News Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[WhoWee]

Not clear what the point of this post is. Are we to be angry at Obama for keeping the Gitmo prison open though he said he would close it? Or are we to be very disappointed that he has spent $744K of our money on a soccer field for people suspected of terrorist activities? Either way, not good for Obama, imho. Which, I suppose, was the point of the post.

I'm not sure if his base approves of Gitmo being kept open - possibly not? I think non-supporters of the President appreciate that he changed his position after gaining access to all of the information (what ever that might be?).

On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than $20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure if his base approves of Gitmo being kept open - possibly not? I think non-supporters of the President appreciate that he changed his position after gaining access to all of the information (what ever that might be?).

He changed his position because Congress forced him to, by making a big hullabaloo about imprisoning detainees within the mainland, and how it would be such an unconscionable - not to mention dangerous - act to invite blood-thirsty terrorists into our backyards.

On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than $20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.

Do we have more details on what the money was spent on, and what the rationale was that permitted the budget to be approved? Could it be that this expenditure is estimated to provide much more in savings? Could it be a result of some analysis which shows that detainees are more likely to spill valuable intel when they have $744K soccer fields to play in? Could it be that a $0.7M soccer field might stop the next $7T war?

 

[mheslep]

Congress overriding a veto would force the President to do this or that. Obama signed the Defense Authorization bill that blocked transfer of the prisoners. Whatever he said in protest is meaningless to me, so much blather.

 

[WhoWee]

He changed his position because Congress forced him to, by making a big hullabaloo about imprisoning detainees within the mainland, and how it would be such an unconscionable - not to mention dangerous - act to invite blood-thirsty terrorists into our backyards.

Do we have more details on what the money was spent on, and what the rationale was that permitted the budget to be approved? Could it be that this expenditure is estimated to provide much more in savings? Could it be a result of some analysis which shows that detainees are more likely to spill valuable intel when they have $744K soccer fields to play in? Could it be that a $0.7M soccer field might stop the next $7T war?

Didn't President Obama have control of both the House and Senate in 2009? Perhaps he shouldn't have made (a big hullabaloo on his part as well) promises he couldn't keep?

As for justification for the spending - it's not clear - looks like they added a guard tower and expanded the fence so they don't need to be escorted to the field?

I did find this info.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/28/2666083/744000-buys-cooperative-guantanamo.htmlry .

"The showcase soccer field — half the size of an American football field — is being built by Burns and Roe Services Corp., said a Pentagon spokesman, Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale. It should open in April, as the third recreation yard at Guantánamo’s main prison camp complex, a year after construction began on what is currently the largest expansion under way at the decade-old detention center.

The Obama administration estimates that it spends $800,000 a year per captive on basic operating costs for the detention center, whose staff numbers 1,850 government employees from contractors to guards.

When it was suggested that the price tag was excessive, Reese replied that this base’s remote location at times doubles construction costs. "

 

[Gokul43201]

Congress overriding a veto would force the President to do this or that. Obama signed the Defense Authorization bill that blocked transfer of the prisoners. Whatever he said in protest is meaningless to me, so much blather.

It would have been nothing more than a waste of time for him to veto on the basis of the Gitmo argument. He tried that argument way back in 2009 and learned that neither party was interested. Nimby-ism is much too easy a seed to sow.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to cut from a war spending bill the $80 million requested by President Obama to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and to bar the transfer of detainees to the United States and its territories.

The vote, which complicates Mr. Obama’s efforts to shutter the prison by his deadline of Jan. 22, 2010, was 90 to 6. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of cutting the money.

“The American people don’t want these men walking the streets of America’s neighborhoods,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota. “The American people don’t want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their back yard, either.”

(emph mine)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?pagewanted=all

I do agree with WhoWee, however, that Obama deserves a sound heckling for demonstrating an over-abundance of naivete.

 

[mheslep]

It would have been nothing more than a waste of time for him to veto on the basis of the Gitmo argument. ...

Waste of time? I doubt that. It think trade off is the more likely reasoning. I was aware of the lopsided vote on the defense spending bill when I made that previously post. That vote is far from indicative of a veto override from a Nancy Pelosi House and a Harry Reid Senate in the first ~year of his presidency. No, if Obama was determined to fulfill a campaign pledge, regardless of the political consequences, he likely could have had his way on Gitmo. One consequence might be a loss of the pull needed to get the pending health care bill though. I think it more likely that he saw the large political cost and backed down.

 

[BobG]

On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than $20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.

What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself.

 

[lisab]

What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself.

I'm guessing those proposals were for fields that were stateside. You can't exactly go to the local Communist party official in Cuba to arrange for concrete, asphalt, fuel, housing for employees, etc. Nearly everything has to be shipped in. That could add substantial cost.

 

[WhoWee]

What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself.

We developed one main field and a dozen unimproved practice fields with portable goals. We started with flat and cleared land that required minimal grading - all owned by the school district. The majority of the cost was for goals/nets. The parking was shared and the school donated a few old bleachers that we rebuilt (paint and a few boards). Most people bring their own folding chairs. We purchased a shed for a concession stand and a local company donated portable toilets. None of the fields have lights.

I'm familiar with another project that used property (parking area) at our county fair grounds - the costs were comparable to ours.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm guessing those proposals were for fields that were stateside. You can't exactly go to the local Communist party official in Cuba to arrange for concrete, asphalt, fuel, housing for employees, etc. Nearly everything has to be shipped in. That could add substantial cost.

Why would you need all of those things? The inmates were content with "a small patch of dirt" previously.

 

[daveb]

Didn't President Obama have control of both the House and Senate in 2009? Perhaps he shouldn't have made (a big hullabaloo on his part as well) promises he couldn't keep?

I'm tired of this line from Obama's detractors. It is (imo) patently false. Obama did not "control" the House and Senate. The democrats did. However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.

Republicans don't seem to have that problem (remember Santorum's comment of "taking one for the team"?) When it's important, they seem to tow the party line (granted, there are exceptions, like the ACA).

Additionally, just about every politican makes promises they end up not keeping.

However, yes, it was naive of Obama to expect no political heat from trying to close Gitmo.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm tired of this line from Obama's detractors. It is (imo) patently false. Obama did not "control" the House and Senate. The democrats did. However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.

Republicans don't seem to have that problem (remember Santorum's comment of "taking one for the team"?) When it's important, they seem to tow the party line (granted, there are exceptions, like the ACA).

Additionally, just about every politican makes promises they end up not keeping.

However, yes, it was naive of Obama to expect no political heat from trying to close Gitmo.

I think President Obama relied heavily on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in his first two years - they were able to pass hundreds of billions in additional spending - weren't they - "cash for clunkers" was my favorite.

 

[WhoWee]

Does anyone know the history of this program - was it originated or expanded under President Obama?

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&...303b27d&tab=core&tabmode=list&print_preview=1

"The United States Government, as represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission to Indonesia, is seeking proposals from qualified local Indonesian non-governmental organizations that are interested in implementing the USAID-funded program entitled "Program to Extend Scholarships and Training to Achieve Sustainable Impacts, Phase Two (PRESTASI II)". USAID plans to award one Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee completion-type contract, with a total estimated cost in the range of $16 to $20 million, covering a period of five years.

Through short- and long-term training in the United States and Indonesia as well as other training-related activities in the Mission, PRESTASI Phase II will provide opportunities for Indonesia's emerging leaders to earn advanced degrees, professional accreditation and specific technical and other skills. The Contractor shall manage more than 100 selected participants currently training in the United States and Indonesia from PRESTASI Phase I. The Contractor's responsibilities shall include the recruitment, identification, and placement of Indonesian professionals in training programs that will maximize their skills and potential as leaders and managers within their communities and technical fields. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing related technical assistance for a variety of Indonesian nationals and targeted institutions, which is an additional key element of the program."

It appears the program (Page 11 - Background) began after a report was released in 2010 and follows another initiative from 2009?
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=2904b146ce9433bc7f02b9ab0b6988ee

 

[thorium1010]

I am not participant in this thread, but i thought this was interesting -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zskn9gQoGLY

 

[mheslep]

However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.

Maybe the ACA got passed because your premise is wrong.

 

[daveb]

Maybe the ACA got passed because your premise is wrong.

Maybe, or maybe not:

Ben Nelson

Nelson's votes in the Senate have often placed him at odds with the leadership of his party. A National Journal congressional vote rating from 2006 placed him to the right of five Senate Republicans (Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee). Mary Landrieu was the only other Democrat to place to the right of any Republicans (she placed to the right of Chafee).[50] A similar 2007 National Journal congressional vote rating went even further, placing him to the right of eight Senate Republicans (the above five as well as Richard Lugar, Norm Coleman, and Mike DeWine), with Landrieu once again placing to the right of Chafee and being the only other Democrat to place to the right of any Republicans.[51] Most recently, the American Conservative Union rated his overall performance for 2010 at 48 percent, the highest given to any Democratic senator.[52]

Nelson was one of only two Democratic senators to vote against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Nelson is strongly opposed to replacing the income tax with a national sales tax, a position that finds favor with increasingly many conservatives. He has voted with Republicans on matters of bankruptcy reform, environmental protection, lawsuit reform, and trade. In 2004 he was one of only three Democratic senators to vote to invoke cloture on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment; in 2006 he was one of only two Democratic Senators to vote that way.[53][54] He was the only Democratic senator to vote against a 2006 bill that would have extended federal funding for Stem Cell Research. He has, however, voted consistently against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has also opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.[55] Early in Bush's first term he voted with the majority of his party against scrapping President Bill Clinton's expansive new rules on ergonomics regulation for workers; many of his fellow conservative Democrats like John Breaux, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Zell Miller voted with Republicans on the issue. On April 26, 2010, Nelson was one of two Democratic senators in attendance to vote against the motion to move a financial regulations bill forward, siding with Senate Republicans. The other was Harry Reid, who voted against his own proposed bill out of procedure.

On August 5, 2010, Nelson was the only Democrat to vote against Elena Kagan for confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.[56]

On December 18, 2010, Nelson voted in favor of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

That seems like the voting record of someone who doesn't always tow the party line (and whie it might make an interesting exercise to analyze every republican, that's way to much work).

 

[WhoWee]

This headline - IMO - seemed to infer the President is being very tough on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/interview-obama-says-hes-not-bluffing-iran-130532562.html
"In interview, Obama says he's not bluffing on Iran"


However, the story seems to indicate the comments were directed towards Israel?

"His comments appeared aimed more at Israel and its supporters in the United States than at Iran. Obama addresses the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Sunday and meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday at the White House. Netanyahu will also address AIPAC.

"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff," he said in the interview. "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But (both) governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

Obama will try to convince Netanyahu to postpone any plans his government may have to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear facilities in coming months. An attack that soon would not carry U.S. backing, and the U.S. would probably not be involved in planning or executing it.

Nonetheless, it could force the United States into a new conflict and an arms race in the Middle East, as Obama made clear in the lengthy interview. It also could allow Iran to paint itself the victim and draw new support that would undermine rather than enhance Israel's security, Obama warned."

Is anyone else confused?

 

[turbo]

By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The journalist who writes the headline is not the journalist that writes the article. Did the President say which particular bluff wasn't a bluff?

 

[WhoWee]

The journalist who writes the headline is not the journalist that writes the article. Did the President say which particular bluff wasn't a bluff?

 

[WhoWee]

By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.

As in darts, it's fun some times to watch the participants "stand" on the side of their foot with one leg in the air for balance and their entire upper body leaned forward over the line - just saying. ()

 

[turbo]

BTW, in regard to the Gitmo soccer field's cost, how many soccer-fields has anybody in the US built in a communist country that doesn't want us there? Everything has to be shipped in and done on-site, as noted previously, but when you build a soccer-field in the US, you don't normally have to install air-conditioned guard towers, chain-link fences topped with razor-wire, etc. Unless somebody here has detailed knowledge of what was involved in building this field, I suggest that we drop this red herring now.

I know this thread is for the express purpose of bashing Obama, but it's not reasonable to blame him for the Pentagon's every expenditure on every military base around the world.

 

[WhoWee]

BTW, in regard to the Gitmo soccer field's cost, how many soccer-fields has anybody in the US built in a communist country that doesn't want us there? Everything has to be shipped in and done on-site, as noted previously, but when you build a soccer-field in the US, you don't normally have to install air-conditioned guard towers, chain-link fences topped with razor-wire, etc. Unless somebody here has detailed knowledge of what was involved in building this field, I suggest that we drop this red herring now.

I know this thread is for the express purpose of bashing Obama, but it's not reasonable to blame him for the Pentagon's every expenditure on every military base around the world.

President Obama promised to close this location within one year - in his 3rd year more than $700k was spent re-store soccer games. This isn't a red herring -it's a broken campaign promise with questionable spending.

 

[Gokul43201]

Waste of time? I doubt that. It think trade off is the more likely reasoning. I was aware of the lopsided vote on the defense spending bill when I made that previously post. That vote is far from indicative of a veto override from a Nancy Pelosi House and a Harry Reid Senate in the first ~year of his presidency. No, if Obama was determined to fulfill a campaign pledge, regardless of the political consequences, he likely could have had his way on Gitmo. One consequence might be a loss of the pull needed to get the pending health care bill though. I think it more likely that he saw the large political cost and backed down.

This is all plausible, but to do what you think he should have done, the veto would only have been the first step. He'd still need to get Congress to appropriate the funds to shut down Gitmo and transfer prisoners stateside. And there's no way that's going to happen.

 

[turbo]

This is all plausible, but to do what you think he should have done, the veto would only have been the first step. He'd still need to get Congress to appropriate the funds to shut down Gitmo and transfer prisoners stateside. And there's no way that's going to happen.

100% true. There is fear-mongering on both sides of the aisle regarding bringing the Gitmo prisoners to the US, housing them in our prisons, and trying them in our court-system. Also, there is the little detail that many of them can't be re-patriated, because the countries that they originated in won't take them back.

Obama's campaign statement re: Gitmo was unrealistic, though he probably thought he could drum up support for closing that prison if the public got behind it. He was wrong. There is only so much a sitting president can do. He is not a dictator, and in some cases, he can only be a cheerleader for causes when he needs the cooperation of Congress to achieve goals.

 

[mheslep]

Maybe, or maybe not:

Ben NelsonThat seems like the voting record of someone who doesn't always tow the party line (and whie it might make an interesting exercise to analyze every republican, that's way to much work).

Every Republican? Ever heard of a guy called Ron Paul?

But never mind him, I'm curious where, in general, you get the idea that Republicans "toe the party line" as compared to Democrats.

 

[daveb]

By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.

I stand corrected!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I was in on the negotiations, so I'm in a good position to tell you exactly what happened. Originally, the bid was a conservative $50,000. As usual, the military did everything in it's power to keep costs down. However, the liberal press put their hands into the process and the price tag went up to $100,000. Then the Israeli lobby had their say and it went to $200,000. Next the Gay-Lesbian alliance spoke up and it went to $400,000. Finally President Obama said it should be $744,000 and that's where we are today.

 

[WhoWee]

I was in on the negotiations, so I'm in a good position to tell you exactly what happened. Originally, the bid was a conservative $50,000. As usual, the military did everything in it's power to keep costs down. However, the liberal press put their hands into the process and the price tag went up to $100,000. Then the Israeli lobby had their say and it went to $200,000. Next the Gay-Lesbian alliance spoke up and it went to $400,000. Finally President Obama said it should be $744,000 and that's where we are today.

Insightful

 

[mheslep]

This is all plausible, but to do what you think he should have done, the veto would only have been the first step. He'd still need to get Congress to appropriate the funds to shut down Gitmo and transfer prisoners stateside. And there's no way that's going to happen.

Back in 2009 with Pelosi Obama only needed a repeat of the previous non-specific funding bill. He declined to push for it in this case, though has done so in other very similar circumstances*. I suspect the flaws in his Gitmo plan - civilian show trials, AQ in the prison population - would have become painfully apparent for years should he have stayed the course.

* Obama[/PLAIN] threatens veto if pipeline decision is added to payroll tax cut

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-threatens-veto-of-defense-authorization-bill-20111117