Latest poll sends mixed messages

The results of a recent poll conducted by The Washington Post & ABC News were released yesterday. The results definitely sent some mixed messages while confirming other things as well. The problem I have found with polls is that regardless of the credibility; if you look hard enough you will find another poll with conflicting results. I have been guilty of that in the past. I was given poll results from Rasmussen, a credible source, and refuted them with results from a PEW poll. Since PEW polls have long been considered biased; my argument was a poor one. I digress. My point is that I advise you to view these results with a grain of salt.

Many of these findings indicate a favorable view of President Obama to date. The problem is that the bar wasn’t set very high to begin with. As an example: Though the percentage of Americans who feel we are on the right path to economic recovery has tripled since December of 2008; that rate is only 42%. The percentage of people who felt we were on the right course at the end of Bush’s term was a pitiful 15%. I am fairly confident that my local bartender could have improved on that rate. Another example would be that only 25% of the public blame the present administration for the current economic crisis. This is undoubtedly justified considering the problems in the banking, insurance, and auto industries were firmly established prior to his taking office. While I remain vehemently opposed to some of the President’s tactics; I have never considered him to be responsible for their failures. Approximately 70% of those polled blame excessive consumer spending (credit debt) and the Bush administration’s absence of regulation and oversight as being the main causes of this economic collapse.

The presence of partisanship is glaring in this poll. The percentage of Republicans who feel that the economy is continuing to erode is double that of the Democrats (thank you Sen. Gregg). They are also much quicker to place the blame on President Obama for his lack of action. To be fair; the Republicans were equally critical of the Bush administration for their lack of regulatory measures. There has been a sharp rise in optimism from both Democrats and Independents while the Republican level has remained constant.

President Obama’s approval rating continues to be favorable. Close to 66% feel that he is doing a good job while 60% approve of his handling of the economy. Last fall, an incredible 90% of Americans felt we were nowhere near economic recovery. That figure has dropped to less than 60% which I don’t consider a particularly encouraging rate but it is a drastic improvement. Perhaps the most impressive result for the President is that 64% of Americans still believe in his various plans. However, that number stood at 72% prior to his inauguration. Among Independents and Republicans, the confidence rate has dropped by 13 points regarding his stimulus plan and budget proposal.

While the poll suggests that the public remains somewhat optimistic; it will be interesting to see future results after the President delivers the details of his budget to Congress. Strong resistance is predicted from both parties concerning key elements of the President’s budget. How he fares with Congress will most definitely have a direct effect on the stock market. Evidence of that is the fact that after President Obama described in detail the dire condition of the auto industry; shares in General Motors dropped 25% yesterday. Personally, I am very interested to find out what transpires in Congress and what effect it will have on the market. I guess we’ll just have to wait for the next poll.

For a more concise view of this poll, visit http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_033109.html?wpisrc=newsletter.

Time to back off Mr. President

In my last article, I expressed my anger and concern regarding Treasury Secretary Geithner’s proposal to assert control over additional financial sectors other than banking. If I was worried about excessive government intervention then; I am incensed now. The actions of the Obama administration over the past two days in regard to the auto industry are further evidence of this new hands-on approach. As stated in the previous article: Our capitalistic system has always been based on the laissez faire premise. Translated; this equates to hands-off. I feel it is necessary to warn you that the material I have read pertaining to these latest maneuvers have raised more questions for me than answers. I fear this article will do the same for you.

According to the New York Times, General Motors’ CEO Rick Wagoner resigned yesterday due to demands placed upon the auto giant by the White House. It appears that in order for G.M. to receive the additional $6 billion needed to stay afloat; certain contingencies must be met. The resignation of Wagoner was one of those contingencies. Chrysler is also being subjected to these borderline extortion tactics. They have been ordered to form a partnership with Fiat, an Italian based corporation, within 30 days or risk falling victim to the wrath of President Obama. Chrysler is also required to reduce their unsecured debts significantly and cut their health care financial obligations. Does anyone else see the paradox here? The government is demanding that a corporation reduce their debt while they are in the process of seeking aid in order to remain solvent. I am very confused, again!

President Obama has stated publicly that in order for these companies to receive additional aid, there must be a “willingness to make some pretty drastic changes.” It would be difficult to find anyone that would disagree with that but I’m not sure they would approve of the President, or his “task force”, being the ones that decide which changes must be made. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were able to demand personnel changes in Congress whenever we feel they haven’t performed up to our standards? Say goodbye to the Senate Banking Committee. Adios to the House Committee on Appropriations. It is important to note that Wagoner’s successor will be Frederick A. Henderson; General Motors’ very own president and chief operating officer. Apparently, he had nothing to do with the failure of G.M. Does anyone else smell a witch hunt?

A related article in the Los Angeles Times reports that President Obama has named Edward B. Montgomery to be director of auto recovery. His primary responsibility will be to provide support for laid-off workers and their families. Unfortunately, Dr. Phil was either unavailable or refused the offer. Considering that Montgomery may very well be strung up on Main St. in Detroit; Dr. Phil made a wise choice. How the hell is Montgomery expected to oversee the recovery process of an industry when he is dealing with people who are no longer a part of that industry? Don’t say I didn’t warn you! I have done a considerable amount of head scratching while researching the events of these last two days.

I could go on and on searching for rational explanations to these moves. The problem is that I continue to come back to the same conclusion. This is all a ploy to satisfy Obama’s desire to control still more facets of our lives. In the case of the auto industry; Obama has basically demanded that Chrysler and General Motors ignore their contractual obligations to the United Auto Workers Union regarding health care. He has given each company 60 days to cut their health care contributions to retirees in half. I certainly hope this is not his idea of health care reform. If in fact it is, all he needs to do is to order an across-the-board cut in corporate contributions to health care. Since he is determined to insinuate himself into arenas that the government has no right being involved in to begin with; this method of cutting health care costs would be rather significant. Though I was originally a proponent of the President and his plans; I am quickly realizing that these plans were also designed to force unprecedented government intervention.

Geithner to make power play before Congress today

It’s going to be a long day on the Hill as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner outlines his plan to toss capitalism out the window. For some time, I have heard certain Republicans warn us of the Obama administration’s desire to increase the size and power of the government. Well, as much as I hate to admit it; Geithner’s scheduled proposal today to Congress is certainly evidence of that. Though this is obviously a reactionary response to the current economic crisis; the requests for regulations and mandates have clearly crossed the line. The thought of putting that much power in the hands of a Cabinet member scares the hell out of me.

According to an article in the Washington Post (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29887343), this proposed plan is the most aggressive since The Great Depression. The focal point of Geithner’s argument to Congress (no doubt at the behest of President Obama) is the necessity for the government to assume the responsibility of imposing regulations and mandates on ALL large financial institutions. Bid a fond adieu to our long history of the laissez faire approach to business; the foundation of capitalism.

Although President Obama alluded to the need for additional oversight in other financial sectors other than banking; I never dreamed it would be of this magnitude. Among the proposed mandates is to pay workers based on seniority and eliminating bonuses for what they will deem as short-term gains. Does this include the elimination of commissions on sales as well? How far do they intend to go? This will all be monitored by a specified government agency. Many experts predict that the Federal Reserve will be the likely choice. Don’t they answer to Geithner? This is a man who has yet to fill key positions in the Treasury; among them a Deputy Secretary.

Along with the previously mentioned proposals; Geithner is asking for the right to seize any company that he feels has put itself in danger due to risky investments. Doesn’t the government have enough on its plate in regard to the economy without adding to it by assuming the management of large financial institutions? As part of the plan, the FDIC would take over the management of these corporations. FDIC chairman Sheila C. Blair is a strong proponent of this plan citing the FDIC’s record of salvaging financial collapses. And yet; not one instance was given. Also on board and scheduled to testify today is SEC chairman Mary Schapiro-it seems they all want a piece of the pie.

I have not been asleep for the past few years so I am aware of the state of the economy. However, to completely restructure, or eliminate our capitalistic system seems a bit drastic to me. It seems that Geithner’s power play may be an indication of the lack of faith the Obama administration has in its own plans. I pray that isn’t the case.

Geithner was quoted as saying: “Our plan will give the government the tools to limit the risk-taking at firms that could set off cascading damage.” It seems a little late to close that barn door. Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Netanyahu vies for control of Israel

Last evening, President Obama primarily addressed economic and budgetary topics in his press conference. I was surprised that more attention was not given to the inevitable problems he will have to confront regarding the new government being formed in Israel. Israel now has the capability of presenting even further problems for an already beleaguered president. Personally, I am entering unchartered waters in regard to the nuances involved in the precarious state that Israel has been in for generations. So feel free to weigh in should I veer off-course.

I was prompted to research this potentially problematic situation by an article in MSNBC News, as I often am. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29862967. The story revolves around the creation of a new government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister-designate and Chairman of the Lukid Party. He was given this task by Israeli President Peres in February of this year. He has wasted little time attempting to unite the various parties in order to gain complete control of the Knesset, the legislative branch of Israel. He has recently struck a deal with the Labor Party which is center-left. This is a significant accomplishment considering the Lukid Party is conservative. The Labor Party has joined the Shas, a conservative religious party, in siding with Netanyahu. As a result, the chairman of the Lukid’s negotiation team stated “Now, 53 members of the Knesset are bound by agreement to support a government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu…” as reported by Globes, Israel business news.

Standing between Netanyahu and complete control of the Knesset is the Kadima Party headed by Tzipi Livini. In the past election, the Kadima Party won 28 seats besting the Lukid Party, which won 27. (Still with me?) Many believe that Netanyahu will be able to win over the Kadima Party since it consists of former members of both the Labor and Lukid parties. Should he pull this off, he will have secured 80 seats out of a possible 120 in the Knesset.

Where am I going with all this you ask? An Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu presents several obstacles to Washington’s quest to establish a two-state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Netanyahu is not an advocate of this two-state system and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman (must be the name) is “fervently anti-Arab.” While the Obama administration vows to work with whatever government is in control; its primary goal would appear to be out of reach. Part of the problem is that Netanyahu has cautiously begun negotiations with Syria. This is where it gets very interesting or very confusing; depending on your knowledge of the history between the two nations.

In the 1967 Six Day War; Israel was able to obtain the Golan Heights which is considered to be very important strategically. As part of the newly proposed negotiations, Syria would like the Golan Heights returned to them. 70% of Israelis vehemently oppose this move. Also as part of the agreement, Syria has insisted that Israel return some of the land it acquired in the war to Palestine as well; namely the West Bank. Hold the phone! Netanyahu has an almost pathological hatred of Iran, as do most Israelis. He feels that concessions previously made have already jeopardized the security of Israel. He cites the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from the Gaza Strip 5 years later as examples. For more on the fascinating story of The Six Day War; I recommend you visit http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/six-day_war.html.

It is impossible to encapsulate the party differences, historical precedents, and omnipresent conflicts in a single article. So I will return to my original point. While we, as Americans, would settle for a modicum of bipartisanship; Netanyahu is seeking complete and unabated control of Israel’s legislative body. Should this transpire; President Obama will be faced with yet another dilemma. Can he continue to negotiate for a two-state solution at the risk of alienating our only ally in the Middle East? Or does he simply acquiesce and allow them to sort it out? Given our history; I’m afraid the former is the route he will choose.

Please come home safely Chris

I awoke this morning and began my normal routine of putting on a pot of coffee and scanning through the various dailies that I receive via the Internet. However, this morning I didn’t have to look any further than my homepage which consists of links to stories reported by MSNBC News. The story that caught my attention today was the planned change in direction our military is expected to undergo in Afghanistan. My focus there has become very personal for me; something I will elaborate on later in the article. The title of the article I read was entitled Obama wants exit plan strategy and was reported by the Associated Press. Much of the story derives from President Obama’s interview on 60 Minutes last evening which I watched.

In an attempt to summarize to be able to get to the real reason for my article; I will briefly outline the President’s plan. This is a plan he intends to implement over the next 3-5 years. We have already heard of his intention to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. A decision he states to be the hardest one he has been forced to make in his brief term as President. Part of the plan that we are privy to is the heightening of our engagements (such a proper term) with the insurgents and the provision for additional bases deeper into Afghanistan to better equip us to fight the Taliban. Obama’s goals are to prevent the insurgents from overthrowing an already weak central government and providing the Afghan National Security Force with ample training and resources to better defend themselves. Geez-where have we heard that one lately? Obama went on to explain that Afghanistan is a much more difficult environment to fight in than Iraq; clearly overstating the obvious. He referred to the terrain, infrastructure, and education of the people as stumbling blocks in our pursuit of the Taliban. Perhaps a look at the results the former Soviet Union had in Afghanistan would have been a good place to start in understanding the “terrain” and the ” people.”

The parallels are frightening; both from a military standpoint and an ideological one. While our initial reasons for intervention differ, the difficulties are the same. The Soviets first invaded in December of 1979 with the expressed purpose of preventing the Russian backed government from being overthrown by the mujahideen resistance. Our initial purpose was to hunt the Taliban in an effort to prevent further attacks on our country. Contrary to many pundits; I still maintain that this was both justified and necessary. Unfortunately, our results to date are less than encouraging. The Soviet’s goal was to impose their social and economic practices on the Afghan people. It is ignorant to think that while we are pursuing the Taliban; that we are not attempting to impose our democratic ideals on the Afghans as well. Another glaring similarity is the fact that neither of us anticipated the level of resistance we have encountered. Couple that with our lack of training in mountainous combat and you have a lethal combination. Something the Soviets discovered in their 9+ years of futile attempts at accomplishing their mission. For more on the Soviet failure, go to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSABB57/soviet.html.

As I alluded to earlier; Afghanistan and our decision to deploy 17,000 more troops has hit home with me, as it has with thousands of others. I spent some time with a dear friend last week and he informed me that his youngest child had just received his deployment orders to Afghanistan. Though unquestionably a man now; I can’t help but flash back to holding him in my arms while babysitting for my friend and his wife. He is a graduate of Brown University (Ivy League), a former All-American soccer player and distance runner, and an officer in the United States Marine Corps-a patriot in every sense of the word. His grandfather was also a college graduate (Georgetown) and a Marine Corps officer and I can only imagine the pride he would have felt if he were still with us. Though my concern and worries are nowhere near those of his parents; I have still been unable to get him out of my mind. Amidst the persistent mudslinging and the questioning of our presence; we tend to lose sight of what truly matters and that is the safe return of our young men and women. For now, I would like everyone to focus their thoughts and prayers on the men and women who honor their pledge to defend our country. And I assure you Chris; you will be in my prayers every day until you return home safely. Thank you so much for being the person you are and the patriot you are. God bless every one of you.

Format Change

As you can see; I have changed the format of my site in order for you to be able to read my work without the need for a microscope. For those of you who were unable to see the link to my friend Travis' site, I will repeat it for you. Visit http://newsday.today.com. For those of you interested in reading the opinions of a truly intelligent and inspired writer, I strongly recommend you check out his site. I, too, submit to that site. Though the content is the same; there is a great deal of interaction among the bloggers. http://deanconnorsblog.today.com. Thank you for your interest.

Post Conviction DNA testing

I have decided to open this article by stating that I have no intention of debating the morality or immorality of the death penalty. Personally, I feel that unless a heinous act was committed against one of my loved ones; I have no right to question its merit. The gist of this piece is the ongoing argument in the Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of DNA testing in a case in Alaska. I came across this article in the Washington Post and chose to research both the case and the arguments presented by members of the Supreme Court.

I find the nuances in this case to be somewhat perplexing. The focal point of this case is whether or not DNA testing should be allowed after an individual is convicted of a crime. In this instance, William G. Osborne was convicted of rape and leaving a prostitute to die in 1993. Osborne now contends that DNA testing will exonerate him of the crime. The argument is whether or not he is entitled to access of any past or future results of DNA testing. This is where the circus begins. If you want to see a classic example of partisanship; you need only look to our Supreme Court. In the majority of controversial cases regarding constitutional law, the vote usually comes back 5 to 4. Over the past few years, the deciding vote has been placed in the hands of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. For more on Kennedy and his voting record, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031501856html. Not surprisingly, Justice Kennedy has been known to agree with arguments presented by both factions.

Alaska’s Attorney General has stated that a prerequisite for obtaining access to DNA results is that the convicted must swear under the penalty of perjury that he is innocent. As ridiculous as that sounds, it is in accordance with Congress’ own Innocence Protection Act. Naturally, a convicted rapist and murderer would certainly shudder at the thought of perjury charges being brought against him-WOW! To further emphasize this petty legislation is the fact that the convicted is obligated to incur the costs of any additional testing. If that’s the case; what’s the problem? I appreciate Congress looking out for us taxpayers but that is a non-issue here.

What further confuses me (it’s becoming clear that’s not very difficult to do) is a statement made by Defense Attorney Peter J. Nuefeld of the Innocence Project. He claims that the prosecution has conceded that the admittance of DNA results would erase any doubt as to whether Osborne is guilty. Am I missing something? Enter the Supreme Court with their litany of questions and concerns. Justice Paul Stevens opposes the admittance of this evidence parroting former President Bush by saying that this will only “open the floodgates” to frivolous and expensive appeals. Given Texas’ record on the death penalty, where Bush served as governor, this should come as no surprise. According to the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, 9 prisoners awaiting execution were exonerated because of DNA testing in 2008 alone. To date, 232 people have been released nationwide due to DNA test results. That figure alone is all the information I would need to cast my vote. Not so fast!

Chief Justice John G. Roberts presented this ridiculous question. If post conviction DNA testing is allowed; should that right be extended to those who confessed to their crimes? UNBELIEVABLE! Of course every confession has been obtained without any coercion (sarcasm); and this is our Chief Justice asking this question. Perhaps the only legitimate question posed was by that of Justice Kennedy to Attorney General Rosenstein. He inquired as to whether Rosenstein would “put aside procedural measures” to prevent imprisoning an innocent person. Rosenstein’s reply was that it was “conceivable.” Justice Kennedy was less than pleased with that answer.

From where I sit; the decision really shouldn’t be that difficult. Taking into account the number of people who have been exonerated coupled with the fact that these tests are not on the state’s dime; where’s the dispute? I have no idea whether Osborne is guilty but that is not the issue. I would like to see every available piece of evidence presented before we sentence someone to die. The technology is there-use it!!

For more on Post Conviction DNA testing; http://www.dna.gov/postconviction

Let us not forget them

I received this from a friend of mine some time ago. The friend who sent this to me is a veteran of the Viet Nam War and felt that this might improve the climate of my articles-I agree. I have submitted it exactly as I received it so please read it and allow yourself some time to give some thought to our men and women who risk their lives every day for us.


The Sack Lunches

I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned seat. It was going to be a long flight. 'I'm glad I have a good book to read and perhaps I will get a short nap,' I thought.

Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. I decided to start a conversation. 'Where are you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me.

'Petawawa. We'll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we're being deployed to Afghanistan .'

After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached the east, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time.

As I reached for my wallet, I overheard soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. 'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll wait till we get to base.
His friend agreed.

I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My son was a soldier in Iraq ; it's almost like you are doing it for him.'

Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked, 'Which do you like best - beef or chicken?'

'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked. She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class. 'This is yours with thanks.'

After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. 'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars.

Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Air craft Pilot coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked , I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand, and said, 'I want to shake your hand.'

Quickly unfastening my seatbelt I stood and took the Captain's hand. With a booming voice he said, 'I was a soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers.

Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm.
When we landed I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars!

Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich. God Bless You.'

Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers. As I walked briskly to my car, I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers were giving their all for our country. I could only give them a couple of meals. It seemed so little.

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to his country for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'

That is Honor, and there are way too many people who no longer understand it.

Thanks Travis

I would like to thank my friend Travis who took time out of a busy schedule to design my new look. Dashing, isnt it? For more of Travis' skills, visit him @ http://newsday.today.com/. Thanks amigo.

The song remains the same!

Throughout the week, we have been bombarded with news of the bonuses given to employees of AIG. Though I will certainly address that; there are a few other details that remind us that “change” is nowhere in sight. Today, the deficit soared to $1.8 trillion while the California unemployment rate rose to 10.5%, it’s highest since 1983. One can only imagine what those stats are going to do to the market today. My original optimism is slowly waning. All I see is business as usual. The promise of Congressional oversight and the numerous bailouts and stimulus plans have, so far, accomplished zip. I have preached patience and will continue to do so but there are those in key positions who are performing as if they took a seminar put on by the Bush administration.

I am referring to Treasury Secretary Geithner and Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Dodd of Connecticut. These two misfits have more to answer for than those greedy suits at AIG. Dodd, the highest ranking member of banking oversight community, claims that he had no knowledge of these bonuses. If that is true; then he truly is an idiot. I actually hope that he’s lying so he can blend in with the rest of them instead of being perceived as a moron. Treasury Secretary Geithner, an old Wall Street boy himself, seems to have shown complete indifference to the situation. Since the Fed now owns 80% of AIG, where was its fearless leader while this travesty was unfolding? Thanks in part to these two do-nothings; it is President Obama who now has egg on his face, and justifiably so.

AIG-where do I begin? First and foremost; I question the moral turpitude of any individual associated with AIG who accepted these bonuses because there were those who declined. $165 million to a group of people who are as responsible for our economy’s demise as anyone. The present and past CEOs of the company are now playing the blame game as far as who is responsible for these rendition bonuses. Who gives a damn who is responsible for creating this system-flush it!! While all this is happening, Geithner and Dodd both confess to being concerned about the possible legal implications of refusing to give out these bonuses. Who the hell are they going to sue? The government is the “chief stockholder.” Which brings me to my next question. As “chief stockholder”, shouldn’t we have had a say in the dispensing of these bonuses? Apparently not since no one stepped up to the plate. Oh yeah-I forgot that they were unaware.

As previously stated; Obama is now the one who looks the fool. His only salvation seems to be the House vote to levy a 90% tax on these bonuses. Now if only the Senate would step forward and impose a fine for misappropriation of funds. Though this may sound counter-productive; the way things are going this may be our only way to get any of our money back. I apologize for the tone of this article but I am pissed.

Closing Gitmo: Where's the plan

Once President Obama signed the bill that honored his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay; we were subjected to the pros and cons, morality and immorality, necessity and lack of necessity, ad nauseum. Blame was passed from administration to agency to individuals like a bottle of whiskey on St. Patrick’s Day. What seems to be lost amidst this finger pointing was the fact that nobody has proposed a definitive plan to close Guantanamo Bay. The conflict is not only restricted to party ideology, but to the promised assistance of our European allies as well. Though the Democrats and Republicans certainly have different views on how the closing should be handled; our friends from Europe have begun to backpedal away from their promises as well.

According to William Blaberson and Steven Erlenger of the New York Times; a delegation of countries called the European Union is scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in Washington on Monday. Among the countries attending are Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, and others. Previously encouraged; Secretary of State Clinton must now contend with questions regarding the status of these individuals than originally anticipated. These questions and concerns are legitimate ones and stem from the absence of complete disclosure from the Bush administration. Could it be they have a problem with the word of GW, Cheney, and Rumsfeld? Go figure! Though the Obama administration has taken a much different approach than the Bush administration; that being the admission of unlawful detentions. They still have yet to propose a plan that will put a stop to this blatant violation of human rights.

As reported by CBS News; in 2008, the Bush administration admitted that many prisoners (I refuse to refer to them as detainees) were cleared for release but there was no plan to safely place them anywhere. Many of these prisoners could not return to their homeland for fear of reprisal and mistreatment by their governments. Case in point: 17 Uighurs, a small Chinese Muslim group, were captured in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As far back as 2001, they were deemed to be no threat to the United States. To phrase it another way; these people were mistakenly captured and have been imprisoned for over 8 years. What puzzles me, rather angers me, is the fact that the Attorney General’s Office in conjunction with the U.S. Marshalls, have the power and the resources to provide a new identity and location for the likes of Sammy “The Bull” Gravano. Gravano, one of the most notorious hit men in the history of Organized Crime was granted this opportunity (he later left the program), but we are unable to afford this same opportunity to the Uighurs.

For the sake of brevity; I will close with my feelings toward the European Union. I respect the concerns of most of these countries but I do have difficulty with the reservations of Germany and France. We are talking about them accepting responsibility for a maximum of 7 human beings. Has Germany forgotten who was responsible for the reconstruction of their country after WWII? France, who we liberated during WWII, have consistently denied even our minute requests ever since. During our “Line in the Sand” conflict with Libya; we requested that our planes be allowed to fly over French airspace-DENIED! If it were up to me, I would have flown over anyway and accidentally dropped a few 3,000 pounders on that ungrateful nation.

While I applaud President Obama’s pledge to close Gitmo; he would have been better served having a definitive plan in place before making this promise. If we are going to accept responsibility for these travesties; then we should also devise a resolution. And if the European Union is willing to offer a helping hand; we should provide them with an answer to any question they have. Regardless, if we have the capability to provide safe havens for admitted killers; we should certainly be able to provide the same for those we have so obviously wronged.