhere when you can hold them indefinitely at Gitmo? It's not like anyone cares, right?

< World Cup: USA v. Ghana Preview | Police Release Audio of Al Gore Masseuse Interview >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It certainly isn't (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:44:57 AM EST
    that I don't care, it's just that I don't know what to do. People of my political persuasion supposedly won the last election. We had been operating for decades under the assumption that public policy was steadily deteriorating because we were in an electoral minority, and the majority of people in the country were simple minded nationalists who sought Christian theocracy, believed the Christian god controlled the market and rewarded ethical people with wealth and punished unethical people with poverty, and that most of them just simply wanted to have a beer with George Bush. Then the election results, along with a lot of ASCII text of unknown origin which appeared on internet blogs, seemed to suggest a rising political populist movement of people who had more traditional ideas of justice and ethics, and that the tables had finally turned away from the childish and destructive persona of the boy president who was the juvenile delinquent son of a rich oil man and the third generation of a family which made its living protecting the political interests of super rich industrialists. The new president we supposedly elected seemed to expressly state that he was against the kinds of policies of those previous administrations which were so blatantly plutocratic and fascist, and which so blatantly undermined and contradicted the common citizens' understanding of our Constitution. He seemed to be promising to turn things around. Then, he simply did nothing of the sort, and every major decision he made seemed to represent absolute unyielding and unexplained continuation of the policies of the previous administration. The ASCII text on the internet blogs continued to shower him with support, and those of us who asked questions were reminded that change takes time and that our new leaders were simply having to play the game in ways we didn't understand, like an eleven dimensional chess game where the meanings of strategies are too complex for direct interpretation. So we waited for signs that the eleven dimensional chess game was going in our direction, and they never came. The new president just kept behaving like George W. Bush and kept using the power of the executive branch to promote the policies of the administration we thought we had voted out. This went on for a year or two, and many people started to become frustrated by politics again. The previous administration's policies had left our economy in shambles, and the banks finally collapsed with the resulting financial meltdown throwing another large slice of the American middle class into poverty with predictions that there would be no way for them to regain their previous status. Now, in the face of all that misfortune, the pundits tell us that we are in an electoral minority again, and the previous political attitudes -- nationalism, Christian theocracy, and market worship -- are returning to popularity, and that we are expected to lose the next election. We are going back to the policies and attitudes which have degraded our lives for three decades. They tell us that most Americans believe differently than I do, and they tell us that they are right. So, by all accounts of traditional communication, this seems to be what the American people want, and we are supposedly a representative democracy. What I do not understand, nor do I believe, is that we really are truly a representative democracy, because if we were, then the change in political attitudes which resulted in the election of leaders who promised to restore our traditional values would not have been so ineffective, and those leaders would have done some small part of what they promised in their campaigns to get elected. Basically, I'm all out of answers, and it looks like I am in a political minority which is slated for a continuing program of social, economic, and legal disenfranchisement. And I don't know what to do, because I thought the solution was to elect leaders who believed in our values. We thought we did, and we were blatantly fooled. Any suggestions?

    Breaking the stranglehold of the (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by observed on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 06:31:52 AM EST
    corporate media is the only route to change which looks remotely feasible to me. Campaign finance reform is a dead duck---no one who is elected now wants to change the system, including Obama,  because it's too good for them.
    I suppose it's remotely possible that the Democratic party could be remade from the grassroots up, but that would take 20-30 years to bear fruit at the national level.

    There are several reasons we have a terrible government now, but a media which refuses to report the truth, and insists on reporting falsehood in the name of "balance" is one of them.
    Some of you may remember that Bush was actually crowned back in 1998 by Time or Newsweek as the next President. Savvy observers knew that he was going to be the next President in 1999, and also knew that he would wage war with Iraq ( I didn't know that, but I had a friend who predicted that with certainty well before 2000).
    Now, with halfway fair reporting, McCain would have been the nominee, for better or worse: Bush was a blithering idiot with  no knowledge of national or international politics. He couldn't answer the simplest questions without getting rattled---unless he was fed answers before.

    Without Bush, we would not have had Obama in 2008.  Whatever merits he has, he is NOT remotely progressive in his politics. He would have been considered a mainstream Republican 35 years ago--not even a liberal Republican.
    He was able to hide his true stripes from many voters by a brilliant campaign. I"m still in awe of the "look at the website" trick.

    With decent media coverage, no amount of campaign cash could make up for a lousy candidate.
    One of the purposes of political blogs was to correct the media's imbalance; it's clear that in this aim the left blogosphere is a total failure.
    The very structure of modern news shows doesn't allow for correction, because there are only viewpoints, not facts.

    By the way, I think the reason Holder had to lay off KSM is that the DOJ is busy prosecuting ACORN.


    people can't think straight anymore (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 06:55:55 AM EST
    with all the idiocy that passes as news being pumped into their brains 24/7. Maybe even worse, I think a lot of people have given up even trying to learn the truth about anything, they are so busy just getting along. If they vote at all they pick the one who tells them what they want to hear - low taxes, America is the best even though you are suffering, I will keep you safe from the scary foreigners. Media reinforces those values.

    Jeralyn asks the question - who cares about Gitmo anymore? Even among the Dems there are few strong civil libertarians. Obama is probably right about the politics- he usually is.

    A few of us find ourselves still in the minority. Maybe on one or two fewer issues than we used to be, but that's about it.    


    On Gitmo, Obama is probably right (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 07:26:51 AM EST
    about the politics, but what about the economy?

    Campaign (none / 0) (#13)
    by Untold Story on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 09:50:32 AM EST
    finance reform and term limits need to be voted on this year.  Only in that way can we alleviate the media from its present agenda of electing our politicans.

    This is true (none / 0) (#18)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:33:43 AM EST
    and without Reagan we never have Clinton, nor Carter sans Nixon- the McGovern Campaign is basically marked as the left edge of American Political History by most historians  and LBJ as the left- edge among elected presidents- both suppositions are extremely hard to dispute.

    1980 was the most important election (none / 0) (#19)
    by observed on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    since WWII, no question.
    The funny thing is, I don't think Reagan could have been elected a 2nd term with the state of the modern media, because his obvious senility would have been exposed on the blogs; similarly, FDR probably couldn't be elected, because Americans won't vote for a "cripple".

    FDR I think (none / 0) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    wins still- if he gets the nomination- the country was in such bad shape a Dem was going to win- Reagan in 1984 I don't think even gets the nomination- I mean they'd have to turn the reins of to GHW Bush I'd assume, now the interesting point is JFK- he's destroyed by scandals if he's a modern president- from the Addison's coverup bit, to the infidelities, to the irregularities in Illinois in 1960, and so on I can't see him having a legacy at all if he's a modern pol.

    Most of our past presidents (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    would not be elected with today's media.  You ever watch Truman or Eisenhower give a speech?  It was painful, watching them read scripts in stilted fashion.  Kennedy and his numerous (alleged?) affairs and use of prescription painkillers?  Nixon?  Carter?  None of those guys would stand up to the media scrutiny coming from all angles.

    Sorry James (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Bornagaindem on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 08:27:20 AM EST
    but it was apparent what Obama was well before you elected him. He held a Senate seat in Illinois for 8 years and if you try and find any change that he made for his constituents, there was nothing. He always just "went along",  it was right there in his record. And now that he is president you expected something different. The classic definition of insanity.

    Work to get public financing for campaigns and vote against every incumbent (unless they actually DID something spectacular on your issues) so they recognize that they are not going to get re-elected just because they raised lots of money any more. I want my representative spending his/her  time on the issues not on raising their next campaign coffer. AND try to change or start a new party. One always needs a long term plan too.

    As someone on Talk Left once said - work for the issues not the politician.


    Probably need to credit IL Sen. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    with sponsoring the "all police interviews must be videotaped" legislation.  Although some other Senators drafted and pushed the bill before Obama did.  

    The "populism" you refer to arose (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 09:27:34 AM EST
    around a figure, not an issue, and his candidacy was not people-driven, but engineered by the party.  Yes, the people were clamoring for change, were hungry for better policies, wanted out of the war, were sick of incursions on various and sundry rights - many of them centered in the so-called Global War on Terror.

    But anyone who listened closely, who paid attention to what he was saying, to what he was doing (FISA vote, anyone?), knew his presidency was not going to usher in a new age of change, or a return to sanity.  Even the media made the  mistake of thinking - and reporting - that these huge crowds meant something, when, in fact, all it meant was that the sales job was working.  And, as with many infomercial sales jobs, by the time people found out they'd bought a product that didn't work as they had been psychologically led to believe, Obama was taking the oath.

    Here's the thing, James: when one believes in something as a matter of principle, one doesn't back down because there is too much opposition to it.  When there is opposition to something one believes is right, one fights for that policy, one leads on that policy.  "Oh, well, I tried," is not the attitude of someone who ever believed in the position he took.  But taking it got him some votes, and that's all that ever mattered.

    The things all of them say in a campaign have to be taken with a pretty big grain of salt; the tale of anyone's commitment to the issues is told in what they do, and have done - but no one who supported Obama wanted to look at his thin record, his penchant for letting others do the grunt work so he could swoop in at the end and take the credit, his cutthroat way of clearing the electoral field, his disinterest in doing the work his committee assignments called for.

    It's the people who go to the polls and vote, so we're the ones who get the sweet talk and seduction; but when it's time to go about the business of governing, ours are not the voices that are heard.  Access and accommodation are the province and privilege of the corporate insiders, and we aren't going to put them on the same level with us common folk until elections are financed 100% with public dollars.  I will likely be long-dead and buried by the time that happens - if it happens.

    As to what to do, that's the big question many of us are trying to answer; neither of the legacy parties really has the interests of the people at heart, even if they are happy to take our money when we mistakenly think our support of this candidate or that candidate is going to change things.

    [and, if I can just make one suggestion?  Please try breaking up your comment into paragraphs - it would have made yours so much easier to read!]


    Brava Anne. IIRC, populists weren't (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    driving Obama's campaign in '08.

    Populists, particularly Democratic working class populists, supported the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

    Many of those populists subsequently shifted their support to Obama in the General Election. But this lion's share of the electorate doesn't, now, feel especially 'betrayed' by President Obama's governance. Mainly because they were never under the illusion that a President Obama would represent populist interests, or even the general public interest for that matter.

    Obama's candidacy was driven by the so-called "creative class", the media establishment, the so-called "progressive" blogosphere and, of course, the Democratic Party establishment. Do those people feel betrayed by President Obama's affinity for executive power in service of corporate interests? Not much. Because the interests of the corporate class are not significantly at odds with the interests of the creative class and their cohort.

    Obama eventually garnered massive support from the African American electorate. Do they feel betrayed by President Obama's evident lack of concern for the specific needs of the AA community? Not much. Because candidate Obama never indicated that he would do anything for them in the first place.

    So, all of that goes a long way toward explaining why most of the people who voted for Obama aren't particularly surprised, let alone outraged, by his actions in office.

    Perhaps, those people who are, nowadays, most genuinely appalled by Obama's dismal governance are the same people who steadfastly refused to dip their cup in the Koolaid -- even under threat of a third GOP term, which is pretty much what we always feared we would get from Obama anyway.


    Good analysis... (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 06:58:30 PM EST
    And helps explain why, despite a dreadful track record so far, his approval rating, while down somewhat, hasn't entered a free-fall.

    The "creative class" is not feeling the pain that the working class is suffering under, and the AA community voted simply out of understandable pride. Most knew he was a charlatan but he was "our" charlatan. The only one who, in an unguarded moment, spoke up, seeing through the ruse, was Jesse Jackson.

    The vaunted "youth vote" then, as now, were only involved as long as it didn't interfere with their place in line waiting to pi$$ away $500 for Steve Jobs' latest brain deadening gadget.

    But nothing lasts forever and with good news no where on the horizon, something will have to give.


    I appreciate (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:40:03 PM EST
    your comment on the paragraphs, but there is actually some method behind that madness. It has all become one whole big nasty thought for me!

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 11:56:56 AM EST
    May 2009

    WASHINGTON -- In a rare, bipartisan defeat for President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States.
    Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba.

    Do you think the numbers will be any different today, I don't.

    But it must be that Obama is secretly sending the Democrats signals to vote against his wishes, IOW, because the Dems are voting No, Obama must be against closing Gitmo.

    Of course then again, the other scenario is that if he were a real leader, like Bill Clinton, JFK, or FDR, he would be able to convince the congresscritters to vote against the wishes of their constituents and close Gitmo. Or if he were a real leader he would be able to convince the voters that closing Gitmo was tantamount to erasing the stain of BushCo. Well, hate to break it to you, Americans could give a sh*t about closing Gitmo. Americans have bought the whole WOT hook line and sinker, and they do not want any stinkin terrorists (who have never been charged or tried) in their country, state, city or town.


    Or, ... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    ... people are just getting tired of Obama writing checks that can't be cashed.

    If he lacks the authority to close Gitmo without Congressional approval (or at least needs approval to fund its closing), maybe he should have thought of that before before making an unqualified promise to close it.  Maybe he should have anticipated public and Congressional resistance, both of which were as predictable as the sun rising in the east.  Maybe he shouldn't have held a huge photo-op on his second day in office, signing an executive order to "take the moral high ground" and close Guantanamo within one year.

    Oh, well.

    What's one more broken promise?


    Looney Tunes (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    Yeah all the politicians should qualify their campaign promises, to only maybes. lol

    But some, like you, actually believe that campaign promises are actual promises that are always kept. Must be hard to trust sooooo much.


    I don't think anyone has expressed a (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    belief that campaign promises are promises that are always kept; one doesn't even have to be a student of history to know that there is no "always" when it comes to campaign promises.

    But here's a question for you: should politicians feel any obligation to the voters, or be in any way accountable for, the promises they make, where they stand on issues, what they say they believe?

    If not, why should we vote for them at all?  

    Closing Gitmo was a central - central - part of Obama's campaign; it wasn't a throw-away line to be forgotten almost as soon as it left his lips.  

    As far as I'm concerned, Guantanamo is a stain on the fabric of the democracy - and Obama campaigned as if he believed that, too.  So, one of two things has happened: either he's changed his mind about what Guantanamo represents, or he never believed it in the first place.  

    What's disturbing is that one could apply that either/or to almost every issue of importance.

    Which means there's either been a lot of mind-changing, or a whole lot of bait-and-switch.

    Not much of a choice, is it?

    So, you tell us, please: what is to be done about the Say Anything, Do Whatever the Hell I Want presidency of Barack Obama?


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 06:50:43 PM EST
    Should voters know that a POTUS can fire a general being CIC, and a POTUS can write an executive order closing GITMO, but a POTUS cannot pay for the closure, make countries including the US take prisoners, cannot make states take prisoners that have been tried and found guilty, cannot pay for the closure, transfer without congressional approval.

    Seems to me that it is important to know how the government works in at least a basic way, so that one can ask the right questions like, 'How can you close gitmo and transfer the prisoners without congressional approval?'  

    I certainly have been for closing down gitmo, pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but I never thought it was going to happen without congress and their constituents being behind the measures.



    Part of the problem, I think (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    and some around disagree, is the lack of experience thing.  Why some people thought it was no big deal for the holder of the most important job in the world, is beyond me, but they are certainly entitled to their opinion.  My goodness, nowadays, you need experience to run the cash register at Target - I don't know why we'd hold the leader of the free world to a lesser standard.

    But his lack of experience on the national stage is really showing through.  His inexperience was evident in promising something on such a grand scale - something that deals with an issue that the greatest constitutional scholars of our day still can't agree on.  Which is why the other candidates didn't make such definitive statements on the subject - they knew it was a GHWB "read my lips" statement.

    It was a bold statement - "I will close Guantanamo within a year" but anybody with a lick of common sense should have known it wouldn't happen.


    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    My goodness, nowadays, you need experience to run the cash register at Target - I don't know why we'd hold the leader of the free world to a lesser standard.

    Don't know why?

    Well let's see.... I think your analogy was excellent, btw. A person does indeed need experience to run a cash register. How does that person get the experience? Well by running a cash register.

    The only place where your analogy falls down, is that POTUS is a unique job, unlike running a cash register at Target. There are many places to learn how to run a cash register, but there is no place to learn how to be POTUS.

    The experience meme is utter BS. It is a way for many, and many her at TL to put down a candidate who they do not like.

    I do not see many here complaining about Franken's lack of experience... but Obama, well he is different... lol

    Being of age, and a US citizen, plus having life experience, is more than enough to satisfy the requirements of POTUS. The rest is for history to decide.


    Um, no (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:09:44 PM EST
    While a person may not be president, they can still get experience.  They can be a governor, for example, and have governmental executive experience.  They could have more than 5 minutes of federal legislative experience, so they actually know how things work in Washington.  They could run an agency.  They could run anything, for that matter - a company, a university, a non-profit group, etc.  All which would be more experience and closer to the job than what Obama brought to the table. (And no - he didn't manage his own campaign).

    It isn't a put down - it's a reality.  Had he had a few more years' experience in the federal government (or more than a part-time state gig) and some management experience, he would have had a much better handle on things.  

    And yes, Obama meets the constitutional requirements - but so what?  If that's your barometer, then I guess by your definition, Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck are qualified to be president.  


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:20:50 PM EST
    You are blowing hot air and have no basis but fantasty (and dislike of Obama) for your claims. But, let's look at someone who has done research regarding the value "experience" has on performance as POTUS.

    Now for the test. In the table below, the Presidents are sorted on experience. The most experienced President was James Buchanan, with Lyndon Johnson and Jerry Ford getting the silver and bronze medals, respectively. Chester A. Arthur had a mere 1.5 years experience before he was elevated to the Presidency upon the asassination of President Garfield.

    If experience and greatness correlate, one would expect the top half of the table (the most experienced Presidents) to be mostly green (good) and the bottom half (inexperienced) to be mostly red (bad). If there is no correlation, the red and green should be random. Indeed, the latter seems to be the case. The top half in terms of experience (above the gray bar) has 11 bad Presidents and 10 good ones, essentially no correlation between greatness and experience.

    If you don't like this result and want to try for a better one, just get the spreadsheet and start weighting the columns. Undoubtedly you will be able to get a different result if you try hard enough. But the point remains, the Presidents with a lot of experience have not been more outstanding than those with little experience.

    Shrug (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    There's a reason that Senators (and House members) don't usually get elected POTUS.  2008 was an anomaly. Voters want executive experience.

    And hey, how can I compete when you use Chester Arthur as your example? <snark>


    Shrug All You Want (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:47:47 PM EST
    If you feel that there is particular experience that makes for a good president, make your case. Saying that Obama is no good, and was clearly a bad choice for POTUS because he lacks some particular (fill in the blank) experience is an empty argument. It has no basis in fact.

    The link I provided allows you to use Excel to fill in your own criteria and judge the relationship of certain types of experience, and POTUS performance.

    The fact is that there is no correlation between experience and performance as POTUS. Never has been, never will be.


    You obviously disagree (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:45:50 PM EST
    I would argue we are seeing the results of no experience in how every big issue (health care, oil spill, Guantanamo, etc.) has gone so far.  The Obama people thought the hope and change magic fairy dust would keep going and people would trust them and they could do what they wanted.  That's lack of experience. And I made my case - executive and managerial experience are better than none.  And of course, you obviously agree that Ann Coulter would make a fine president, since she fits your parameters.  Guess you'll be sending her money when she runs for office.

    But since the site you link to was created by someone who is a member of Democrats Abroad, and as the host says, the opinions are all his own. And, as his link appears to be broken, where you can weight such things as experience, means I, or anyone else, can make the data say whatever we want. So, we should take your link with a grain of salt.

    But we've all learned that in your perspective, where if someone disagrees with your skewed view of the world, they have nothing to offer and are wrong in your eyes.  Oh well - we've all learned to live with your disappointment.


    How Dishonest of You (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:15:17 PM EST
    But since the site you link to was created by someone who is a member of Democrats Abroad, and as the host says, the opinions are all his own. And, as his link appears to be broken, where you can weight such things as experience, means I, or anyone else, can make the data say whatever we want. So, we should take your link with a grain of salt.

    From my link, which is not broken:

    David A. Levine of New York has collected the data from Wikipedia and done some analysis of it. Let's start with a table of the Presidents listed in order of their consensus rank in the 12 surveys given in the above Wikipedia page.

    This is not some lone opinion of a blogger, but a pretty good assessment based on 12 surveys ranking the US presidents.

    the top twelve ranked POTUS are

    Abraham Lincoln
    Franklin D. Roosevelt   
    George Washington     
    Thomas Jefferson   
    Theodore Roosevelt   
    Woodrow Wilson
    Harry S. Truman
    Andrew Jackson
    Dwight D. Eisenhower   
    James K. Polk
    John Adams
    John F. Kennedy

    The last 12 are:

    Calvin Coolidge
    Richard Nixon
    James Garfield
    Zachary Taylor
    John Tyler   
    Millard Fillmore
    Ulysses S. Grant
    William H. Harrison
    Andrew Johnson
    Franklin Pierce   
    James Buchanan     
    Warren G. Harding

    ...The two Bushes and Clinton are not shown since it is much too early to draw historical judgments on them.

    ...All experience is not the same. How do you compare being governor of a small state with being governor of a big state? Is being Vice President worth a pitcher of warm beer or any other fluid? Is being a state senator more or less relevant to being president than being Secretary of Commerce? Impossible to say for sure, so I have justed added up the total number of years of experience as a proxy for experience.

    If you want to weight the columns differently, the data are available in both Excel format and .csv format so you can slice and dice them as you wish. Before becoming a data analyst though, you should a first read the Notes on presidential experience document David wrote.

    But please make your case as to any experience you think is important for making a good POTUS, and a chart that correlates past POTUS with the experiences you deem valid. Of course you will never do that because it will blow your argument that Obama is no good because he has no experience meme out of the water.

    And as for links, all the links worked fine for me. Here is the main page of the site VotersFromAbroad.org


    Yes, let's look at Levine's notes (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:05:32 PM EST
    As his "analysis" and notes leave out a few things.  Let's look at your / Levine's list and see what actual experience each of these men had before becoming president:

    Abraham Lincoln
    Franklin D. Roosevelt  
    George Washington    
    Thomas Jefferson  
    Theodore Roosevelt  
    Woodrow Wilson
    Harry S. Truman
    Andrew Jackson
    Dwight D. Eisenhower  
    James K. Polk
    John Adams
    John F. Kennedy

    Abraham Lincoln - a rare politician (although you wouldn't have liked him as he did things like suspend habeas corpus), although he did serve 10 years between the state and US house.

    FDR - NY State Senator, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Governor of NY, and ran as the Vice-Presidential candidate on the 1920 Democratic ticket.

    George Washington - hard to compare, since he was the first, although he was the commander in chief of the military and President of the Constitutional Congress

    Thomas Jefferson - again, hard to compare since many things were different, but he before he was President, he was a state legislator, founder of the University of Virginia, Governor of Virginia, Member of Congress, Minister to France, Secretary of State, and Vice President of the United States. Oh, and principal writer of the Declaration of Independence.

    Theodore Roosevelt - in addition to being NYC Police Commissioner, before he became president, he was a State Assemblyman, was appointed to the US Civil Service Commission, The Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Governor of New York, and oh yeah, Vice President of the United States.

    Woodrow Wilson - Besides being president of Harvard, he was also, as Levine fails to mention, Governor of NJ.

    Harry Truman - County Commissioner, US Senator, Vice President of the United States (albeit for a little over a month)

    Andrew Jackson - again, anyone in the 18th and 19th century is hard to compare to modern politicians and the demands on modern presidents, but he was a successful military general, Military Governor of Florida, a US Representative, US Senator, and a judge on the Tennessee Supreme Court.

    Dwight Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander and Supreme Commander of NATO

    James K. Polk - Tennessee state representative, US Representative from Tennessee's 6th congressional district, Speaker of the House, and Governor of Tennessee.

    John Adams - same caveat applies to someone elected in the 18th Century - Delegate to the Continental Congress, representative of Congress in Europe (essentially, an ambassador, of sorts), famous lawyer, and Vice President of the United States

    So, looking at your list, and including the things Levine left out of his "notes", I would say these men had tons more experience than Obama.  This list PROVES, at least despite what Levine et al say, that experience had something to do with the success these men enjoyed.  Most had some sort of executive / managerial experience, and all had some sort of meaningful federal experience (even Eisenhower with his military experience) before ascending to the presidency.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:22:05 PM EST
    The only thing you claim that Levine "left out of his notes" was Wilson as governor. That is an incorrect claim. Levine clearly notes that Wilson was governor.

    And your point?

    Oh, right you hate Obama. got it.  


    Please show (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 07:06:12 AM EST
    Where Obama had as much or more experience than your list that you provided.

    Oh right - you think Ann Coulter could be president.


    Red Herring (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    You have made the claim that certain experience makes a significant difference in POTIUS performance.

    The only way to show that that is true is to look at past presidents and evaluate their ranking compared to their experience.

    Obama has only been in office 1.5 years, it is not possible to evaluate his performance as POTUS in relationship to his experience.

    But since you cannot make any case for your theory, you are changing the subject.


    Nahhh, ... Looney Tunes ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    ... is actually waaaaaay more realistic than the straw arguments you weave.

    But I guess you work with what you've got ...


    Obama wrongly assumed (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    Dems actually wanted to close Gitmo he should have realized that guys like Russ Feingold and Chuck Schumer only believe in civil liberties on Sunday Talk shows not when it counts.

    ok (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:38:24 PM EST
    guess that goes to Obama's famous "judgment"

    This is the president-is-powerless (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:35:21 PM EST
    song that gets sung every time one of Obama's promises goes down to defeat in the Congress: "I really, really wanted to do _____, but, alas, the Congress just wouldn't see it my way."

    Where do you think we would be on health care, the stimulus, Gitmo, financial reform, if, instead of (pick one or more) doing nothing, working in the background with committee chairs and the industry/sector whose ox was in danger of being gored, or saying one thing while doing the opposite, he had actually been working - in the truest sense of that word as it applies to the Congress - to bring even half the change he promised?

    Anyone who paid attention while Obama was affirmatively extending and strengthening the Bush policies in the so-called War on Terror knew early on that closing Gitmo would never, ever, mesh with his authoritarian tendencies.  Ever.

    But I am not buying this pathetic excuse of "gee, there really was nothing I could do;" what an insult to the intelligence that is.


    There is plenty he can do when he (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:49:27 PM EST
    wants to.  When something is important to him he goes right in there and starts thumping heads and twisting arms.

    Right you are. When Obama wants to get the job (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:35:32 PM EST
    done, he "goes right in there and starts thumping heads and twisting arms"; and he threatens to withdraw his support from non-compliant Democratic incumbents when they come up for reelection -- exactly what he did to get Dems to pass the war supplemental funding bill in June 2009. Greenwald says it all in this post with an ironic title: Follow-up on the Weak, Impotent, Helpless Presidency.

    Today Greenwald has a post specifically about Guantanamo and Presidential Priorities.


    McC, for example. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    McC is utterly his call though (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    as CIC.  If he really wanted Gitmo closed though it would be closed.  I think the better question is whether or not Gitmo can be closed as a dentention facility open for other operations?  I don't mind Gitmo existing for other reasons...not Rendition though!  Man, I gotta cover as many bases as I can dream up cuz I'm not the only one looking for loopholes :)  There is a difference between detention and Rendition that makes them utterly exclusive the first moment I don't realize that there is and SPECIFY!

    When my ex was in the Navy in the (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    68-69 on a cargo ship had had nothing good to say about Guantanamo.  Well, except for the variety of liquor available for purchase.

    Four words (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Romberry on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:03:28 PM EST
    Guantanamo and presidential priorities.

    Read that.

    Five words to go with it: Read this letter in response.

    (If presidents are so damn powerless, why were so many Dems so anxious to see Dubya out of the White House? Why was it so important to elect Obama? Defeat McCain?)


    Fine (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:36:26 AM EST
    Greenwald has his POV.  I prefer the simplest analysis, Obama wanted to close Gitmo as it really made the US look terrible. Obama believes that being at war the US can detain POWs in a federal prison and wanted to re-locate it to Thompson, Illinois (GTMO North) as a POW camp.

    Unfortunately Americans do not like muslims, love war and are longing for the brutality of BushCO. Eight years of fearmongering paid off, most americans are sold on the program that they want to take our freedoms away.

    That is why there only six Democrats voted to close Gitmo and fund the relocation.

    I do not think this is so complicated. I also do not think Obama is lying about wanting to close gitmo. Clearly the big difference between Obama and Greenwald is that Greenwald does not believe that we are at war and does not believe that we should be able to hold POW's anywhere.

    I am against the war 100%, and never saw Obama as anything but for the war 100%. I do not see why this is so confusing for so many. Obama has not lied about any of this, IMO. All pretty straight forward as far as I can tell.


    This is my sense of the matter, as well. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:21:42 PM EST
    I think President Obama would like to close Guantanamo because he knows its reputation did not make us or him look good.  From his perspective that was the reason for closing it down--it would be better to hold POWs or detainees elsewhere, but hold them he would,  relocation was the issue.   After bumping into both Democratic and Republican opposition, he finds it not worth going further.  That part I think I get, but what still confuses and surprises me, is the public's acceptance of a "war on terror", but their aversion to holding captured "terrorists", in this country, seemingly an inevitable and positive consequence of the "war". It is as if Americans are unaware that we have had POWs in this country, such as in World War II, with almost a half a million of them at over 500 sites.  But, maybe you have explained that for me in that these POWs/terrorists/detainees are Muslims and scarier than Nazis were at one time.  And, the eight years of Republican fear is now ingrained.

    American Exceptionalism aka Feeling Special (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    Is also at work, imo. We are too important. Not to mention that the scarier than Nazi's meme, is a useful thing for politicians and americans to bond over. Pols stay in power, and americans get to feel special because the big strong pols will keep them safe from dirty terrorists.

    In fairness (3.50 / 2) (#30)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    we should note that if he was FDR it would have been easier to close Gitmo since he could have just sent the detainnees to the vast complex of Arab detainment camps set up across the American West.

    I'm actually kind of curious about the 2 (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:40:29 AM EST
    I recieved here- Is FDR's internment of the Japanese- arguably the single most repressive domestic action by a US president since the abolition of slavery, somehow off limits for criticism- because I'm sorry but Gitmo's far, far less grevious a violation of the principles of the US constitution than Gitmo- but then again I guess we may have some Michelle Malkin style revisionists who think interning 1st and 2nd generation immigrants the latter of whom were US citizens simply because of their historical origination point is justifiable- in which case certainly Arab concentration camps would be similarily cool.

    There is no conflict. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 08:07:16 AM EST
    If Obama does it, they are "good" wars. Same with torture and renditioning and indefinite illegal imprisoning.


    Jon Stewart did a piece (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 11:40:19 AM EST
    on what everyone was promised by candidate Obama recently.  People should be furious, but we aren't.

    fury fatigue n/t (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    No fury fatigue here ;-) (3.50 / 2) (#54)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    As I said upthread: Perhaps, those people who are, nowadays, most genuinely appalled by Obama's dismal governance are the same people who steadfastly refused to dip their cup in the Koolaid -- even under threat of a third GOP term, which is pretty much what we always feared we would get from Obama anyway.

    By "we" I mean not so much the people who wouldn't drink the Koolaid, but the people who wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.


    "Well, I didn't mean CLOSE Guantanamo!" (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    "Well, I didn't mean CLOSE Guantanamo!"

    "I mean, I meant it when I said it. You know?"

    "But... heh. That was a campaigning thing, you know? And it worked, too! Right? Right."

    "You don't really expect me to go all bipartisany on you and do what Lindsay Graham wants me to do, do you? DO YOU? He's a republican! WTF do you want from me?"

    "Heh. Shut up, Helen."

    "Next question?"

    Let me be clear. (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    Look... (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    Look, let me be perfectly clear the American People are moving forward on terror. The fact of the matter is at the end of the day it will be mission accomplished. Make no mistake about it we can contain the terror in the Gulf. The American People do not want to cut and run and we will work closely with corporate interests who need to take responsibility for this unprecedented historic moment. Yes we can. Special interests, playing political games, will have a new Czar. Let's give him a shout out. I will not rest until we reach across the isle, wall street and main street, back on tract. Read my lips, we will stay the course of this historic mission. God bless America.

    and don't forget (none / 0) (#68)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:42:55 AM EST
    "No one cares more about ___ than I do"

    heh! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    Well        !

    make no mistake (none / 0) (#67)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:41:36 AM EST
    Why aren't they furious? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 03:16:14 PM EST
    I cannot understand this.

    Interesting question (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    I think people are more heart broken and actually grief stricken than furious. People feel overwhelmed, the problems are overwhelming - consequences are devastating. and people are feeling powerless. Our votes don't count for much and unless we have lots of money to "influence" power players we have no other way to make our voices heard.

    And fury still is put down by the koolaid crowd - those who are AOK with everything Obama. Fury seems to not have been very effective, tho nothing has been effective. And for the everything's AOKers what's the alternative? If they become disillusioned so what? Even more people feeling powerless and overwhelmed.


    IF you'd just read BWD diaries on DK, THEN (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by seabos84 on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 09:31:17 AM EST
    you'd know how blessed thou art and how great he is.


    (p.s. as a Devout Atheist, this is a pretty kick butt song!)


    Its funny (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:28:31 AM EST
    i'm starting to think People really wanted Obama to be a unitary executive like Bush but for the policies we like- because Gitmo is the single best issue I can think of for making the case that Congress refused the president- Congress voted against Closure unanimously in 2009, refused to fund closure by massive bi-partisan margins in 2010 (like 70+ senators against closure), and has spent virtually every waking moment on this issue displaying the sort of cowardly NIMBYism that enabled Bush in the first place.

    But the Problem (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by The Maven on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 11:22:00 AM EST
    is that far too many of those people actually conjured up the fiction that Obama was really for those preferred policies, whereas as noted above, there was no evidence to support that.  Pretty words, yes; an actual record, no.

    Yes, an argument can be made that Congress had strongly opposed closure, but anyone who says that that's the end of the discussion is merely buying into the lame -- but increasingly popular -- excuse that the presidency is in fact a very weak office and its occupant highly constrained in terms of changing course.  A danger here is that this can lead to a furtherance of the feeling that empowering an ever-stronger unitary executive is the way to go.  And that way leads to tyranny, if we're not there already.

    It's all very depressing.


    On Gitmo (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:24:49 PM EST
    specifically its pretty obvious he was for closing it he moved to do nearly immediately, his strongest allie in the Senate stood for it (Durbin)  and it got voted down 90-6 in May of 2009.

    It is easy to "refuse" a President (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    if he doesn't mind you refusing him.  Take the Afghanistan build up for instance.  I had a husband on his way over there and Nancy Pelosi building an anti-war Dem faction in the house.  I am of course concerned because I'm sending a husband over there and we were very close to being overrun in some places.  My husband went to his required train up and when he comes home I'm pretty upset because it looks like he could be going over there alone.  He just smiled at me and said, "Honey, that train up was crawling with people and not just active duty soldiers, there were as many contractors as soldiers.  And you know I hate contractors but they come with the territory it looks like and they are pushing us through as fast as they can.  We are all going."  In the meantime Pelosi's building of an anti-war left just up and evaporated like it had never been there.  Why?  Because she had been told what her stance was going to be or else. Obama uses Congress for cover in many ways.

    That is exactly right, IMO (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 03:06:15 PM EST
    Kind of hard to tell if he is getting what he wants or not, since I have no reason to believe what he says about what he wants.

    The Six Who Voted To Close Gitmo (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    To prohibit funding to transfer, release, or incarcerate detainees detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States.

    Durbin (D-IL)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)

    The bill to block funding in order to close gitmo was sponsored by Sen Inouye (D-HI), and co sponsored by Sen Inhofe (R-OK), Shelby (R-AL), Brownback (R-KS), Enzi (R-WY), Roberts (R-KS), Johanns (R-NE).  Bi-Partisanship at work.


    Russ Feingold (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    Sunday Morning Civil Libertarian.

    Yep... (none / 0) (#4)
    by szielinski on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 06:57:21 AM EST
    Another example of "change you can believe in"?

    This chance in position is one we definitely can believe in. Gitmo -- we can't abandon it now, especially since it must exist in the near term in order to keep the Republicans from whining about it.

    If only that were the case (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    its not just Republicans, or even just Blue Dogs- closing Gitmo had almost zero support outside of the  Whitehouse and perhaps 25% of the Democratic base everyone else was opposed to closure look at the voting rolls on attempts at closure- they contain supposed progressive champions.

    Not all New Yorkers (none / 0) (#9)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 09:24:38 AM EST
    oppose having a trial here.  

    Also, I think I read somewhere that decision the trial issue being delayed until after the midterms.

    Why announce, as Pres., you are definitely (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 12:44:15 PM EST
    going to do something (for example, close Guantanamo w/i a yr. and/or try certain persons detained by U.S. in federal district court) if you either can't do it or aren't willing to fight for it?  Why not just stay with the current status?

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:33:14 PM EST
    Because if politicians, particularly those running for POTUS, did not promise things, no one would vote for them.

    But, if you have believed them in the past, you must have had a very disappointing life.

    Then again, at the moment you are campaigning, just like the GOP. Obama cannot keep his promises, Democrats cannot keep their promises, vote GOP and your taxes will never rise, the sun will shine every day, and everyone will be rich and happy.


    If you want a dose of reality regarding campaign promises here is a link,that is, if you feel like taking a break from your political campaign.


    You missed the "as President" (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:47:09 PM EST
    part of my comment.  

    No Difference (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    And if Obama said: I may sign an executive order closing Gitmo, or may not, but first I need to take a poll from Congress and the American people.

    What would you say?

    Obama is no leader, he is a wimp.

    Either you are deceiving yourself about Politicians, what they say and what they actually accomplish. Or you are playing your worn out record: Obama is no good, too bad someone else is not in charge.


    Think what you will, as you usually do. (4.40 / 5) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    LoL (2.33 / 3) (#47)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    yes, I do like to point out hypocrisy.

    The equivalent you have proposed is that firing McChrystal, is the same as closing Gitmo.

    Do you think? or are you just on automatic?


    Is it possible ... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 05:19:41 PM EST
    yes, I do like to point out hypocrisy.

    ... to actually die from laughter?

    G0d ..... I hope not.


    Wow...pot....kettle (4.40 / 5) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 02:40:58 PM EST
    Please explain, examples would be a start.

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 02:05:36 PM EST
    But we digress. Are you trying to change the subject?

    Not sure why you would want to call attention to yourself regarding changing the subject.... lol

    considering the subject is:

    Obama May Give Up on Closing Guantanamo

    I see my stalker showed up (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    Hi squeak, nothing to contribute, eh?

    and how is Middle School coming for you? (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 02:08:06 PM EST

    Good stuff (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    And no, I am not a "creationist" although I find their claims no different than the claims that  evolution created a "new" species, Man.

    Uhhhhm, .... one is called science, backed by huge amounts of data and scientific concensus.  The other is called religion, backed by zero science and zero data.

    Kinda easy to see why you can't grasp the concept of AGW.

    Why should I provide you with (none / 0) (#119)
    by observed on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 05:39:15 PM EST
    evidence? Is that a joke?
    If you google creationis+engineers you can find that what I told you is common knowledge.
    In fact, it's hard to imagine how it could be otherwise. Could a physicist, chemist, biologist or mathematician be a creationist?
    Use your noodle, man, and google before you doodle next time. What I told you is common knowledge.

    Ok, here's an article with a great quote: (none / 0) (#120)
    by observed on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 05:47:21 PM EST

    There are many facets to "scientific creationism" and the movement can be discussed in any of several ways. However, it is best viewed as a loosely connected group of fundamentalist ministries led largely by scientifically incompetent engineers

    From "An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement"
    which appeared in the Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science.



    Ah yes, common knowledge (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:37:38 PM EST
    If you don't have some proof, just admit you don't and quit trying to make me research your claim.

    Come to think of it, that is almost identical to what the the AGW boys at EAU and Mann at (now) Penn State do.

    BTW - You seem fascinated about Creationism. Having some second thoughts about evolution?



    How many actual scientific papers (none / 0) (#124)
    by observed on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:14:51 AM EST
    on global warming have you read?
    For someone who seems to know absolutely nothing about the subject beyond distortions picked up in right wing blogs, you have a lot of confidence in your opinion.

    You are lying when you say Jones (none / 0) (#138)
    by observed on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    doesn't believe in AGW. He is very clear on the point. Stop lying and the problem will stop.
    And, you know, talking about global cooling is so, like, yesterday. Global cooling was never the consensus view. The fact you insist on comparing two very different phenomenona is yet another example of your total blockheadness.
    But it takes the cake to say that  evolution and creationism are comparable, as theories.

    And here's the link ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    ... showing that "Climategate" is a hoax.  Now, if you're up to it, why don't you post the links to the real research - peer-reviewed scientific papers, as opposed to crackpot conspiracists - that show that AGW is not real.

    I won't hold my breath.

    BTW - If "theories are theories", next time you're sick, why not ask your waiter to treat you.  His theory is bound to be just as valid as your M.D.'s, ... right?

    The emails called "climategate" (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:01:29 PM EST
    speak for themselves.

    They show a pattern of self dealing, concealment and obstruction.

    They do not address the science, but they do reveal the lack of scientific disciple, multiple qualifiers and vaguely supported statements.

    I recommend you read: "Climategate The Crutape Letters."

    All that has been asked is that, since the AGW's want to change and take over the world, that they start over using mutually agreed to data.

    That the hoaxers refuse says all we need to know.

    And telling me that a jury composed of fellow AGWers has decreed that all is well is.....well...laughable.

    You see, you have no real knowledge so all you can do us choose a position that you like and then try and scream anyone who disagrees with you down.

    That doesn't work with people who have a firm belief in real science and demand proof.. from the hoaxers and their doctor... before they agree to radical surgery. Second opinions are required in many areas of life.

    As Reagan said, "Trust but verify."

    Yours in laughter.


    "Climategate" ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:25:35 PM EST
    ... has been thoroughly debunked.

    I recommend you read real news sources, rather than crackpot websites.  Then you would know it wasn't "a jury of fellow AGWers" who found that the "Climategate" allegations from the wingnuts were baseless, it was three separate inquiries, by the UK House of Commons, an independent panel in the U.K., led by former industry scientist Lord Oxburgh, and a panel of academic researcher, scientists and department heads at Penn State University.

    But it looks like you prefer the fact-free conclusions of your witch-doctors to those of the experts and real scientists.

    Good thing you went in to sales.


    Yes (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:25:04 PM EST
    All people who profit from the AGWer's hoaxes..

    Really, are you so blind? Are you aware that Mann is at Penn State??

    Yours in laughter.


    Let's get this straight: anyone who (none / 0) (#148)
    by observed on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:37:02 AM EST
    supports AGW is unreliable because they are profiting from the "hoax"; anyone who disbelieves the evidences of thousands of papers and billions of measurements is a rational skeptic.
    Oh yeah, and the right way to get to the truth of the matter is to go directly to a right wing blog.
    And don't forget lying.

    You sure like the "lying" word (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 08:55:28 AM EST
    don't you. Very adult of you.

    My point was that everyone who profits from AGW claims can not now be trusted to be on the jury.

    It is stupid to assume that they are capable of rendering an unbiased decision.

    I guess my puzzlement in this is that after it has been demonstrated that the "science" of AGW has been shown to be incredibly sloppy and the "scientists" shown to be clannish and unwilling to give up the data and codes anyone would accept their conclusions since what they want is trillions of dollars and millions of people's lives changed.

    And not only that, they speak of their conclusions with qualifier after qualifier.

    Why not start over using agreed to methods and data sources with the results entered and analyzed by third parties?

    We both know the answer to that. They are afraid of the future results because they are uncertain of their current results.

    Some refer to the AGWers as the "team." I think that is an apt description. And they have so much of themselves investigated into the "game" that they cannot and will not agree to start over with strong oversight.

    In closing I again return to Jones' own words:

    H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

    The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.

    First, Jones has said that there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years. (see above comments) So why does he go to the '50's?
    Because he thinks that supports his argument.

    But it doesn't. The temperature, in his own words, has not not warmed significantly, yet the production of carbon dioxide has ballooned since the '50's.

    The truth is this. He doesn't know.


    When that "lying" word ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:12:37 AM EST
    ... is accurate, I use it.  Not "adult" - just straightforward and honest.

    BTW - Climatologists, like any other professional, are experts in a field because they dedicate their life to studying and becoming an expert in a field - they earn a living doing it.  To dismiss their research and conclusions simply because they are professionals is stupid.  it's like saying you can't trust the advice of a medical doctor, since they 'profit" from that advice.  Yeah, ....

    ... better to stick with the amateurs than experts when it comes to matters of medicine and science, right Jimmy?

    BBTW - The reason they're not "starting over" using "agreed to methods and data sources" is because: 1) it would be foolish to throw away millions of dollars of research (and years of work) to satisfy the debunked claims of some crackpot skeptics, 2) their research is already open to peer-review by actual scientists, as opposed to the science-fiction writers (i.e. Creighton) that that the wingnuts rely on, and 3) "third parties" judging the conclusions?  Like who?  Hannity, Limbaugh, the American Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists?  LOL!  The only remaining scientific group of national or international standing that still thinks AGW is not real?

    See?  Once again, when you try to be serious, ...

    ... you're seriously funny.


    Yeah, ... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:09:42 AM EST
    ... and those sneaky M.D.s who are "profiting from" people's illnesses are purposely misdiagnosing them so they can make more money.  Good luck with that witch doctor.

    "In laughter", indeed.


    So, having lost the argument (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 08:22:53 AM EST
    we now get a new straw man.

    No, doctors do not deliberately operate, even if Obama did so claim.

    But they do make mistakes. And some become old and fixated on past procedures and knowledge that is no longer supported.

    So yes, I would encourage everyone to get a second opinion before accepting a recommendation for radical surgery.

    And if your doctor resists you getting a second opinion I urge you to run, not walk, out of his office to another physician.


    No straw man (none / 0) (#154)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:59:37 AM EST
    It's called an analogy, Jimmy.  The argument has been lost - by you and the other skeptic wingnuts, Jimmy, as evidenced by your citing of wingnut websites, rather than actual science and data.

    There's already been a second opinion, Jimmy - and a third, and a fourth, ... thousands of them, in fact.  Surely, you must be able to find many opinions that support your position, right?

    Actually, I guess not, since, apart from the revised statement of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.


    In fact, a 2009 study--published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (that's one of them-there fancy, peer-reviewed, science thingies) found that:

    (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and

    (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

    If you're skeptical of that report, Jimmy, I can cite a couple of dozen more, if you'd like.  They all confirm that there is heeeee-YOOOOOGE scientific consensus among thousands of climatoligists (as well as biologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, etc.) that AGW is real.

    So, to continue the analogy, you can keep your head in the sand and ignore the thousands of second opinions by the most prominent experts in the field (the "M.D.s"), or you can choose to follow the diagnosis of your auto mechanic or science fiction writer.

    Lucky for the rest of us, ...

    ... you've made your choice clear.


    Seriously? "Why"? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:21:12 AM EST
    Because the data that you are questioning, and Jones is referring to when he says "I believe" is one piece of data.  There are thousands/millions of data point that have been developed in AGW research which support the conclusion of climatologists that AGW is real.

    Does someone really have to explain this point to you.  You're either purposely trying to obfuscate the issue, ...

    ... or you're lying.

    BTW - Nice little "nasties" of your own - looks like you "define yourself for all to see", ...

    ... and I'd have no problem at all telling the very same things to you "person to person".