Yesterday, I was struggling to figure out why some of the most liberal members of the Senate voted to deny funding for closing Guantanamo. Digby writes:
The press seems to be taking this action to deny funding for the closing of Guantanamo at face value as a sign of congress flexing its muscle at the white house. That's ridiculous. It seems obvious that they are giving cover to the administration, which simply doesn't know how to handle this Gitmo hissy fit and want's to kick the issue down the road.
All due respect to Digby, but I seriously don't think so. If the administration was somehow frightened of the cowardly, obstructionist Republicans and was therefore looking for cover, the amendment never would've been brought up in the first place.
In other words, if goal of the vote was to give the administration an escape hatch, why go through a whole vote in which 90 Senate Democrats would be forced on the record to take a Republican/Bushie position and against a very popular president? That seems like a long and sacrificial way to go.
Digby's view also assumes that the president was so deluded as to believe the Republicans would support his decision to close Guantanamo. Of course I don't know for sure, but I seriously don't believe the president held any such assumption. In fact, everyone knew that the Republicans would pitch a fit. Now we're to believe that the president is so shocked and stunned by the fact that the Republicans are leaning on the fear switch, that he's orchestrated a massive 90-6 repudiation of his decision involving the votes of the most liberal members of the Senate?
At this point, I can only take Harry Reid at his twisted, capitulating word. As for the other Senate Democrats, I'm seriously baffled. I'm looking forward to Brunch with Bernie on the Hartmann show tomorrow to find out.
Adding... From the president's speech today:
By any measure, the costs of keeping [Guantanamo] open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year. [...]
Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal 'supermax' prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists.
That doesn't sound like a man who's been frightened away from a previous decision.