The Sunday talk shows (ABC, CBS) spent a lot of airtime today on President Obama's Guantanamo dilemma: (1) he promised a million times during the campaign that he'd shut it down, and dutifully signed an order on day 2 to do just that within one year; but (2) unfortunately, no other country, and no state within our country, wants any of the remaining bad guys in their back yard; consequently, $80 million in funding to do it was overwhelmingly blocked by Congress.
What should the President do to save face?
I don't think it's difficult at all—and I can't understand why nobody has suggested it. Maybe it's so simple it's too easy to overlook. The solution is this: Shut down the name "Guantanamo" — then immediately start calling it "Camp Progressive" or "Niceville South." It wouldn't take anywhere near $80 million to do that; a few hundred thousand for new signs and emblems should do it.
Obama could then chalk that up as twin accomplishments, ready for the bumpersticker printing presses:
"Not only did he shut down Guantanamo, he reduced the deficit in the process."
(It's overdue for a name change anyway — now that the "war on terror" is over.)
ObamaMotowerks 1, that would be the *new* Chrysler, has about 30,000 or so 2008 models hanging around.
How about Git Mo For Your Dollar Auto Sales or gitmoauto.com? He could ship all the unsold models there, dress the residents up in checkered coats with white shoes ( a pic of them blowing up balloons should satisfy the loony left) and turn the thing into a giant car dealership.
I'm sure someone on his budget and forecasting team could come up with some great numbers justifying a fast return.
Posted by: Bob | 24 May 2009 at 17:10
Wow, I didn't realize economists were so funny! For a second I thought I had accidentally logged onto Jay Leno's website.
For the record, John McCain had also promised to shut down Gitmo.
Posted by: Grodge | 24 May 2009 at 22:32
...and if McCain had made the same rookie mistake on day 2, this post would read the same, except for one name.
Posted by: Optimist123 | 24 May 2009 at 23:01
Don't laugh. Just when you think this Keystone Kops of an administration cannot possibly get more absurd, they top themselves. I don't doubt that your suggestion is already at the top of their "Oh sh*t, now what?!" list.
Posted by: Joe C. | 25 May 2009 at 14:22
HEY! I used to live in a place called Niceville, in Florida.
It had a wonderful sign on the road into town, "Nice Town, Nice Folks, Have a Nice Day!" And I'll bet THEY don't want any Gitmo detainees there, either!
Posted by: cas6039 | 27 May 2009 at 18:36
Here's the deal. Holding detainees indefinitely on foreign soil without evidence is against international treaties and it is counter- productive to our relationships in the world.
No less than General Powell, Sec Def Robert Gates, Adm Mullen (Chair, JCS), Gen Petraeus (Allied Cmdr) all agree that closing Gitmo was long overdue.
http://tinyurl.com/qokv2t
Just because the Congress needs to pander to the fear-fetish of voters (altho I think they sell the voters' insight short on this) is not relevant to the goal.
Could Obama have handled it with more finesse? Not really. The argument is that he needed to announce Gitmo's closure ASAP because it is such an egregious violation of the law... not to mention counter to US' interests.
The mere announcement of Gitmo's closure effectively deflects the issue of Gitmo when Obama asks NATO allies for help in Afghanistan or the UN/China/Russia for help with nuclear proliferation.
Posted by: Grodge | 28 May 2009 at 08:21
One other thing: Gitmo, in effect, has been in the process of being closed for 4 years. The number of detainees has decreased from 700 to about 200. The Bush administration had made a decision to reduce utilization of the facility for all the obvious reasons, they were just unable or unwilling to deal with the conundrum created by it's existence.
The bottom line is that these suspected criminals should have been handled in a criminal process and not as POW's or non-state "detainees." If they committed crimes, then try them. Now the trail of evidence is so cold that prosecution is nearly impossible... but it doesn't change the impracticality of holding alleged criminals indefinitely.
Posted by: Grodge | 28 May 2009 at 08:28
Grodge:
Not sure if you watch them, but I get a kick out of Colbert, and sometimes John Stewart, too. I enjoy a good laugh. But the so-called torture debate isn't as black-and-white as they, their writers, and their minions want to believe.
Below is a link to an article that asks and answers a simple question: Why doesn't the left in Congress reintroduce their bill to outlaw waterboarding as "torture" -- now that it would breeze right through? Answer: It was a political stunt last time, because it was certain to fail. Now things are different: not only would it breeze through, it would be an admission that it wasn't illegal before.
I am not taking a position on waterboarding; just pointing out that it's not as simple as many would like to think. Read the whole article here:
"Torture and the 'Truth Commission'
Why has Congress failed to outlaw waterboarding?"
http://tinyurl.com/dhmjd7
One other thing: We don't have to close Gitmo to stop waterboarding. We can implement new policies right there. Unless, of course, one has painted oneself into a political corner.
Posted by: Optimist123 | 28 May 2009 at 14:35
Torture and waterboarding are a different matter not pertinent to the issue at hand.
I'll stand by my opinion that "announcing" the closure of Gitmo was not a rookie mistake.
Obama's announcement, in fact, 1)was necessary, 2) has no material effect on our security, 3) is a continuation of the policy set forth by the previous administration since 2004 and 4) will reap benefits as we find out way back towards the moral authority that is our wont.
Posted by: Grodge | 28 May 2009 at 21:06