Comments on: Palau ‘Honored’ To Take Chinese Detainees

By: Jess_newsy

Jess_newsy — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:18:23 +0000

I'm sure in negotiations with all the other countries there was money involved and none of them offered to take in the ex-detainees. SO this really was a humanitarian effort. And it shows Palau isn't scared of China.
http://tinyurl.com/l2p8se

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:14:25 +0000

By the way, Chris WWW, you specifically are _not_ an anti-progress, anti-nuclear dirtbag. (Your main quibble, or at least the key fact you use to veto nuclear ventures, is rational — it's with the huge costs up front to get the reactors built, and up and running.) Were more people that sane rather than demonizing what's not PC…

I'd actually like someday to see Guantanamo not only emptied of prisoners (released if innocent, relocated to the USA or executed if they did something wrong against our forces), but Guantanamo completely evacuated and given (back) to Cuba along with an end to the embargo in an eventual change and thawing in Cuba policy.

Obama has been accused of lies by omission or deceit in this manner in the past, but the speeches he has given recently have been quite good — he does a great job at this task. What I find interesting is that he seems in his speeches to do what few lefties do, try making logical, compelling arguments and explanations for his positions (or the federal government's position) on things. This was true for example not only for his speech on Guantanamo prisoners and related issues (hyped mercilessly as part of a “duel” with Cheney — amusingly, both speakers admonished the left-wing Dems who want to crucify Bush and Cheney to this day) but also with his speech in Cairo about the USA and the Middle East. He does more, better explaining in his speeches lately than his press spokesman does in the press briefings.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:09:04 +0000

jwest is deathly afraid of even releasing presumptively innocent people from our prisons. One might inquire as to how he would feel if he were wrongly imprisoned. Would he gladly accept never being released despite the lack of evidence? Would he gladly submit to “enhanced interrogation techniques”?

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:47:45 +0000

J. West — we have the solution to the terrorist-incarceration problem right here at home, on the US mainland. It even can appeal to the anti-progress anti-nuclear dirtbags, if only we can muzzle troublemaker Harry Reid (who is up to no good along with Nancy Pelosi in Congress, as usual, on any given day, as a rule).

We should create a new super-super-maximum security facility and house the terrorists at Yucca Mountain.

That should shut the idiots up once and for all. (But it won't…)

By: jwest

jwest — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:37:07 +0000

In the spirit of comity and to help our President, I herby offer to temporarily resettle some detainees in my basement.

I will need $200 million, but that in no way influences my humanitarian offer.

Working together for Hope and Change.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:02:43 +0000

This article does, in fact, say the following:

Anonymous government sources said Palau will be compensated with $200 million and its treaty with the U.S. for self-defense will be renegotiated later this year.

By: jkremmers

jkremmers — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:54:18 +0000

Check the link. At this early stage, facts you seek are not in evidence.

By: jwest

jwest — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:26:20 +0000

“Palau’s accommodation to accept the temporary resettlement of these detainees is a humanitarian gesture….”

I’m sure the $200 million didn’t enter into their decision. Apparently, Jerry, you were pretty sure also, since you conveniently left that out of your article.

Is the reason for exclusion of this fact that you didn’t think the money mattered to the government of Palau? Did you believe your readers wouldn’t understand the article if you made it too complex with big numbers?

Why is it that leftist articles always seem to leave out key pieces of information that would lead a reader to question the conclusions of the author?

I would hope that in the future you might trust your readers with all the facts rather than assume everyone is a useful idiot.