May 20th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

Why won't Democrats give president money to close Gitmo?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama is facing resistance from his own party when it comes to plans to close down the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba. Senate Democrats say they won't provide the $80 million requested to shut down the facility until the administration comes up with a plan for transferring the detainees.

A guard tower and gate are pictured at the Guantanamo detention center at the U.S. Naval Base, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

That money will be stripped from a supplemental war bill and instead replaced with language that says no money can be used to transfer detainees from Gitmo to the U.S. - and no additional money will be approved until 60 days after Mr. Obama submits his plan to Congress.

This is similar language to what's in the House bill, and it's a big blow to the president, who right after he took office, announced he would close the base by next January.

You can bet politics is behind all this.The Republicans have been hammering away that it would be a reckless move to shut the prison down before deciding what to do with the terror suspects. They've released statements saying things like: "Meet your new neighbor, Khalid Sheik Mohammad?" And House Republicans introduced a bill called the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act.

Meanwhile the Pentagon says there's nothing to indicate that the deadline to close Gitmo by January is at all in jeopardy; and just today a top Pentagon official said members of Congress have to rethink their opposition to allowing detainees into the U.S. She says closing the prison in Cuba will mean hard choices for everyone.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean that the president's own party won't give him the money to close the Guantanamo Bay prison?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Lou writes:
Because mid-term elections are next year and none of the cowards can get re-elected with Republicans telling voters their representatives are going to move these detainees to jails in their states. We don't have a government for the people any more. We have a government for the upcoming election.

Bob from Argentina writes:
You have to have a plan. Plain and simple. It is complete stupidity to close a "confinement facility" of any kind without a plan for those you have confined there - unless you just don't care. If you don't care, then move them next door to those who suggested all of this.

Matt writes:
Rule #1: Do and say anything to get elected.
Rule #2: Ignore what you did and said before you got elected.
Rule #3: Now that we know what we know, we can’t do what we said we would do.

Michael writes:
It means people are starting to have doubts that everything will fall into place. I honestly believe this can work so I wish that Obama’s party would give him the support he deserves. If any president needed support right now, it’s Obama. He was thrown into a garbage pile of bad decisions that must be corrected

Steve writes:
They are terrified that they will end up in their districts. John Boehner says they have cleared out whole wings of prisons for 4 convicted terrorists. Why? Let them stay together and recruit each other. Where in the hell are they going anyway?

Roger from Palm Desert, California writes:
Jack, What it means is that the Democratic Party needs some guts. We’ve kept the Unabomber, John Wayne Gacy, Charlie Manson and others of their ilk off the streets. If there’s one thing we do know how to do, it’s how to imprison people. Shut Gitmo down and deprive al Qaeda one of its best recruitment tools.

Filed under: Uncategorized
soundoff (219 Responses)
  1. Ken In Pinon Hills, California

    They like the other party, worry about the safety of incarcerating them near their neighborhoods if they decide to do such.
    Here's a plan, since the administration is being persuaded by Harry Reed of Nevada not to store spent nuclear waste in his state at the mult-billion dollar Yucca Mountain Site, put the Guantanamo Bay bad guys there in that five mile hole.

    May 20, 2009 at 2:58 pm |

    It means once again the Democrats caved into the Republicans Fear Mongering ways, you think they would have learned with the Iraq War. My question is When is the Democrats gonna Get a Back Bone and Stand up to Republicans?

    May 20, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  3. Jim from Chicago

    It is just another example of the Republicans playing the fear card ("Obama wants to release the terrorists into your neighborhood") and the weak-willed Democrats falling for it. If we had genuinely informed voters and not just talking points believers, this type of malarkey would not be an issue.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:01 pm |
  4. Bill in Michigan

    It's the NIMBY (not in my back yard) principle at work. Yes, we think closing Gitmo is the right and ethical thing to do; just guarantee us they won't be moving into my neighborhood.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
  5. Melissa

    Honestly, no bloody idea. But then, everything Congress does confuses the daylights out of me because most of the time, it makes no bloody sense.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  6. Chris from N.Y.

    It means they are covering for Mr. Obama. The president rushed through an executive order in his first few days in office to show the nation how he was going keep his campaign promises. What did he didn't calculate was how he was going to do it and the ramifications that come with it. Since Mr. Obama was anointed as the nation's savior by the democrats, they cannot let him fail this early in his administration. The house and senate democrats must, therefore, cover him by pretending that it is they who will not allow the president to carry out his promises.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
  7. Terence

    Jack, What do you think? They want a Tarp bailout just like everyone else is getting. Either they get a piece of the action or nobody will.
    Terence, Piscataway, NJ

    May 20, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  8. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    It means republicans found ways to scare people again! Just like they manage to pass an gun amendment to the credit card new law...pathetic!

    May 20, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
  9. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    It is long overdue that before we allocate any more money for anything that a plan needs to be attached that is workable and realistic. He has no plan. We also need to stop sending money to these other countries for food, aid and other stuff. Let's send them food, water, and other needed items but not money.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  10. Frank from Peterborough

    It just means another black eye for America around the world.

    The fact is most are likely innocent and have been detained and tortured to some degree and will be seeking recourse against the U.S. if ever allowed their freedom.

    Most civilized nations recognize a simple human right that it isn't proper to kidnap people and lock them up for ever without any benefit of a fair process to determine whether or not they did something wrong.

    It is only fitting the same interrogation and incarceration tactics be used on all citizens within the United States of America.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
  11. cat

    It means alot of them are going to lose their jobs...Finally, Justice for We The People.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
  12. charlesfenderson

    It means that this will give individuals involved in creating the enhanced interrogation laws enough time to hide how they tortured detainees. Lets face the truth once and for all please Jack, they could have never tortured detainees in our highly secured Federal prisons and got away with it this long. If a terrorist attacks China or Israel their trial, conviction, and imprisonment will be in those countries. So maybe most of these prisoners havent committed crimes at all.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
  13. Karen in CA

    It means legislators lack guts and it means Obama needs to educate us about how fear is blocking a rational assessment of our high security prisons.

    San Quentin is in my back yard, and Charles Manson has been safely stuck there for years. Now if anyone is worthy of fear, that guy is. But everyone knows he's never getting out to terrorize me and my neighbors. Once the Gitmo detainees are safely tucked away in high security prisons, the public will forget he's in their back yard, just like we forget Manson is a couple of miles down the road.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
  14. Mark, Bradenton, FL

    Obama needs to kick butt and show them who the boss is.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
  15. Marie Ontario

    It means no one imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay has hired a group of lobbyists to pay the members of Congress enough money to vote in their favor.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  16. Gene

    I'm a life-long Democrat, but lately I've come to the ralization that the current crop in the House and Senate are a bunch of gutless wonders. If any of them have a spine, it's made of jello. What they are doing with this vote is showing us and the world weakness and fear. I bet Al Qaeda, Iran, or North Korea would have no problem imprisoning our soldiers. I'm 57 years old and, for the first time in my adult life, I'm considering switching my party affiliation to Independent. The Democrats aren't showing any backbone, and I just don't like the Grand Opposition Party..

    May 20, 2009 at 3:28 pm |
  17. Jerry,OK

    Jack, It's all over the news....Democrats are not going to OK funds for Gitmo until they know Obama's plan. The public is behind the president on this issue, so look for Gitmo to be closed soon.

    Jerry N/Broken Arrow, OK

    May 20, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
  18. Gigi

    It's all about money, control, reelection back home, lobbyist, and lining pockets. Which makes me wonder why the detainees can't be housed in the US. Are the prisons here not secure? We have plenty of bad guys of our own being housed at prisons in our back yards. Is it a bidding war who will take them for the big bucks? There are a lot of questions on why they don't want to try them in the US. Are there accounts that might upset the American people if brought out at fair trial? The last eight years has made us a little hard or pessimistic concerning our country. I doubt that the really bad guys are the ones in prison. The bad guys are probably hiding in luxury somewhere unrecognized.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
  19. Linda in Charleston, SC

    Means there is big fear Jack, big fear that these people will end up in our backyards and we don't have enough BBQ to feed them.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:35 pm |
  20. Jim Bailey

    It means that they are cowards pure and simple.
    At least the President has a back bone...too bad Congressional Dems don't.
    The republicans are trying to rename the Democratic Party...how about this...Wussie Democrats.
    Jim Bailey
    Cripple Creek CO

    May 20, 2009 at 3:35 pm |
  21. Charles in Illinois

    Because they don't want to make the same costly mistake like President Bush made when he invaded Iraq and didn't know what to do once he got their & didn't have a exit strategy. The USA must have a strategy or plan as to what to do with those indiviuals at Gitmo AND to make sure that the United States of America and her people are safe.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  22. Remo .............. Austin, Texas

    The Honeymoons over?

    May 20, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  23. Bob - Playa Union Argentina

    You HAVE TO have a plan!!!! Plain and simple. It is complete stupidity to close a "confinement facility" of any kind without a PLAN for those you have confined there unless you just don't care!!

    If you don't care then move them next door to those who suggested all of this. Live amongst the result of your actions.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
  24. Nancy, Tennessee

    Maybe some of the Democrats in Congress don't want a former detainee as a neighbor. I don't want to share my neighborhood with someone who has not been proven guilty or deemed innocent of plotting a terrorist act. We need to do something with these detainees other than loading them up and turning them loose on American soil. A trial for each would be prudent.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
  25. Sandra in Arkansas

    Maybe it means that the folks in Washington are beginning to listen to the folks back home..."You should know where and how money is going to be spent before it is allocated." It may just mean more of the same old politics..."you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." To close Gitmo then there has to be a plan. With a plan you have an idea of how much you need...without a plan it is just speculation and you can guarantee whatever is allocated it won't be enough and they will be back asking for more.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:39 pm |
  26. Mike, Syracuse, NY

    It means a rare fleeting instance in sanity in the Congress. The reason the terrorists were put there is because no one wanted them in the US. Now we all have to make 'hard choices'? Can someone explain why the best choice, leaving them there, is off the table?

    May 20, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  27. Tom in Desoto, Tx

    Perhaps they want a safe place to keep Bush's regime after conviction. You don't want that stuff to spread throughout the nation.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  28. Jason, Knoxville

    I think they realize that its a stupid idea to close gitmo. Its a little harder to close such a big compound and no one knows details like what will happen to the inmates?

    May 20, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
  29. Jerry from Monroe Co. WV

    Maybe it's the amount, Jack, that gives the democrats pause. $80 million seems like a lot of money to move less than 300 people, even in tight security. That works out to more than $266,000 each. Then what else has to be done? Oh, yeah, somebody has to shut the door.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
  30. Tom Mytoocents Fort Lauderdale Florida


    I think the president is right to stop torture. Gitmo as I understand is a legal maneuver to deny the detainees rights they would have in the USA.
    Logically you could grant the prisoners a trial with all the trimmings and leave them at Gitmo. I dion't think they should appropriate money until a plan is in place..

    May 20, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  31. Greg Ontario

    They don't have the back bone or vision that the president does. They don't have to go to the middle east and sit down and talk to religeous crazy people. Face it Jack America has become a country of half measures. Arrest them but don't keep them in prisons on American soil. Convict them of terrorism and murder but don't put them to death. Show people the proof of their guilt and kill them or let them go. America should hand them over to China. It would all be handled in a day or two.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
  32. Tom, Avon, Me, The Heart of Democracy

    It means Republicans don't have a monopoly on stupidity. Al Qaida's enlistment slogan and battle cry are, "Remember Guantanamo!" just as much as it is, "Remember Abu Gharaib!"

    By making Bin Laden's case for him we have saved Al Qaida a fortune in Public Relations and Marketing, at least $80 million. Send him the bill and let him pay for moving anyone with questionable innocence to America. Let the rest go home with compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  33. Pugas-AZ

    Not in my backyard syndrone. Things are easy to talk about but oh so hard to accept when they happen.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  34. Alex in Seattle

    Congress has a point in pushing for the details of what will happen to the detainees. If anything, to defuse the Republican fear campaign (lies) that the terrorists will be released into American neighborhoods. If they cannot be tried in a court of law, they should be released to their country of origin. Yes, some may return to the fight, but nobody should be held indefinitely without some access to due process. A principle we have held since the Magna Carta.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  35. Diana NJ

    They are gutless and worried only about getting money for their own re-election..

    May 20, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  36. KenJ

    President Obama is my guy . . . but, there needs to be a plan.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  37. Jay in Texas

    It means that the American people need to use better judgment when electing or re-electing their congressmen and senators. It also means that the prisoners should be treated as "prisoners of war" because that is what they are. We had a German prisoner of war camp here in our town in the 1940s and had no problems whatsoever. We need to stop letting our politicians play word-games with us because they have serious consequences in the long run.
    Brownwood, Texas

    May 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  38. Will from San Jose

    It means congressional Democrats are spineless morons who have let the Republicans frame the language of this debate using phrases like "released" into the US. The President doesn't plan on sending detainees to Disneyland, he plans on sending them to the same prisons that hold countless rapists, killers and terrorists like Terry Nichols.

    May 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  39. J Atlanta

    My personal guess is that all the rest of the terrorists held at Gitmo are hard core and the only way to deal with them is execution. Since we don't have the stomach for that, the Congress uses the only tool it has to continue to be spineless about this very harsh problem that they themselves caused when they voted to go to war with Iraq with the idiot Bush.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  40. Todd Stearn

    Jericho, NY
    Closing Guantanamo would be a bad idea. The incarceration of terror suspects has been pertinent to safeguarding American interests and well-being at home and across the world. Obama made a promise to the American people, however the Democratic base now won't give him the fiscal support he needs to close the detention center down. Maybe dems now feel that – given the unstable economic state across the world – to not have Guantanamo open could preclude a greater attack with higher consequences. Many Americans may not agree with the sort of questionable practices that go on there, but isn't it comforting to know that terrorists and "martyrs" are locked down and under guard? Gitmo is a symbol to radicals that their extremist ideals will not be taken lightly by the United States. Keep it open!

    May 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  41. Jack Martin

    It means that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. They both find it both mentally and physically impossible to provide solutions to any problem. Political posturing is easier than thinking about what is best for the country. Perhaps they both think that they can imprison those people for life in Guantanamo Bay. Eighty million to shut down Gitmo. How much do they think it will cost to keep it going? All the intelligence in this administration seems to be alone in the oval office.
    Jack in Boynton Beach FL

    May 20, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
  42. Rod

    This is simply a smoke screen for the Politicians that have argued, not in my back yard. Yet, not wanting to be accused of being soft on crime is stupid. It seems like they haven’t learned, that having a gunslinger type mentality is not only gutturalize thinking, but gut-wrenching for the not so faint-hearted not to mention, being highly counterproductive. I thought we were trying to reframe our image around the World? Maybe Not! Aren’t we the leading Country in the World that believes in, lock them up and throw away the key? While wanting everyone to believe that we are real Humanitarians? Once again, hypocrisy at work! When will it end? We need more Barack Obama’s in leadership to stop this madness and get us going in the right direction.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  43. David in Raleigh, NC

    If Obama wants to close Gitmo and bring the terrorists to the United States, let's build a compound for these terrorists on the White House lawn. Bet this would make Gitmo more attractive to Obama.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:06 pm |
  44. Meg from Troy, Ohio

    It means that once again our congressional representatives are more concerned about their political futures than they are about doing the right thing. I haven't voted for an incumbent for congress in years because of this kind of selfish behavior. And I won't in the next elections either. We need to put these detainess on trial and either convict and imprison them or acquit them and set them free. Anything else is a violation of our own American values.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:06 pm |
  45. charlesfenderson

    It means that this will give individuals involved in creating the enhanced interrogation laws enough time to hide how they tortured detainees. Lets face the truth once and for all please Jack, they could have never tortured detainees in our highly secured Federal prisons and got away with it this long. If a terrorist attacks China or Israel their trial, conviction, and imprisonment will be in those countries. So maybe most of these prisoners havent committed crimes at all.
    San Diego

    May 20, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  46. Joseph Elwell

    Many of the POWs we captured in World War II decided to move to the United States because we introduced them to American spirit. If we continue to treat detainees as monsters why would they ever respect us?

    May 20, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  47. Randy from Salt Lake City, UT

    First off, there is no difference between the two parties. They are both owned by big oil, big pharma, HMO's, Wall Street, Big Insurance, Monsanto and of course, AIPAC. Second, both parties are complicit in war crimes which is what Gitmo is, which means that if these men, who were picked off the street just for reward money, ever got a fair trial and released, their stories of years of internment and torture would be released for the world to see. And the world will see that this country pretty much sucks.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  48. Jean B

    The Democrats constituents said "hey we won't re-elect you" Congressperson. That's why they have backed off.
    Obama has made many mistakes already, flip flops, & other missteps, and look like what many of us thought he was=novice and inexperienced. Never seen such a Pres like this before and hope it does not bring our nation down.
    When he released the Mastermind of the Cole Bombing, that's when we knew=not so bright, however he sounds good reading his teleprompter.
    Jean B

    May 20, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  49. Alex in Wisconsin

    They are just waiting for a solution to where to put the detainees. it's simple. build a super max prison in the northern Alaskan tundra. Not many civilians will be in the way in case of a 1 in a million escape, the climate will be an extra security layer, and only 1 democratic senator would be on the chopping block for approving the transfers of crazy extremist to a state filled with and lead by crazy extremists.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  50. Joanna

    we wouldn't have the problem of Gitmo if Cheney & Bush didn't start a war that wasn't necessary.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  51. Ed Bassett Sr

    As to the Gitmo question, apparently no imagination is being used. Simply take all the prisoners to Afganistan and as soon as they clear the bus–bomb the crap out of them because now they CAN be looked upon as cobatants!

    Ed Watertown CT

    May 20, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  52. David Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    Because the Faaaaarrr Left wants to save the world and all join hands
    and appease all the bullies who want to kill us.The normal left with
    common sense knows that is crazy dangerous so they will not hand
    over the money and neither would I.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  53. HD in Phoenix, AZ

    Becasue they busy are playing politics as usual.

    HD in Phoenix, AZ

    May 20, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  54. randy hoekstra

    jack the answer for the detaines at gitmo is simpel you sedate them inplant a gps chip just like my dog has and you turn them lose in there home town if they are really involved with bin ladin they should lead us right to him problem solved

    May 20, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  55. Donald in CA

    Because they are wimps. One thing i can say about the
    republicans, they stick together. Democrats have never had the
    stick that the republicans do.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  56. Tom in Desoto, Tx

    Would it not be easier to have all the Gitmo detainees put on ONE plane piloted by a crew with no family what so ever and send it back to Baghdad when, somewhere over the Atlantic "something" goes wrong and the flight crashes in the middle of the ocean and sinks. No survivors.... Last one out of Gitmo turns off the lights. It wouldn't be the first time there was an "accident".

    May 20, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  57. Linda in Arizona

    It means we have some Democrats in name only we need to get rid of.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  58. Richard Green

    It means that the Democrats are as afraid now as they were during the Bush administration. What a bunch of spineless wimps.
    [don't they know that we already have a dozen or more "terrorists" in our federal prison system....as well as many home grown animals who would scare the heck out of any so-called terrorists we put in with them.] What sad shape we're in......

    Rich Green
    San Clemente, Cal.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  59. Ken

    It's simple. Don't put terrorists (whoops can't call them that) in my back yard. I believe all politicians are finally listening to the folks paying the bill.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  60. Bernard Clark

    Politics has been a game of "smoke and mirrors" for years! It is obvious that house Democrats will flip flop when public relations nightmares appear, such as the Republicans are making with the closing of GITMO and the transfer of Guantanamo detainee's to America without a contingency plan; especially if if may cause them problems during reelection campaigns. Republicans are failing in their effort to stir up MOB SUPPORT behind any of the superfluous issues they try to rally behind because the American public is getting smarter and less uncompromising. Obama can afford to keep his campaign promises to close GITMO, but other Democratic leaders won't be as secure in their own positions, especially since the tea party movement shows that some of the MOB MENTALITY is still alive.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:19 pm |

    I think they are being cautious. That is a legitimate question. Where to place the prisoners. I woudn't want to be the one that approved monies for the release of prisoners who could potentially send waves of destruction upon our citizen's.
    If they are placed in America I guess will have to have a terrorist registry like we have for pediphiles. We need to know were they are living at all times.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  62. Michael Sullivan from Lafayette, California

    Jack - These dedicated politicians, which, of course, includes the Democrats, are shaking in their boots from hearing the resounding chant
    of their dedicated constituents, "Not in our backyard" - 'tis strange how
    quickly these politicians turn from supporting the closing of Gitmo to just
    the opposite, when the going gets tough!

    May 20, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  63. Ken in NC

    Competition Jack, Competition. Democrats and Republicans both know they have to compete with each other for the chance to get and spend taxpayer dollars and to bring the Terrorist Party here from Gitmo means they would then have to compete with a third party whose rights to be freed would be fought for by the ACLU. The American people fail to realize that terrorist are already in the country. The only difference is that the ones that are already here are not yet in our prisons.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  64. Beverley, Fredericksburg Va


    They will, right after they pretend they are being tougher than the Republicans on a foriegn policy issue. Also for 2010 they have to have one vote to show they are not lock step with Obama on everything.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  65. Kevin ,Fl

    Because some Democrats are begining to see the light, and actually might have Americas interest at heart .....rather than the Extreme Liberal Left. It means I wont have to worry about Sheik Al whoever, the head of the Taliban running loose around the neighborhood. By the way here thank God , we still believe in the 2nd Ammendmant!!

    May 20, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  66. Mary from Kentucky

    The Democrats and the Republicans ought to be shot. None of them means the President any good.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  67. Chad from Los Angeles, CA

    It means the president is not all powerful, like the last president thought. This is balance of power working like it was drawn up to work in that pesky document called the Constitution.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  68. Dee in sunny (and dry) Florida

    It may mean that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to keeping prisoners without the benefit of due process. Or it may mean that the Democrats have heard from their constituents, who have bought into the scare tactics with regard to GITMO, and have said loud and clear, NIMBY.

    Or is it just a power play, designed to keep Obama from thinking he can get everything he asks for?

    It might also be that if the prisoners were relocated to the U.S. prisons, word might actually leak out about the treatment they received at GITMO and make the "torture" scandal even worse.

    I know it is not because the Democrats think too much money has already been spent on anything to do with this senseless war! Maybe it means that there are subcontractors running GITMO, and they have lobbies to keep it from being shut down, and thus taking away their blank check!

    Personally, I think that this, like everything else in the government, has something to do with who can get richest if things are just left as they are.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  69. Mickey Baird

    Surely we have a seaworthy ship in dry dock, preferably a aircraft carrier, that would house the Guantanamo (sp) captors. Properly fitted could provide all essentials for them including food and medical. With a carrier even attorney's could be flown in. The only way to escape would be swimming. LOL. You can easily fill in the rest of the advantages this wiould provide and would solve the problem of where to house the captors. Tell me I'm crazy or tell the President my idea.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  70. Stacy from Fairfax, VA

    Perhaps they realize that closing Gitmo and redistributing the prisoners is not the best solution. Instead, the US should provide the prisoners legal representation and a fair trial. That sounds like a better democratic solution to me.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  71. Donna Colorado Springs,Co

    My guess is that most of the Democrats against the presidents plan have lost their minds! The Republican "terrorist on every corner" scare tactics that are obviously being used again are working on the weaker morons in our party! What a shame! I live close to where a super max prison is located and we don't spend our lives living in terror. These Republicans really need to update their stand-up routine!

    May 20, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  72. David A Whitaker

    I am a strong supporter of the president, however I believe that the White House need to have a plan before recieving any money.


    Martinsburg, WV

    May 20, 2009 at 4:39 pm |
  73. Kris

    I don't think anyone, democrat or republican, wants thier name tied to a potential mess where prisoners classified as "extremely dangerous" are in the back yards of cities in our country. Furthermore, what kind of a message does this send to the people who have and are still suffering from losses due to the types of prisoners held at Gitmo?
    Thank God there are a few democrats that didn't feel comfortable voting for this measure.
    I wonder if anyone ask the people of Hardin, MT if they wanted their empty jail cells filled with potential terrorists?
    My question to you is why would our president ask us, the people of the united states, to stand down against terrorists in the first place? I say keep them there and find the money to put more of them right along side them.
    Kris, Oregon

    May 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  74. Myra Becnel

    I don't have a clue and I certainly do not understand this at all. If the Bush administration did not have a plan of what they would do with them to begin with, why did they start this camp at all? Why do we need to have a plan now? In any other wars, if we took prisoners, what would happen and what would we do, WW2, Korea, VietNam? Just tells us that this so called war had no plan from day one. And now the current President and we the people have to deal with this awful mess!

    May 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  75. Denny Denend

    Because Democrats do not want to pay for Republican screw-ups? Most likely because the Democrats believe the Republican canter that it would be dangerous to allow such criminals in the continental U.S.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  76. Adam Thousand Oaks, CA

    It means the honeymoon is over. Obama has to stop filling the air with empty promises with no basis in reality. The new president does not like to concern himself with details like this. We can "Hope" that magic happens and they all disappear from GITMO, but "Hope" isn't a strategy. Who volunteers to take 250 terrorists into their district? Any takers?

    May 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  77. Joy

    Jack relax, this whole thing is a plan by the white house. U better believe it, the President will get the money he is asking for. This move is to buy the
    President some time.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  78. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    It means they are all cowards. I have a three bedroom house. I can take a few. Better yet, why don't we just send them to Saudi Arabia's rehabilitation center. The psychiatrists there were taught in the US and are adept at behavior modification with a 98% success rate. The other 2% have to go through the program again. It works.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  79. dave

    Pure Politics and Obama again is the winner now he can go to his base and say see I wanted to close it but congress cut the funds.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
  80. Ken from Colorado

    What it means is that elected officials on the Right and the Left have caved into paranoia, fear mongering, and politicization.
    It's absurd to think that we don't have the facilities in the USA to house these prisoners. Hell, bring them to the Super Max facility in Florence, CO. We already have terrorism conspirator Jose Padilla, "Unabomber" Theodore Kaczynski, Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, and September 11 attacks conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. They are dangerous criminals like the rest of the inmates in the prison, no more, no less. There is no reason to let a bunch of politicians hijack our values and habeas corpus to perpetuate their ill conceived rationales.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
  81. john .... marlton, nj

    Two reasons, first political posturing for the next 911 blame game and second, because of the world economy, no other other country can absorb the influx of binden laden drivers into there city cab fleets.... .. Our politicians are weak and useless..

    May 20, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  82. Karen, Nashville

    It means they don't want a bunch of dangerous radicals, most of whom will eventually be released, living on US soil. I agree with them. I also agree that Gitmo should be shut down. Catch 22.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
  83. Richard New Hampshire

    Closing the Gitmo prison was a promise by candidate Obama that was premature and not clearly thought out.He is correct in rethinking his actions on Gitmo.We should give the President and the Democrats time to figure this one out.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
  84. Ray Lawson from Danville, VA

    Because no one wants those terrorists in this country. Therefore they want to know what Obama plans to do with them.

    May 20, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  85. Gail, Plano Texas

    Bush created a Pandora's Box regarding Gitmo and apparently, Democrats and Republicans supported this action. I am more ashamed as each day shines more light on the stupidness of the Congress. It is outrageous that we, the taxpayers, pay them such high salaries for doing nothing but act like frightened babies.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  86. Eric Bracke

    it means that governing is different than campaigning. They now have realities to deal with rather than flowery speeches that pander to the masses. No one wants these folks at club git-mo because they are very dangerous people. The prisoners own countries won't even take them back. I am not a fan of the Republican party by any means but the democrats are even worse when it comes to the safety of our nation.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  87. Allen in Hartwell GA

    It means that this is another fine mess that Bush got us into.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
  88. Gregg from San Diego

    Perhaps they are worried about overcrowding in facilities they may have to occupy themselves. Some of our lawmakers can be much more of a threat to the American way of life than some of those now in Guantanamo. I know I wouldn't want most of them in my backyard!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
  89. Salih From Philadelphia

    I think this is one of those things that we need to do for america image more than anything. Whats strange in all of this is Diane Feinstein said that we already have detainees in america in "supermax" prisons far away from any residential areas. These prisons are made for this exact reason so what a few more gonna hurt really? Sadly our democratic congress is doing what we scream about republicans for doing putting their jobs ahead of what is best for this country.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
  90. Harry Brown

    Jack why Won't Obama us an idea what he plans to do with the people in gitmo?

    May 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
  91. Agnes from Scottsdale, AZ

    Jack: It means the Congress will no longer be a rubber stamp for the President. As amazing as this might be, this is what our founding fathers meant when they set up3 branches of government. In 60 days the President will presesnt his plan for where the detainees will go and we'll be onto the next political adventure.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  92. Bob D, Morrisown, NJ

    This delaying strategy is a way for individual legislators to know whether they should vote against the closing of GTIMO it it means that one or more of the terrorists are to be transferred to their constituents' back yard. In other words, it's purely parochial politics and does not reflect on our president personally.

    Politics aside, I think its a tempest in a teapot. Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, and his co-conspirator terrorists who attempted to topple the World Trade Center in 1993 have been incarcerated in the continental US prison system without incident for the past 14 years. Most of the inmates of our federal maximum security penitentiaries are as malevolent and dangerous as the terrorists and suspects now incarcerated at GITMO.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  93. SHARON: Anchorage, Alaska

    It means that BOTH sides of Congress are rethinking the enormity of the task at hand; and are not willing to risk angering their constituents just to please the President. It's sort of "would you prefer to piss your family off that you live with or the person who lives across town"?

    May 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  94. Epic Failure

    Here is a solution: put a bullet in the prisoners' heads and save $80 million in the process.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  95. William

    They are a bunch of gutless people playing on fear and politics.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  96. Julie

    They finally realized that the Messiah does not know what to do with them either and was just saying what he thought everyone wanted to hear during the campaign.

    Austin, TX

    May 20, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  97. Alan - Buxton, Maine

    It means that their are some brain dead Democrats.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  98. Nosh

    Perhaps those that oppose the plan should spend some time in these "ill-prepared" institutions.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  99. Beau - Napa, Ca.

    It means that even though Democrats may have a pretty good head on their collective shoulders, they still haven't developed a spine!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  100. Danyel

    It means that they are running for re-election and that they have more sense than the leader.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  101. Roland(St George,UT)

    It means the Democrats are finally getting smart. My hunch is that the plan to close the facility will eventually be scrapped altogether. It's cheaper to leave Guantanamo open, than it is to find/build another facility and relocate those prisoners. It's also safer to keep high-threat prisoners housed there, off shore and well isolated from the US mainland. Not closing the facility will be a mark on Obama's record as a broken campaign promise, but every president has those, and Mr. Obama is skillful enough to show why this one is justified. As long as the torture of prisoners is stopped, I think most Americans will go along with keeping it open...at least while there are still Al Qaeda and other terrorist nuts loose in the world plotting attacks on us, that is. (Roland/St George, UT)

    May 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  102. Jim

    It means simply that the Democrats in congress are still cowards who are afraid to lead and take chances.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  103. Sheila


    It means that common sense is still alive and well. This was a ridiculous campaign promise, and when it comes down to the logistics Obama has found it impossible. I would suggest that anyone that wants those terrorists freed should have them as their next door neighbours. Oh......no one wants that?? I'm shocked!!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  104. AndyZ Lynn. MA

    Closing Gitmo is only part one of the issue. I am actually happy the congress said no to the President. When the President announces where the inmates will be imprisoned then congress should provide the funds. I wonder what the President thought he would do with the prisoners; have them work as greeters at Wal-Mart?

    May 20, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  105. Roger Beck

    What it means is that the Democratic party needs to grow a pair. We’ve kept the Unabomber, John Wayne Gacy, Charlie Manson and others of his ilk off the streets; if there’s one thing we do know how to do it’s how to imprison people. Shut Gitmo down and deprive Al Qaeda one of it’s best recruitment tools.

    Roger in Palm Desert, CA

    May 20, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  106. Tom decatur al

    It's simple jack, they have no spines whenever an election is right around the corner!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  107. Bob In Florida

    I HATE to interject sensibility here, but WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHERE the detainees are held, Gitmo OR in the US???? It IS a matter of HOW the detainees are being held!!!!! Are they NOT being tortured? Are they getting the proper meals and health care? Will they get “rights” as prisoners would? Will they have full access to lawyers???

    If the answers to ALL of these questions is YES, then IT DOES NOT MATTER ONE HOOT WHERE THEY ARE BEING HELD!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  108. Joel

    Timothy Mcveigh, Theodore Kaczynski, John Allen Muhammad, and countless other dangerous national security threats have been kept in U.S. prisons without a problem. When will Republicans realize that real life isn't like the Batman movies where terrorists escape prisons and resume their criminal behavior?

    May 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  109. andrew s

    common sense dont want them in the us....however my thought...bring them here give obama the "change" he wants put them in a max security US prison i dont think theyll make it too far nor long...- andrew chicago

    May 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  110. Scott

    Congress members are political cowards when it comes to making decisions that may upset a voter. There must be some naval boat that is ready to be de-comissioned, so put the detainees in the hold and give them a long cruise until they can be tried.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  111. Andrew

    It shows that even with such a broadly accepted idea, everyone is worries about money during this time. It also shows that these democrats are more worried about re-election than their ideals and doing the right thing.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  112. Ken in NC

    Competition Jack, it's all about Competition. Democrats and Republicans both know they have to compete with each other for the chance to get and spend taxpayer dollars and to bring the Terrorist Party here from Gitmo means they would then have to compete with a third party whose rights to be freed would be fought for by the ACLU. The American people fail to realize that terrorist are already in the country. The only difference is that the ones that are already here are not yet in our prisons.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  113. Mark M

    Because there cowards, we as americans should not be using our tax dollars to pay for keeping them locked up over there. Put them in prisons here in the states and let our inmates take care of them.

    instead Rep and Dems fight daily like 3 year old children whom said this or said that, who cares house and senate dems and rep grow up and do the job we elected you for.

    take care of us and our issues and stop caring so much how these terroist are treated in prison let them ROT just dont use my tax dollars for it,

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  114. Mary Fortner

    Jack, It means that the Republicans have played the "fear" card once again and some the Democrats are running scared. There are no good arguments for not moving these detainees to maximum security prisons. This is just Karl Rove thinking... that if you "scare them...they will cave." Happened in 2004

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  115. Jim Blevins

    While I agree that a plan is needed, this is a foolish fight for congress to pick. Any democratic congress person who stands in the way of closing the Guantanamo prison is putting their political future at risk. This is a distraction that the country does not now need.

    Jim, Craig, CO

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  116. Biil Jones

    They should hold on to the money, and use it to bail out California, if and when they go bankrupt !!!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  117. mrmalibu

    list the ones that won't support him and vote them out.
    it's the only power we have..

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  118. keiaffa

    it means that the Democrats are being responsible and not just shelling out money at the drop of a hat. it means they are being careful and want to make sure we plan and keeping the president accountable just as he is keeping others accountable. To me this doesnt mean that the democratic party is not really divided on this issue, but they want to make sure the american people can see that there are still the checks and balances that we need to make this country effective and stay transparent within this administration. I thinks its great!!!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  119. cebo

    Jack, the Democrats denying the President funding to close Gitmo, is a classic case of their lack of a spine as usual. Didn't stand up to Bush when he was in office; won't stand up to Cheney right now, and failing to throw their wholehearted supported behind Pelosi.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  120. SpringWolf

    It irks me when people say they don't want Gitmo prisoners on American soil. Excuse me but Gitmo IS American soil, just as all military bases and embassy's are American soil.

    These places ARE governed by the laws and constitution of the United States. They don't get to have their own little "country" to do whatever they want there.

    It also irritates me when people speak of bring terrorists here to the continental US as if they're going to be let go and move in next door to your mother. Come on, let's stop being this stupid.

    Congressional Dems probably won't back this policy because they are buying into this crap and are worried about their next elections.

    Ruther Glen, Va.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  121. Scott Ridener Sarasota, Fl

    It means its time to boot Mr Reid so hard in the rear he won't come down till he's back in Nevada. He obviously is either failing to do his job to support his President, or is deliberately attempting to boost his own authority regardless of the public's interest. President Obama inherited more boondoggles than the economy and two wars: he also inherited Reid and Palosi. These two have been continuous problems, and were loose cannon in Congress even before Obama was elected. Remember Palosi "taking impeachment off the table."

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  122. Joe CE

    The Gun Lobby is out of control. The long term solution probably lies with the Supreme Court in the future.

    Obama should veto any Bill prohibiting closure of the GITMO torture camp. He can no doubt find money from other sources if he tries. This is another test of his integrity and so far the results are disappointing.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  123. Billie Shaffer

    They are listening to the Republicans, what else?
    The Republicans never miss a chance to preach "FEAR"

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  124. Chris D., NYC

    It's understandable that they want a comprehensive plan to work with first......I believe they'll get that soon.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  125. km2g

    Why because they have no solution for the prisoners and their destination. I say we should just convert an old navy carrier and put the prisoners there; It can sit in international waters close to our shores and still be considered U.S soil.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  126. M.P. Atlanta, GA

    Well Jack, if they close GISMO then the US won't have a place to torture their prisoners. Duh!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  127. rita Adams

    It means that there are still a lot of milk toast dems that still need to be voted out.They act like they are afraid of the republicans. Maybe it's the money from the lobbyist that they are afraid of looking. but I can hardley stand to look at Pelosi and Reed anymore.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  128. Ed from Montana

    It means the Democrats are gutless wonders. It means they deserted their commander on the field of battle. It means they are more worried about protecting their careers then their country. And the Americans that are supporting these wimps are not brave Americans, but red,white and yellow chcikens.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  129. Marjorie Lominy

    Send them to Montana....They have a brand new empty jail and they are currently lobbying the administration. they are even willing to call it the 'New Gitmo'if it'll help. They are being practical because it will certainly means an influx of federal dollars and jobs.
    Congress is full of losers...they are proving it everyday.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  130. walter wilson

    They don`t have the guts to back their leader and giving the Republicans more ammunition for ridicule. We have people in our prisons that would make the detainees look like good samaritans.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  131. Michael McDowell

    It shows the stupidity that exists on the Democratic side, as well as with the Republicans. It highlights the theatrics and drama that is played out daily in our legislative bodies by both parties. I have said it a million times, until we instill term limits and get these BOZO'S out of the BIG TOP, this circus with these clowns will continue, and the country as a whole suffers.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  132. Ryan

    It means very little. Democrats don't want to fund a plan that doesn't exist yet, and I don't blame them. Let's figure out what exactly we're going to do about the detainees before throwing money around.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  133. Elta Wiserr

    The lawmakers are whimps.
    A war in Iraq was started with out planning so what is the big deal aout no plans for the prisoners??

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  134. Charles, Fremont, IN

    Because they don't want to put these terrorists in your back yard, Jack. President Obama didn't think things through and now that he knows more after becomming president he has to eat his words. The honeymoon is over.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  135. Ralph Nelson

    They don't want the prisoners in their state, and the Republicans would block it in the Senate with the stupid (undemocratic) 60 vote rule. Ralph, Yakima, Wa.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  136. Allen in Hartwell GA

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    It means that this is another fine mess that Bush got us into.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  137. Tim in Texas

    Gitmo is huge propganda tool for recruitment of terrorists, leaving it open makes us less safe. But republicans have used their fear tactics effectively, they've got folks believing that we're going to be running into these guys at the local five and dime. In reality, there's a town in Montana that wants a hundred of them. They've got an empty prison & it would mean jobs - right here in the US.
    Tim in Texas

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  138. Chuck in Virginia

    The vote was 90-6 to withhold the money and keep detainees off US soil. I'm not sure blaming the Repubs for this one makes much sense. Maybe Congress is just listening to their constituents. President Obama should take note.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  139. Yosef

    It was a politically popular issue for the Dems (Obama). But as usual, when the rubber meets the road, not the best idea. Similar to other issues that propelled the Dems further into power.

    Good luck with the fanciful ideals, when attempting to apply them to the real world.

    It is truly hard to find politicians willing to speak the truth, on either side.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  140. Gail St Germain

    Dear Jack...
    What I believe it means that the democrats in Cogress turned their back on our president in this very urgent issue is this:

    FEAR is alive and well in the USA. When people are willing to STILL listen to Dick Cheney as he spouts the same old party line "BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!"...and the belief is so very pervasive that even Democrats who were supposed to help this new Administration in its goal to clean up a very sick wound in the American soul...Guantanamo Bay Prison....(which they heralded when first announced)....it can only mean that they bought into the FEAR factor...shame on them! Shame on any American who buys into the fear instead of straightening their back bones and doing the right thing! It is truly an insult to our law enforcement abilities if they believe we cannot control these prisoners here!
    Gail St Germain

    May 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  141. Jesse Callahan

    Jack, could it mean that some in Congress are beginning to see the error of their ways. The self annointed leader is not quite what he would have you believe, and his policies do indeed present a danger to this country.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  142. Ryan

    It means very little. Democrats don't want to fund a plan that doesn't exist yet, and I don't blame them. Let's figure out what exactly we're going to do about the detainees before throwing money around.

    Goleta, CA

    May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  143. Shane B.

    The issue cuts deeper into the American people's lack of understanding of cause and effect relationships. What did the public think the government would do with these people once Guantanamo was closed? State representatives have to either make the truly difficult choice and make good on their promises or continue to wade through this election-minded pandering.

    If the Democrats can't rally behind an issue this straightforward, this early, we may be in for a rockier 4 years than we had anticipated.


    May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  144. Nell, Clemson, South Carolina

    Several reasons:

    (1) the Republicans scared everybody by falsely claiming that prisoners from Gitmo would be released into neighborhoods - an outright lie - and the media bought it and repeated it. Don't these media talking heads realize that NOBODY is going to release the prisoners into neighbors? (To his credit, Jon Stewart did pick up on the "straw man.")

    (2) Leon Panetta made that statement about the CIA always telling the truth to Congress. He wasn't there, so why is he commenting? Furthermore, we all know of incidents where the CIA lied - and some where the CIA took out foreign governments. I think this vote is partly in defense of Pelosi from Panetta's remarks.

    When everybody comes to their senses, it will be obvious that we can't keep Gitmo open. We have bigger problems to solve - such as Iran's weapons and the Israel-Arab conflict.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  145. warren from florida

    maybe they realize its in the countrys best interest to keep them out of u.s. soil poor obama change you can believe in get rid of pelosi there is a change i can believe in personaly i think term limits would help our country so we wouldnt get stuck with idiots like byrd biden the clintons and all the rest of the self searving scum

    May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  146. chidi nwachukwu

    six senators voted for the transfer of these terrorists to american soil. okay. why not transfer them to their states, iowa, illinois, or california. it is as simple as that. provide them with soccer fields, schools to rehabilitate them, and allow them, before president obama leaves office, to integrate into american society. thanks

    May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  147. Susan

    It means that the Democrat Senators and House members are a bunch of pansies! The Republican Party's usual scare tactics have evidently worked with the House & Senate Democrats. So much so that they refuse to stand with Obama who is the leader of their own Party and instead give the Republican Party a victory.

    Susan, Paducah, KY

    May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  148. Rita Fort Collins CO

    It is just another fear tactic by the Republicans. They haven't realized yet that the people are over the fear campaigns. Seems like the only people they can suck into it are the Democratic politicians. I would like to replace some of them with people who care more about what is good for this country than about getting re-elected. I personally will vote against every one of them that goes against our president's wishes. We have to close that awful place to keep the good will that President Obama has started.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  149. Mike (Democrat)

    It means that no one can decide what to do with the terrorists. It would be best to have a plan before spending this amount of money. How about Yucca Mountain. Maybe put the terrorists in the mountain where they have no where to go. Nevada doesn't want nuclear waste, so we can send them the terrorists instead. Let the Senate Majority Leader put that in his pipe and smoke it!!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  150. Doris Ford

    To my mind it shows how stupid politians of both parties think the American voter is. Do they believe the terrorst are supermen?
    Do they want to convince the public that a single terrorist is worse than many criminals we have in high security prisons. When a local,
    home grown terrorist bombed at Oklahoma City...he wasn't waterboarded to locate who helped him. He was processed, conviced
    by our laws in our home jails and courts not hidden in an off-shore
    torture chamber or shipped off to another nation even worse then the
    one we locate in Cuba.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  151. Diane, Houston TX

    Oh PLEASE! To quote Dickens, "have we no prisons?". Yeah, I was a liberal arts major though in theatre, not English. We've got all manner of worse criminals – those who've actually gotten a trial in front of a jury – in our prisons. Heck, if the RWNJ's don't like the idea of sending these folks to the US, send them to Texas. The general prosecutorial attitude here tends to be "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out". And our current "Governor Goodhair" shouldn't have any problem with that! Sheesh! Yes, this IS all about politics. And it's getting even more stupid than usual.


    May 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  152. Bernie of Lowell, MA

    It means that the entire Congress is caught up in a massive paranoid panic.

    We've kept these people caged in Gitmo for many years. Furthermore, many of these captives are innocent bystanders who are there merely because we sent out 'bounty hunters' to capture them.

    The same paranoia that keeps people in the cages of Gaza and the West Bank keeps Gitmo open. I hope it's not for the 40-plus years that the Palestinians have been 'caged' – or worse, the centuries that 'native Americans' have been relegated to reservations.

    A real plan would also get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's use the same ships that bring our troops back home to take these captives back to their homes.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  153. Rory Murray, San Bernardino, CA

    It means that the "Not In My Back Yard" attitude prevails even among bleeding heart liberals. I suggest we ship the detainees to Alcatraz off the San Francisco coast and see how tolerant Mayor Gavin Newsom REALLY is!
    Rory Murray
    San Bernardino, CA

    May 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  154. Abel P. Ochoa, McAllen, TX 78501

    Jack: It means that the Democrats aren't being smart. President Obama campaigned to close Gitmo and when the Democratic Congress won't give him the money to fulfill his promise–that's just acting dumb. The Republicans just love it–the American people don't like it. George never had this kind of problem.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  155. John

    from Macon, Ga.

    I think we could house them in the halls of congress....

    May 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  156. Rod

    This is simply a smoke screen for the Politicians that have argued, not in my back yard. Yet, not wanting to be accused of being soft on crime is stupid. It seems like they haven’t learned, that having a gunslinger type mentality is not only gutturalize thinking, but gut-wrenching for the not so faint-hearted not to mention, being highly counterproductive. I thought we were trying to reframe our image around the World? Maybe Not! Aren’t we the leading Country in the World that believes in, lock them up and throw away the key? While wanting everyone to believe that we are real Humanitarians? Once again, hypocrisy at work! When will it end? We need more Barack Obama’s in leadership to stop this madness and get us going in the right direction.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  157. jeff from hawaii


    As a democrat, i hate to say this, but it just goes to show that the dems are still wimpnig out to the GOP on issues of security. the prisoners at gitmo have no more chance escaping a maximum security prison on the mainland than they do in cuba. we all need to take a breath and really decide what is right.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  158. Dave in Ohio

    Thank You Dick Cheney for driving sense into the puppet heads in Congress that hold the majority.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  159. B.G. Mittelstadt

    I should think the Democrats are resisting President Obama because he is doing what independents wanted – moving to the center of the nation – in many of his actions. Therefore, the Dems are not going to be happy with everything he does and, as this is politics, they feel a need to save face and punish. That said, we do need our government to be fiscally responsible. What they need to do is come up with a way to pay for the moves, or a planned place to move these detainees too – and do it without delay before some horses *8@! group makes some new law against common sense. Wouldn't it be a great deal cheaper to have them in our jails in the homeland? Isn't that a valid point in this economy?

    May 20, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  160. Tim

    hi jack oops dont say that lowdly .Anyway thers is this island outside of sandiego 100 miles or so with no trees .It was an ww2 millitary canon station its perfect for a prison its called san clemente island

    May 20, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  161. David in Indiana


    No one should give The President carte blanche on any issue on the table, regardless of Party affiliation. When the proposal is complete, then there should be a request for funds. Sounds like fiscal responsibility, imagine that!

    I think they should just release the inmates in the minefield between the U.S. and Cuba sides and let them take their chances.

    P.S. I am willing to close down the prison for half price! I will then be officially stimulated.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  162. Mark

    Unfortunately, Gitmo has existed for so long now, that members of Congress have become desensitized to the moral problem it creates. The postponal of it's closure is based on unreasanble fear. What should truly frighten us the idea of keeping the prison open any longer. Plain and simple, Guantanamo is a prison where Americans commited torture. It is a another dark chapter in our recent past that deserves immediate amending.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  163. Karl from SF, CA

    In a word, STUPID. We had 2,310,984 in state and federal prisons last June, 2008, per the USDOJ and that number has grown since. Now we can’t handle 240 more? We have Charlie Manson here in CA and he was one of the biggest nut case terrorist in our history. It’s ridiculous to say facilities can’t be arranged to segregate these people from general population prisoners. They do it on death row. Get them tried faster and move on with the results of the trials. Release to their home country or stay in prison. Get it over with. Enough is enough, already.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  164. nigel

    they cant give him money to close gtimo because,when they lift the travel ban to cuba the americans need some where to visit and spend tourist dollars..

    May 20, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  165. mike-sey

    The fact that Americans can't stomach the thought of having detainees on Continental US soil indicates they are afraid of their own shadows and as easily stampeded as a herd of sheep.

    Pedophiles, murderers, drug dealers, gang-bangers are OK but not detainees. Too bad Australia is already taken; but maybe that's why the US went after Iraq – to find land for a penal colony.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  166. Peter Asebiomo

    The simple answer is, despite the Democratic majority in Congress and the fact that they have retaken the white house, Democrats are still as spineless as they were during the Bush Administration. As usual they have let the Republicans bully them with proganda and semantics. Instead of simply combatting the smear campaign of the GOP with common sense responses like that fact that a maximum security prison on American soil is just as secure as one on cuban land, they have cowered away from and even jumped on the band-wagon of their Republican bretheren.

    Maplewood, New Jersey

    May 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  167. Chris G.

    I don't want terrorists in my backyard but then again I don't want other criminals in it either and I doubt Cubans want our detainees in their country. Dems not supporting President Obama seems typical. Congress men and women historically hold on to bad policies when reelection is coming. It would be interesting to see a Congress person vote on something that is best for the country and not best for their careers. They are our detainees so they should be held in our country. Gitmo was founded on leaning on Cuba...it is time to take responsibility and our max security prisons can hold these people.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  168. Bob

    It's a responsible stand to take. Quite surprising actually. I suspect we should not get to used to such responsible action. Just look at the credit card bill and it's associated gun rider, what lamebrain added that?

    May 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  169. Josh from Chicago

    Jack, it means that the Democrats are attempting to convey the message that Obama does not dictate the platform of the party. Establishment Democrats do not want to admit that the only reason they have their jobs (not to mention the only reason anybody has any sense of faith in the party) is because Barack Obama, a Democrat, ran for president. Many people (myself included) voted Democrat across the board so that the ignorance, partisanship, and backwards logic of the Republican Party do not have a chance to thwart the common sense, forward thinking pragmatism of Obama's administration. Hopefully this is not a sign of things to come from Obama's own party.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  170. Scott Stodden

    Hey Jack Love You & Wolf: What does it mean Jack, It means simply what the House & Senate Democrats said, they wont provide any money until President Obama comes up with a safe plan for not only our country but what todo with the prisoners. Jack Im a loyal Democrat, voted for Hillary in the primary and Obama in the general election and these countries where these prisoners are from say they dont want them back, I hope President Obama dont let these terroists who kill innocent people into the United States prisons, wouldnt that be scary Jack? Makes me wish Hillary would have won, Jack please my response, I know its long but this a plea to the President, Don't let these terroists into our country, he really needs to think about this one and thats not only my opinion.

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Il)

    May 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  171. Nicholas Obioha

    This is because even his fellow democrats dispise the idea of housing individuals who seek to destroy America on American soil. Its no surprise to me because even their own countries would not take some of them back. Obama said what he had to say to win the election and to secure his victory again in 2012 by closing the camp down but his own party know that it only serves his interest and not that of the citizens of the United States

    May 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  172. Purnell, Kankakee, IL.

    Because they are opportunist and they want to stay in office forever. I gave my plan on how to imprison the suspected terrorist, until they can go to trial over two months ago. All countries should pay into the new prison system for terrorists It could be built underground or underwater, with only one to access it. The Red Cross, and Humanitarian Organizations could have access 24/7, and there would be a level for every country in which their laws would be in effect. Plus Courtrooms, Recreational facilities, Hydroponics, and Maintenance level to ensure it is a completely self contained Prison!

    But i doubt they even look at my plan, they would rather play politic game instead!

    Purnell, Kankakee, IL.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  173. Denise in OKC

    They don't want to be seen as "not keeping America safe."

    Does anybody realize that there is no difference between a Gitmo prisoner and a suicidal neighbor who kills their family, the kid who shoots up their school, the gangs who terrorizes our neighborhoods or the serial killer already in prison with 3 meals and a cot.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  174. Ed Sharpe

    Jack this is typical political BS, not in my backyard! They should think about it a little bit. Stick them in there with a few of americas worst of the worst who had relatives caught in 911. That might just cure the problem? No problem!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  175. Barney

    "You can bet politics is behind all of this" Politics is behind all of Obama's policies and that is about all. No research, no planning. Run it up the pole and see how it flys in the polls. This president is on course to damage this country far beyond any of his predecessors. God, yes God help us!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  176. Keith - St. George, Utah

    I'd like to add to my earlier comment:

    Further, that Arizona Sheriff could conveniently allow those detainees to "escape" to Mexico, where they would quickly be "kidnapped" and executed by the drug lords............ Is this a great country or what?

    May 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  177. Scott Fulton form Albany NY

    Because Obama promised a new era in politics but we have the same people in congress from the old era. This is one of the many Bush screw ups that Obama must fix, and we all knew it would take time and effort. I don't see why he can't shut down Gitmo with existing military funds. maybe thats why congress said NO.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  178. Mike , Macungie Pa

    It means Dick Cheney WON the Arguement!!!!
    Mike R,
    Macungie, PA

    May 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  179. Dorothy Love

    Because Congress doesn't know there is a perfect place to house the Guantanamo prisoners - the Keweenaw Peninsula of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It sticks up into Lake Superior on three sides, and has an average snowfall of 300 inches. The nothern half of the Peninsula has only one bridge to the rest of the U.S., There is an abandoned Air Force base on the northern half, in Keweenaw County, so a maximum prison could easily be built on that property. And, believe it or not, the quality of life is praised by magazines and lists for the Keweenaw Peninsula. So there would be no problem getting employees for that prison. And if by chance a prisoner would escape, where would he go in the snow, and how would he get across the bridge? Dorothy, Michigan

    May 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  180. Gary Sloan


    They are obviously subscribing to the Bush fear tactics. If we put them in the general population of the so called super maximum security prisons, what are they going to do? Also, I cannot comprehend how a Country founded on "innocent until proven guilty" and the "right to a speedy trial", can continue to hold these alleged terrorists without trying them. I abhor terrorists and terrorism as much as anybody, but try them, fry them or free them. What we are currently doing is unacceptable. How would we like it if China, Venezuela or Iran treated American citizens the way we are treating these people? We would raise Holy Hell!


    May 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  181. Tombo

    Jack, what sense does it make to close Gitmo before the president has a plan? Like you said ,"what do I know"? well I guess I know quite a bit more then you do. Our prisons are already overcrowded with American prisoners. I know,............. let them live with you. You guys hammered Bush for years and blamed him for everything from blackouts to the weather, now your messiah don't know what to do. Well guess what? we elected him because he said he has the answers. Stop making excuses for him and the vice president who constantly has his foot in his mouth. It's amateur hour in the white house.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  182. George

    A vote like this only inticates that we are getting back to letting our fears dictate our actions. that's how the Republicans operate. That's how we got duped into the Iraq war. The Democrats should get back to their commitments to their constituents and the President and not yield to the pressure from the Republicans!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  183. Jan Durand

    hi Jack i hope you show my comment ty..The usa should build a supper max military prison on the base at midway island..Its the safes place to move the detainees from Guantanamo it doesnt get any safer then that plus you can build a place there so they can have there miltary hearings...

    May 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  184. Don

    Move them to the national mall so every Americqan can see them and then send them to the country they can from or Iran. Then they can talk to the Iranians for help.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  185. Robert of Baton Rouge

    If California is closing San Quentin, .have the US buy San Quentin and send the detainees from GITMO there.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  186. Ken in NC

    Jack, it’s all about Competition. Democrats and Republicans both know they have to compete with each other for the chance to get and spend taxpayer dollars and to bring the Terrorist Party here from Gitmo means they would then have to compete with a third party whose rights to be freed would be fought for by the ACLU. The American people fail to realize that terrorist are already in the country. The only difference is that the ones that are already here are not yet in our prisons.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  187. Ronald Holst

    Jack Jack Jack It all comes down to Politics I mean they are all in Washington DA Did any one for get that even the Democrats are political
    I think they would move a detainee into the capitol building if they thought it would get them reelected .
    Ronald Holst
    San Antonio , TX.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  188. Marion

    Jack,,who wants to pick up the Bill for them if they are brought here?Once you treat them like Americans you have to get them lawyers at the Tax payers expense,and then your risk the Measure that they will be given rights as Americans.When they were caught on the Battle field overseas and are not entitled to American Rights.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  189. Annette of Colorado

    It means that those Democrats will be out of office soon. The reason they are the majority in both the House and the Senate is because we voted for change, not opposition to our goals and objectives. Closing Gitmo should be on the top of everyones' list. How shameful and disgusting the Bush Administration is and was. They justify breaking the law by pointing to erroneous accomplishments. The Democrats who oppose PRESIDENT Obama's direction, which is the direction of the majority of the population, are still acting like they did under Bush when they whined about not being able to do anything but follow because they were in the minority party. Now, there is no excuse and they will get the boot, especially those from Colorado who were appointed by the governor and not elected by the people. We are so sick of the sheep-in-wolves-clothing who follow along the wrong path; they need to go home!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  190. M.B.

    It means the Democrats don't want to be caught with their pants down like they were when they signed Pres. Obama's Stimulus Bill without reading it. They are finally beginning to come out of their "We Won" stupor! Hopefully this trend will continue.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  191. Brian Maday

    Closing Gitmo is a great idea, but so is NOT bringing detainees there out of the USA. IF Obama can see an acceptable way to get rid of the inmates at Gitmo in some other way, The $80 mil will come through. Otherwise leave well enough alone. Don't forget, the Brits fixed this same sort of problem with a penal colony – Australia. How about Antartica? (just kidding)

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  192. Carrie Stewart

    Jack, it means, as usual, that Congress has no backbone, gray matter or will to even consider the issue of what to do with inmates at Gitmo. As a 30-year veteran of the prison industry, I can tell you that no one wants high level criminals in their backyards. Well, the way that I have experienced this matter being dealt with is fairly simple and everybody gets a pass. Simply put these inmates on a ship far enough off shore from any state, invest in well-trained criminal specialists (security managers/guards, treatment personnel with security experience, site reviewers, etc.) and high tech security detections to prevent outside infiltration or breach of security. In no way do we need to mix such a volatile bunch of inmates into the local farm of inmates. Finally, proceed to hold the necessary case reviews per their innocence or guilt. In a nutshell, get on with it!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  193. Joseph Scott

    The democrats seem to not understand that they are in charge now and will be judged by what they accomplish. The republicans are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening. Personally I think there is bad blood between Harry Reid and president Obama because I have noticed that when they are in the white house, they seldom shake hands. Maybe the democrats need to dump Harry Reid. Thank you.
    Joe Scott
    Oxon Hill, Maryland

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  194. Frank Killackey

    I would like to think that the President's own party is finally acting responsibly by being unwilling to fund another rash action regarding Gitmo. The real reason is no voter wants the detainees in their own backyard and nothing is more important to politicians than keeping their jobs forever. For them, following the money or the votes is their Holy Grail of greed and power.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  195. Amy

    I think it is only fair to ask for a plan about what is to be done with the prisoners after closing the facility before giving any money to do so, especially in these hard economic times.

    Seattle. WA

    May 20, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  196. nick

    I say give our President what he wants. Let's get Gitmo closed. It's crazy to think we will find a new location for the detainees that every one likes. Let's not screw up this opportunity to do something we all want. Every state take their share and shut up.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  197. Kathy

    One word, Jack – NIMBY. They realize that they represent voters who do not want these people in their state/district. If Gitmo is closed, the detainees will arrive here just in time to be the stars of ads in the next election cycle.

    Ballston Spa NY

    May 20, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  198. Patrick Downey

    The question shouldn't be 'Why won't Democrats give president money to close Gitmo'? The question should be: 'Why does it cost so much (if anything), to close down Gitmo?' A simple solution would be for the US to mothball Gitmo and shift all of the prisoners to that empty, high security prison in Montana. Put me in charge and I'd have the whole thing could be carried out in about a week. If you're interested in how I'd go about doing that, just send me an e-mail and I'll let you know. It ain't rocket science.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  199. Cody NJ

    It means American will remain safe (supposedly) otherwise the Republicans will whine the moment the detainees leave the island and end up in our backyards for some reason.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  200. Anna Co.

    It means the Democrats let the Republicans out fox them again. As a Repepublican, I voted for Barack Obama and as many other Dems. as I could because of closing Gitmo and getting out of Iraq and many more issues. This man has a chance to be truly a great president,but he needs at least his own party to stand behind him. Most reasonable people should know Super-max was built for just this sort of thing, and I didn't hear Gov. Ritter say "not in my back yard'.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  201. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Since I haven't heard President Obama make a complaint against their decision then he must be in agreement. It further gives the Republicans something to continue to whine about and President Obama to ask if they have a solution.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  202. Roy - Chicago

    Jack, I thought they wanted to keep Gitmo open to house Cheney, Gonzalez and their entourage after the trials conclude!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  203. kathy

    Obama was not elected because he was a democrat. He was elected because of who he was and what he believed in. The Congress doesnt understand that the days of labels are gone. Megan McCain, also gets it. Pre-life, pro-sex (sex ed and birth control), and pro gay marriage. These youngsters are just doing what we taught them. And they're confident. ARe you ready for them?

    May 20, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  204. Joanne

    We don't have military prisons within the United States anymore? Well, there's always Texas!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  205. carrie

    I just wish they would all stop fighting both sides are supposed to be americans show us that. how old are they anyway 2 and dont want to share the sandbox grow up and find a way out of this instead of digging us deeper.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  206. Mike Deist

    Giving the President money to close Gitmo without a plan is like giving money to the failed banks and allowing them to give bonuses, etc. Prior proper planning prevents poor performance. The Democratic congress is right on target!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  207. Tina in TO

    In part it's NIMBY, Jack. Plain & Simple. (Out of sight, out of mind).
    Are they hoping that Mother Nature will take care of Guantanamo Bay?

    May 20, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  208. Paulette,Dallas,PA

    I do think they may have a point here. Obama needs to have a strategic plan on WHERE these detainees will go. Identify and separate them according to threat level. Put them in one prison here in the US as determined by their classification and transfer the present prisoners to other facilities. I'm sure this can be done and done well,if thought out. For instance, there may be prisons available in California soon.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  209. Rick H

    Hi Jack,
    Again, our politicians are using fear to paralyze our country. The Republicans, using their old "we're all gonna die" play book, are generating the usual Pavlovian reactions among their constituents and the democratic congress is waiting to see if the slobber from the uninformed, terrified public stains their re-election shoes before committing to something they've already committed to. Both Presidential candidates in 2008 vowed to close Guantanamo which I THOUGHT everyone agreed is a human rights stain on our country. Both of them, remember? By making it sound like we have something to fear from a barefoot, teenage Gitmo detainee placed in a MAX security prison proves that Bin Laden and other terrorists have done their job.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  210. Zeek Duff - Longmont, CO

    The fact that so many Democrats (and Republicans) won't provide the money to close Gitmo is not only surprising, it's disappointing. It means they still don't get it, and they're still buying into the Bush legacy of fear tactics, which they must still believe has "kept us safe."

    Nonsense. Every excuse they have made on air shows they simply aren't thinking for themselves, researching the psychology involved in getting us TRULY safe, maintaining awareness of their constituents desires, and it seems they want & need the public to give them a PUSH on the backside.

    Okay, I guess we just have to keep pushing, reassuring their unsteady, still rattled little minds that IF they really do the right things in life, things will always turn out RIGHT.

    In the past decade, Congress seems to have developed the mentality of a group of elementary school students who aren't sure which bell means do what. So, if we don't push them really hard, they'll just stand there, not moving, until the school and the rest of the world crumbles and falls in on their heads... Man Jack, I'm getting really tired of pushing these unthinking "kids." Can't they LEARN?

    Best regards,
    Zeek Duff
    Longmont, CO

    May 20, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  211. Patrick, Lake Stevens, Washington

    Because they need a tangible plan from the adiministration that outlines specifics in how and where President Obama along with the Justice Department intend to house these "Very bad people." We cannot pretend that the prison should not be closed, but the American people deserve a comprehensive and safe solution in how the administration intends to handle this very complex situation. Until that happens, Obama should continue to expect overwhelming resistance from both sides of Congress.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  212. Nell, Clemson, South Carolina

    Because Boehner and other Republicans are making the charge that prisoners will be released into neighborhoods. Of course, that is stupid. Nobody's considering doing that. So, the Democrats are forced to have a plan that clearly doesn't allow prisoners to be released inside the U.S. After they get it, the uproar will calm down and the Toxic Trio (Boehner, Gingrich, Limbaugh) will find another hobby horse.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  213. Fred in Los Angeles

    It means they see no problem with the way things are now, and neither do I. The Geneva Convention does not apply to these prisoners. The sooner the President figures it out, the better the country will be.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
  214. Kim VA

    Hi Jack;
    The reason for the denial of the closing is they don't know what to do with the guilty ones.

    Might I make a suggestion? Ship them to Antartica, they wouldn't dare try to escape a subzero region and will be glad to have the food and the access to send letters to family.

    The "breakout risk" is also minimalized as the place can be guarded and the exact location to the ones who would try to free them, wouldn't risk the "frostbite.

    Safety for the world nations. Since they don't ahve a country, I think we should give the cold hearted bastards, the right place to roost.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  215. John Andresen

    Obama said during his campaign he would close Guantanamo, so did McCain ... but neither of them thought of what their constituents would say when they got back home ... so I'm proposing a Solution:

    Reopen ALCATRAZ Island .... you could use that closed facility to hold the Guantanamo prisoners while they awaited charges. It's already built, could be updated with newer protection schemes at a minimal cost, and would isolate them all in a difficult place for anyone to attack.

    For Compensation: It would provide more jobs for California, and we would offer to give California help with their state budget deficit. It's a double good deal.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:44 pm |
  216. Jack - Lancaster, OH


    Politicians do not give money to anybody, they take it, keep it, roll in it, salivate in it, and it isn't even theirs !

    May 20, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  217. Louise in Alabama

    This is the most kindergarten, "how do I put a square peg into a triangle", "are we there yet?", "can I go to the bathroom?" decision that that institution has voted against yet. There are more terror cells in this country than there are Senators and Representatives of those terrorists in Washington D.C.- Idiots! Send them to northern Ireland and that way the protesters from "Nostre" Dame can apologize to "Our" CIC for their church's transgressions by taking these prisoners.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  218. Joe van de Bennet

    They won't give him the money because no one wants theses guys in their state prisons!!!!

    May 20, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  219. Nell, Clemson, South Carolina

    Here's a solution. Buy a California prison.

    May 20, 2009 at 5:49 pm |