104 Comments - Jackson - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:08 am: For a guy who served in the military Mark Kirk sure is running scared. I thought the GOP was for standing up to terrorism, not jumping at the sight of their own shadows. - Lee - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:09 am: “I used to live not far from Thomson. I don’t think “radical Islamic elements” would find living there all that comfortable.” What do you base your opinion on? - Deep South - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:17 am: It seems the GOP is all about fear-mongering these days. From death camps to socialism to terrorists in the heartland. It is all about what “might” happen. These folks are scared, really afraid. That ain’t the American way. Why is the GOP anti-America? - Will Done - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:19 am: Doesn’t matter what media thinks on this question. Public is with Kirk. - the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:21 am: I used to live not far from Thomson. I don’t think “radical Islamic elements” would find living there all that comfortable. Best line you’ve written in a while, Rich. Bravo! - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:24 am: ===What do you base your opinion on? === My experience. - Larry - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:25 am: Deep South Democrat incumbent in the 8th, Melissa Bean, announced she was also opposed to the Gitmo detainee transfer after an IL GOP poll released Tuesday indicated the vast majority of Illinoisans considered the transfer a bad idea. The polling results of likely voters specifically said 58% of those polled opposed the idea while 32% supported it. - irv & ashland - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:25 am: The Daily Herald criticizes both sides equally, seeming to imply that Durbin’s complaints about scare tactics are unfair and unproductive. You say the Herald is “right on all counts.” And then further down, you call the Republican effort “fear-mongering”. I don’t think the Herald was right “on all counts.” - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:27 am: I just don’t understand how the party of Rambo, John Wayne and Ronald Reagan became the party of cowering in fear. We’re strong enough as a country to actually try, convict and (hopefully) execute these people. It’s gratifying to see media on the left and right call out the Republican fear mongering for what it is. Phil Kadner said it best, “If you’re afraid, they win, we lose.” That’s the whole point of terrorists, to terrorize. Personally, I refuse to be terrorized by these people. Don’t know why my Republican friends don’t share the sentiment. Perhaps they lack testicular virility? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:27 am: Sure it was, I&A. Durbin is deliberately underplaying the issue and focusing solely on the economic bennies. He’s wrong as well. - roscoetom - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:36 am: Maybe we can have our “ceaseless naval reserve hero” and self promoter Senate candidate Mark Kirk quit the race, retrofit a PT boat and promte him to Admiral so that he can scare the hordes of terrorists away from the farm fields of western Illinois. Damn the cornstalks and full speed ahead Admiral Kirk! - ahoy - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:37 am: Why are some of our government officials so afraid that the government can’t keep us safe from terrorists when their locked up in a “supermax” prison? This seems like a vote of no confidence against themselves. - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:40 am: “Will radical Islamic elements migrate to the area surrounding the terrorist prison?” I’d expect nothing less from “We shouldn’t reduce CO2 because its plant food” Shimkus. - Where's my money, Giannoulias? - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:44 am: What concerns me is the precedent this sets. If the war in Afghanistan ramps up with Obama deploying 40,000 more troops there, will it be that much easier to say ‘We can always dump the POWs in Illinois’? I think so - Patrick H. - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:45 am: Since when is Thomson rated a supermax? Is it just me, or did this used to be a maximum security prison (with some minimum security prisoners in it)? There is one supermax in Illinois, Tamms, and it is a controversial one. - Springfield resident - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:46 am: Check out Representative Jim Sacia’s comments in the Huffington Post and you’ll find that not all Republicans are fear-mongering on the possibility of moving terrorist suspects to the maximum security prison in Thomson. Good for him. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/illinois-republican-we-wo_n_361114.html - CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:46 am: Capt Fax: As a former constituent of Commando Kirk, I am not surprisesd by the hyperventilating. If he worries about NUKEs how about the lightly guarded waste at ZION or all the super fund garbage off the coast of WAUKEGAN ? I think you are seeing what much of the debate and discussion would have looked like. Folks have been talking about closing GITMO for years. What did they think would happen to the prisoners? Would we sprinkle fairy dust and go poof. There is some value to this “debate” it exposes the “No Nation” for the fraud they are. Fellas, even lackluster downstate nespaper editorialists are ripping ya. It was especially glaring to see Mr. “Dreamey” ( a phrase once used by a PJS reporter) to describe now Congressman Aaron Schock put in a bill to block spending shipping the prisoners here. I assume Schock is following the Manzullo Doctrine that opines the concentration of terrorists would be “too great” ( i.e. 40 is o.k. in CO, but XXX is toooo many). I assume we can all agree the concentration of terrorists is HIGHER in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN so the boy wonder can put in amendment to cut off all spending there too. I love it when yo can take the wing nut plan and use it to end Bushie’s war. BTW Hats off Jim Sacia..this is the first smart things he has said in several years. Now he will probably catch a teabaggger - Deep South - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:47 am: Larry, I would fully expect that a GOP poll says people are against it. But my question still stands. Why all the fear-mongering…what is the GOP afraid of and why are they anti-American? - Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:51 am: I want to thank Mark Kirk for showing the Illinois media to be just what I always said he was. He’s a policy lightweight whose chief skill is pandering to the right constituencies in the media. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:56 am: Springfield resident, we discussed that yesterday. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:56 am: The conservatives have been telling the liberals that they shouldn’t mess with Guantanamo Bay, but they turned it into a political game by fearmongering how terrorists were being recruited and using Gitmo as some kind of international sign of American torture. Even Durbin got into the act, to later tearfully recant his own fearmongering statement made before Congress. So, why is it a sign of fear to not want this political ad-hoc solution for a problem that was politically manufactured? Those accusing the conservatives of fear because they do not want to bring Gitmo detainees into the US, seem to think that their earlier fearmongering against Gitmo was somehow heroic? This is a bad solution to a non-existent problem. Denouncing this ridiculous proposal isn’t showing fear - it is showing common sense, which seems to have been terribly lacking during the past year regarding the premature closing of Guantanamo Bay without any plans. These detainees aren’t in Guantanamo Bay because they are lacking a civil jury trial. They are there because they are not Americans, fought against us, and being housed safely in a safe location. They have already had US justice via a bi-partisan 2006 Congressional agreement, based on wartime legal precedent. Obama even agreed with this when he thought it was the politically prudent thing to do. Obviously to gain the nomination, he flipped on this to appease Bush critics. That political play doesn’t justify denying the common sense among the large majority of Illinoisans - and the large majority of Americans have on this issue. Stop trying to sell a bad idea by insulting everyone who questions it. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:58 am: It’s not fear; it’s being smart about avoiding the risk of the type of fear terrorist attacks on our soil cause. And don’t forget that the “fallout” of an attack near Thomson will be very different from that of 9/11. 9/11 made many Americans who have been here for generations realize what those of us whose parents lived in Europe during WWII had been saying all along was true: that the Continental US can, in fact, be attacked–just as any other nation. 9/11 was obviously tough on our Country and did change the behavior of many. Generally speaking, though, many of those further away from the attack sites have managed to become fairly complacent again (i.e., they’ve convinced themselves that it’s not going to happen again BUT if it does, it–again–will not be in their backyard). I’ve read several reports where those who were near the attack sites are still struggling to return to life as it was pre-9/ll, and many in that group are afraid that it will happen again near them. Thomson is different because if an attack that is directly or indirectly attributed to having the prisoners there occurs, the folks in Thomson won’t be able to get rid of the prisoners. Therefore, they’ll most likely have to deal with the possibility that another attack may, and most likely will, occur again in their backyards. And they probably already realize that at some level–hence their telling Manzullo that they’d prefer to see the prison open without the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. On a personal note, my heart really goes out to them. It seems that many moved there because of, and made investments that were dependent upon, that prison opening, but now they’re hurting badly because it didn’t. And now that talks have begun again, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place because for some reason, the Guantanamo Bay prisoners can’t be removed from the solution that’s being offered to them. - Springfield resident - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:58 am: Sorry Rich. I missed it. - Lester Holt's mustache - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:01 am: I would also like to give two thumbs up to Rep. Sacia. Good thing for him the filing deadline has passed, however, as that’s the kind of honesty that will get you a primary challenger in today’s GOP. - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:04 am: I find the posters who cannot make a comment without name calling rather amusing. Does it make your position stronger? Nahhhh didn’t think so - Bill - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:07 am: ===I just don’t understand how the party of Rambo, John Wayne and Ronald Reagan became the party of cowering in fear=== I don’t remembering any of those guys doing anything heroic other than acting in movies. They didn’t even serve in the military. They were just playing a role. Kinda like Bush and Cheney. - Responsa - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:07 am: The best possible outcome for the state of Illinois and ALL its politicians right now would be for the Feds to decide there is a better alternative out there and take Thomson off the table—soon. It appears many people close to the current campaigns don’t understand that there is a third leg to the public perception of this issue simmering out there beyond “fear” and “jobs”. To a lot of regular folks this is one more exhibit in the “hey, we’re desperate–let’s sell off the skyway, the parking meters etc. to get immediate cash” theme. Do you think the rank and file citizenry of both political parties have much confidence or a good memory of how all that was decided, negotiated, and how its actual implementation turned out? No. I don’t either. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:11 am: From Wikipedia on Reagan - Military service After completing fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses, Reagan enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve[26] on April 29, 1937, as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa.[27] He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937, and on June 18 was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry.[28] His service number was 0 357 403. Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas.[29] His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office.[30] Upon the approval of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit (officially, the “18th AAF Base Unit”) in Culver City, California.[30] On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California.[30] He returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943.[27] In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was re-assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II.[27] He was recommended for promotion to Major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year.[31] He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945.[31] By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.[27] - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:11 am: Amen, VanillaMan. I was just about to post something in response to Deep South et al, but I don’t think I can say it any more clearly or concisely! Just to expand briefly, let me just ask all of those who are implying that critics of this plan are “afraid” of these prisoners – aren’t you as well? Isn’t that why your defense of this proposal hinges on the invincibility of “Supermax” security? If we shouldn’t be “afraid” of these folks, why not just throw them in with the general population at any federal prison? You want to isolate them in a special facility, and so do we. We’d just assume keep using the facility that is already set up, and has the added security of being a 90 mile swim from the mainland. Symbolism and a handful of new government jobs is a lousy reason to change a system that is working. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:13 am: And, Rich, I’ll make a quick comment about the story that you were kind enough to share with us yeterday re: your experiences in–was it Germany? While I can appreciate what you were saying, I’d hope we’ll never have to see the day the folks in the US will have to deal with car bombs, and similar violence, here on a fairly regular basis. That’s one of the major differences between the US and other countries that I really like–ALOT. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:15 am: ===critics of this plan are “afraid” of these prisoners – aren’t you as well?=== Pretty much everybody is afraid. The key is to not let your fear rule you. That’s when you get into gross irrationality and crazy conspiracy theories and bizarre predictions and lies and outright deceit. Fear is a disease. Control it, don’t revel in it. For too many, it seems, they prefer the fear and the spreading of fear and the perverse hyperbole. It’s downright disgusting. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:17 am: Good point, Pluto. I think those posters just don’t realize yet that those of us who have been here for a while tend to ignore such posts. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:22 am: ===I’d hope we’ll never have to see the day=== Same here. But that’s not a good argument. This discussion focuses way too much on what the terrorists want. The terrorists would be soooo angry and motivated if we moved those prisoners here, goes the logic, that we shouldn’t do it. So, should we change our lives to please the terrorists or not aggravate them? Should we all just become Wahhabis and be done with it? Screw them. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:25 am: “but they turned it into a political game by fearmongering” VM, I know you just don’t understand this so I’ll try to make it as simple as possible. As a matter of PRINCIPLE, liberals, civil libertarians, and even some old fashioned conservatives objected to the extrajudicial way in which prisoners were shipped to Gitmo. We survived existential threats for more than 200 years as a nation of laws. With a few obvious and painful exceptions, those laws have served us pretty well. After 9/11, the Bush/Cheney crowd declared that sticking to our principles was an old fashioned luxury we couldn’t afford. Many of us (myself included) think we’re strong enough to return to our principles. It’s not a political game. - Montrose - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:26 am: ++What concerns me is the precedent this sets. If the war in Afghanistan ramps up with Obama deploying 40,000 more troops there, will it be that much easier to say ‘We can always dump the POWs in Illinois’? I think so++ Red herring. This is pure conjecture. ++Pretty much everybody is afraid. The key is to not let your fear rule you. That’s when you get into gross irrationality and crazy conspiracy theories and bizarre predictions and lies and outright deceit. Fear is a disease. Control it, don’t revel in it. For too many, it seems, they prefer the fear and the spreading of fear and the perverse hyperbole. It’s downright disgusting.++ Well said. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:26 am: You said it Rich. Screw them! After 9/11, I didn’t buy duct tape, supplies of water and an emergency kit. I didn’t change my plans. I said screw them. Still saying it. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:27 am: === The key is to not let your fear rule you. === Some would argue that the first step in meeting that objective is to avoid the risk of exposing yourself to such fear in the first place–whenever possible. That’s what those opposing the transfer are trying to do. - D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:28 am: Could it be that this is just so simple and simplistic an issue that it’s easy to do sound bites and commercials on and distract the electorate. Reminds me of the off-year election where the big election obsession was “drugs” which immediately disappeared after the election. Why talk about anything substantive when you’ve got a nice juicey NIMBY to stir the pot w/! - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:31 am: ===That’s what those opposing the transfer are trying to do. === Please. They’re trying to stoke fear, plain and simple. You can’t look at any of these major GOP statements and say they are totally reasoned, truthful and sound arguments. It’s fear-mongering, likely for partisan ends. - Bill - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:34 am: Vannie, OK, OK I stand corrected. Reagan was an actor during WWII in the army reserve. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:37 am: OK, taking the pols out of it for a minute, do you agree with my first statement? If so, do you then believe there’s a possibility that a terrorist(s) might see some symbolic value in a prison, now on US soil, that holds such a large number of convicted or suspected terrorists. If so, what do you think the likelihood is of an attack at or near that location? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:43 am: Or, put another way, do you even think there’s a possibility that that location just made a potential target list, or if it was already on it, went up a line or two? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:44 am: ===do you then believe there’s a possibility that a terrorist(s) might see some symbolic value in a prison, now on US soil, that holds such a large number of convicted or suspected terrorists.=== Yes. I also believe that we shouldn’t really care what the terrorists think so much. Placing their desires over our own legitimate aims is surrender. - Deep South - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:45 am: ===the perverse hyperbole. It’s downright disgusting.=== Sums it up in six words. ‘Nuff said. Thanx Rich. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:54 am: …Adding… I can think of dozens, even hundreds of things that we do every day which “enrages” the terrorists and motivates them to attack us. What was it that we did to motivate them to slam jets into our buildings? Can anyone say? When we start tiptoeing around the bad guys so as not to offend them, we look weak-willed and vulnerable. This idea that we need to avoid upsetting them is truly vile. They’re already angry. They already have far more accessible targets. I choose not to live in fear. If you do, that’s your business, but stop spreading it to others. There’s a good reason a society has fables, and Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried “Wolf” are two you might want to re-read. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:56 am: Will you at least acknowledge that we’re talking about two different cases of “fear” here. There’s the–what I’ll call–more “political” fear that some are arguing (i.e., the fear the pols are supposedly feeling in making their decision). The second is the fear that’s caused by a terrorist strike. - Right Winger - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:58 am: Rich, if we really don’t care what the terrorists think, then why not leave the prisoners at Gitmo? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:58 am: ===The second is the fear that’s caused by a terrorist strike. === That’s not what we’re talking about here. Do you think there will definitely be a terrorist strike if we move the prisoners to Thomson? - Moving to Oklahoma - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:59 am: Why is no one proposing bringing them here and then spreading the inmates around the country. The only concern that I have is that by placing them all in one place you are creating a target that is too high profile to ignore for the Islamic extremists out there. Also, I think the discussion of “will they be able to escape” is missing the point. Of course they wont escape. Its a maximum security prison. However, will someone hijack a plane and crash it into the prison? Maybe, and the possibility of that increases with 100 housed in a single location not far from O’Hare. These concerns about bringing them to the states are legitimate, and all the high minded “just everyone calm down” attitude is insulting. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:00 pm: ===Rich, if we really don’t care what the terrorists think, then why not leave the prisoners at Gitmo?=== Well, we had an election last year and that was an issue in the election. The president has also issued an exec order closing Gitmo. But that’s a national debate for a national blog. We are left to deal with the consequences, which some think are excessive and others believe are not. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:00 pm: You entertained the possibility yourself in your 11:44. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:01 pm: Moving to Oklahoma, have you not noticed how ironic your screen name is on this topic, considering your position? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:02 pm: Anonymous, it’s possible that a helicopter will crash into my back yard today as well. I would bet they fly over a lot more than Al Qaeda would be seen outside the Thomson walls. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:05 pm: ==== Also, I think the discussion of “will they be able to escape” is missing the point. Of course they wont escape. ==== I don’t believe that most of those opposing the transfer have been bringing that up as an argument. Those for the transfer are bringing it up to make it seem as if we’re all arguing that point (the whole “you don’t trust IDOC” thing). However, some opposing are arguing that a suicide bomber might decide to try to blow up an area near transport as prisoners are being moved around for trial. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:07 pm: Didn’t some of your mothers ever tell you that you watch too much TV? Some of these fears are straight outta 24. - Moving to Oklahoma - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:12 pm: I assume the irony is that by spreading them around the country I might be putting some in Oklahoma? Also, the only thing my mother ever told me was “are you gonna do anything other than sit in front of your computer and read capitol fax?!” - Will County Woman - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:13 pm: “Yes. I also believe that we shouldn’t really care what the terrorists think so much. Placing their desires over our own legitimate aims is surrender.”—Rich Miller rich, I disagree. We have to care about what the terrorists think in order to combat the spread of what they think. The goal of U.S. foreign policy in the middle east is very much a race to win the hearts and minds of the very people that terrorist movements attract and enlist. - shore - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:15 pm: 1. The daily herald has gotten suntimes disease which is to say “right wing media paranoia”. symtoms of this are a willingness to call out any position that is not liberal and scream crazy nut. Mayor Rudy Giuliani has also been hitting the obama administration on this and yet no one has ever called him a right wing pander bear. Mr. Kirk has more national security experience than anyone in illinois politics today, including the president and I trust his judgment a lot more than the opposition. As well your poll yesterday said illinoisans were against this, including democrats. newspapers undermine their credibility with readers when they get carried away and lose sight of reality. mr. kirk has a 10 year voting record of a moderate. wooing a conservative base can not take away from that. 2. As I noted on team america’s blog, Senator Durbin gets the hypocrite of the year award. Senator Durbin has for years been unwilling to relieve us of our nuclear waste up near the wisconsin border because his senate majority leader lives in nevada where the waste would be dumped in yucca mountain. Other states can’t take our nuclear waste but we have to take the country’s worst terrorists. give me a break. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:15 pm: ===The goal of U.S. foreign policy in the middle east is very much a race to win the hearts and minds of the very people that terrorist movements attract and enlist. === That has absolutely zero to do with the issue of angering the terrorists by moving prisoners to Thomson. Stick to the point. - vole - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:15 pm: My biggest fear is that we are letting these never ending, politically motivated, side issues distract us from our most important mission in fighting terrorism and ensuring the freedom of future generations — getting ourselves off the river of oil and fossil fuels. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:15 pm: ===no one has ever called him a right wing pander bear.=== You don’t get out much, do you? - Ghost - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:17 pm: First, I am a critic of the plan whose position has nothing to do with fear. The lone voice it seems asking why when IDOC needs new prisons to replace outdated ones we are selling one off instead of using it Secon ==== It’s not fear; it’s being smart about avoiding the risk of the type of fear terrorist attacks on our soil cause. ==== Huh? terrorists are not attracking america because we are ousing their priosners. They are attacking us for various complictaed reasons, but as a simplegeneralization for control. Terrrorist leaders use the idea of an evil america to gain control over groups of people for their own benefit. This allows them to pull in disenfranchised supporters and exert influence and power. Terrorist leaders need an iconic enemy to point their supporters at in order to solidify and maintain power. America will never cease being a target for these folks unless or until we cede control of ourselves to these leaders. When we alter our decisions to do what the terrorist leaders want, we are ceding control to them. But they will not be happy with these partial gestures, only full control. As-long-as there are poor, unhappy and disenfranchised people in the world their will be leaders who gather them in and point them at various iconic targets in order to hold those people under their sway. This is why we also have problems with domestic terrorist and extremeists groups made of americans, like those who say the Federal Govt has no authority etc. In the end, we should choose not to cede control to these leader by making decisions out of fear what the leaders may do; we should make the decisions based on how we think it is best. if you set every single gitmo detainee free the US would still be a threat, including a nice juicy nuclear reactor, or large public buildings in chicago. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:17 pm: Moving to Oklahoma, you’re kinda dense today. lol Hint: Two words: Oklahoma City. Get it now? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:19 pm: I seldom watch TV and have seen 24 only once or twice. Way too much drama for me. - Louis Howe - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:22 pm: I don’t understand the logic that “terrorist attacks” would magically appear in Illinois because a few hundred prisoners are located along the Mississippi. Seems to me that American forces have bombed, invaded and destroyed much of Iraq which should have incited the crazies much more than a few prisoners being moved to Illinois. There are plenty of tempting targets throughout the continental 48. I don’t see why Illinois would become a special target. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:22 pm: === That has absolutely zero to do with the issue of angering the terrorists by moving prisoners to Thomson. ==== I don’t remember that argument. Making them angry is different from providing another symbolic target. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:25 pm: === Huh? terrorists are not attracking america because we are ousing their priosners. === OK. I guess this is where Rich got it. You’re probably intentionally misinterpreting what I said and I don’t appreciate it. It’s symbolism. U.S. S.O.I.L. Get it? - wordslinger - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:34 pm: My, my, what a difference a day makes. The Rove/Ailes talking points have taken a complete turn. VMan, it’s all common sense now, and not about unreasoning (or cynical) fear? Re-read your posts from a couple of days ago, daddio. Something about “Obama not protecting us.” This Thomson discussion has been very revealing. I’ll second Rich’s notion about the Thomson area, too. If any terrorists go looking for trouble among the folks in the Upper Mississippi River Valley, I suggest they pack a lunch because it will be an all-day job. Avoid Deer Season, too. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:34 pm: I’m off to other things. It’s been a pleasure debatig this topic with everyone. Have fun. - Will County Woman - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:36 pm: fiar enough…I will stick to the point… but, let’s look terrorists and gitmo… maybe part of the reason why the have not (yet) attacked gitmo is because it hold little value in terms of potential american casualties, it is part of cuba and the terrorists aren’t out to hurt cuba, and attacking gitmo would not produce the enough psychological damage for americans that terrorists want and need. the gitmo detainees are singularly identfified with the 9-11 attacks. moving and consolidating them in the u.s. gives rise to the extremists arguments and anti u.s. sentiments, and does encourage them to attack the u.s. again. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:38 pm: I know you just don’t understand this so I’ll try to make it as simple as possible. Thank you. I see now that you are clearly wrong. “After 9/11, the Bush/Cheney crowd declared that sticking to our principles was an old fashioned luxury we couldn’t afford.” No. That isn’t correct. Check with the guy in the White House right now, and ask him if he approved this, back when he thought it was politically prudent to do so. When he was a senator, Mr. Obama was among those you labeled in that “Bush/Cheney” crowd. As a matter of fact, back when it was politically fashionable to do so, a bipartisan majority approved of our legal measures in Guantanamo Bay. So, after everyone agreed to handle this in Gitmo, some political players decided to change their mind when the war became less popular. Obama went along with this, and flipped too. Not out of any common sense, but out of political expediency. Wouldn’t it be great to have more bipartisanship in our governments? Well, we had great bipartisanship regarding Guantanamo, that is - until enough Bush-hating liberals saw a political opening to make it partisan, right? Let’s make it a rule that we support bipartisanship, and discourage political machinations that ruin bipartisanship, OK? This is one of those times to tell the political players to take a flying leap and keep the bipartisan Gitmo legal agreements. Hear Holder today? When he was asked how he decided to have a show trial in NYC for KSM, and military tribunals for others involved in the case. He couldn’t give an answer. What kind of a plan do they have here? The Administration is making this up as they go along, based on how they think these things will play politically. That isn’t bipartisan, that isn’t even thinking. Oh - and thanks for keeping it simple. I always have a problem doing that myself, but then, I think too much sometimes! - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:41 pm: Something about “Obama not protecting us.” I didn’t say it like that, no wonder you said “something”. I was saying that it is important politically for our government to ensure citizens regarding their safety. This is a risky move because it undermines a basic political tenent. I believe that Obama is considering our protection - but he risks that perception with this kind of action. - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:55 pm: VM: “the premature closing of Guantanamo Bay without any plans” How’s that? The planning has been going on for a year and this is part of the process. It is too bad an attempt to plan is immediately turned into a hot button campaign issue and rational discussion is kicked out the back door. The Obama Admin has been working on this for months and other locations and options have been and are being explored. But, whenever anything specific is mentioned as an option, reasoned discussion is lost as promoters and detractors stake their claims and fight without compromise. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:57 pm: Regarding the Administration’s handling of Gitmo and KSM - The President just publically declared that a jury is going to find KSM guilty and give him the death penalty. That’s gonna make it harder to give this guy a fair trial. The President. Publically. MISTRIAL! Talk about making it up as you go along! - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:59 pm: Rich: “What was it that we did to motivate them to slam jets into our buildings? Can anyone say?” Pretty simple, we had a military force occupying their country (Saudi Arabia) uncomfortably close to their holiest cities. In addition, our corporate face overseas was (and is) broadly seen as supportive of oppressive regimes. In response, the terrorists (mostly Saudis) flew planes into the symbols of our military and trade. - Moving to Oklahoma - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:59 pm: I follow the Oklahoma City Irony. I need to lay off the kit kat bars for breakfast. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:03 pm: === maybe part of the reason why the have not (yet) attacked gitmo is because it hold little value in terms of potential american casualties,… === Yes, and just the Wikipedia article alone on Guantanamo Bay is probably more intimidating to them than they could ever hope to be. - Will County Woman - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:12 pm: I didn’t get a chance to comment on this yesterday, but schillerstrom response to all of this is one of the best! - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:50 pm: Anonymous, I can’t tell if you are one person or twenty. If you insist on posting multiple comments, please pick a nickname and stick with it. That would help the rest of us follow the conversation better. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 2:00 pm: 47th, it’s me. I’ve been Anonymous for years now, and while some people post under Anonymous every once a while, I usually ask them to get another handle–especially when they say something with which I do not agree. Everyone once in a while, but very seldom, do I let it slide. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 2:02 pm: Anonymous, since “Anonymous” is the default name of anyone who doesn’t post a name, you might want to change your name, or at least make it all caps or something. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 2:05 pm: OK. I’m not very creative today because I’ve had some dental work done, but I’ll come up with soon. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 2:19 pm: === I apologize for any misunderstanding of my comments === Rich, you need to edit your lede. Manzullo didn’t apologize for his remarks, only our failure to understand what he “really” meant. I agree with Rich on nearly every point: 1. Quinn bungled this news. 2. Republicans are over-reacting. 3. The state should get more than $120M if this deal goes through. And while I’m all for reasonable assurances of public safety, let’s not lose sight of the forest. A Harvard study published recently in the American Journal of Public Health links 45,000 deaths ANNUALLY to the lack of affordable health insurance. http://tinyurl.com/l7cy8u If Mark Kirk is so concerned about public safety, lets hear his solution to that one. - Will County Woman - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 2:34 pm: “Manzullo didn’t apologize for his remarks, only our failure to understand what he “really” meant.”–YDD And Manzullo was right to simply apologize for not being more clear. His point was/is totally valid and justified under the circumstances. - hey - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 2:53 pm: Yellow Dog - here is what the dean of Harvard Medical school had to say about Obamacare “Health ‘Reform’ Gets a Failing Grade”. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html - Will County Woman - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:05 pm: “I’ve been Anonymous for years now, and while some people post under Anonymous every once a while, I usually ask them to get another handle–especially when they say something with which I do not agree.”—anonymous HA! is that you????? I love reading the anonymous posts asking people to pick another because “anonymous” is already taken. Those posts always make me laugh. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:08 pm: It is being reported now that the President has confirmed to the NYT that Gitmo will remain open in the immediate future. The January deadline will pass and no new deadlines are being created. So this entire week has been a real mess for Durbin and Quinn. Kirk clearly wins here. This was entirely avoidable. I still haven’t heard if Giannoulais remained silent long enough to escape this disaster, and I hope he has. So, was this entire thing some kind of trial balloon? If so, why did Durbin and Quinn tout it so? Durbin’s “dream come true” quote looks as silly as Manzullo’s. For the Majority Whip to be reduced to this in his home state is embarrassing. Good grief. Talk about making it up as they go along! Does anyone in the White House have any plans regarding this or are they merely looking at daily polls and politically spinning for some kind of 2010 election angle? This entire Gitmo thing is utterly stupid, partisan, and dangerous at a time when we need to be unified as a country on so many issues. Are they even thinking? - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:12 pm: I agree with YDD’s point. (I’ve been posting similar arguments the last two days.) The point is not that Obama-care is great. The point is that if these blowhards really cared about public safety, they would be working on real healthcare reform instead of running around claiming that the world will end when if few Gitmo detainees are brought to Illinois. The data shows what puts us at risk, and terrorism is way down on the list. Barely a blip. play here: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html - hey - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:22 pm: VM is right on the money. Plus the fact that Bean wouldnt endorse the move - Halverson wont say one way or the other, not sure about Foster. Kirk gets the one up but Alexi was smart to not say anything - and if the aurgument was so right to bring the terrorists to IL, then I am guessing he would have spoken up, correct? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:31 pm: ====Kirk clearly wins here.==== Only to an ultrapartisan mind could this be true. His use of distortions and outright lies to buttress his fear-mongering is no “win” to a thinking person. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:35 pm: ===the President has confirmed to the NYT that Gitmo will remain open in the immediate future. The January deadline will pas=== Dude, how obvious can it be? There was no way that Thomson could’ve been made ready by January. The statements means little. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:53 pm: HEY - I read it, the question is, did you? Just so you know, newspaper editors write the headlines for op-ed pieces. Here - not surprisingly - is the headline the Wall Street Journal imposed: Health ‘Reform’ Gets a Failing Grade The changes proposed by Congress will require more draconian measures down the road. Just look at Massachusetts. But if you read the column, Dean Flier doesn’t actually give the health reform bill a failing grade. He gives the debate over health care reform a failing grade. And nowhere in the piece does he use the word “draconian.” That was the WSJ’s characterization, not his. In fact, he faults lawmakers for not going far enough on health care reform: So the majority of our representatives may congratulate themselves on reducing the number of uninsured, while quietly understanding this can only be the first step of a multiyear process to more drastically change the organization and funding of health care in America….We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.” But back to my point, whether you agree or disagree with Democrats’ on health care reform, should Mark Kirk be spending alot more time explaining his plans to prevent those 45,000 deaths a year that are actually happening, rather than pandering politically on the possibility of some potential pugnacious pitfall posed by Pat’s pronouncement? - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:53 pm: No - not ultrapartisan, because I am definately not. I’m just a guy who has been watching how politics is played, and who has won these kinds of arguments in the past. Kirk tanked in many ways, but the gift he got this week more than made up for it. Even if it was just a NIMBY issue, Kirk comes out ahead. Folks don’t want this, anymore than they wanted the Exxon Valdez cruising off Navy Pier. You just can’t convince people that there would be safeguards sufficient to prevent a tragedy. They can see for themselves that their neighbors won’t have a Gitmo in their backyards, and demand the same. Look at the long arguments over the Nevada Nuclear Waste Site. It has been over 20 years, and there has been every safeguard pledged. Gitmo is like that. No one wants it. The President said more than the January deadline will pass. He didn’t make another deadline. In light of the majority of voters questioning how the Administration is handling Afghanistan, his approval rating now under 50%, the bipartisan fight against Obamacare - he sees that his plate is full. So what’s up here? Why did he, Durbin and Quinn unleashed this politically risky proposal? It was an uphill fight even on a good day. Just not smart. Not at all. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:54 pm: Giannoulias did finally say something. Yesterday, I believe. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 4:01 pm: But if you read the column, Dean Flier doesn’t actually give the health reform bill a failing grade. He gives the debate over health care reform a failing grade. I read it. You are splitting hairs. Flier makes it clear that the Bill does not meet the promises made during the debate. Please explain how 45,000 people a year are dying because they don’t have health insurance. Do emergency rooms dump the non-insured down elevator shafts? You are not the first to quote this figure, and I’d like to better understand how such a statement could be made. That way, it would be easier to discuss why Kirk should be forced to explain any supposed opposition to saving these lives. You know, YDD, it is like demanding that Kirk not drill for water on the Moon for the 45,000 people dying from drought in the Sahara. I know you can help me out here. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 4:02 pm: Giannoulias: “…said the plan should be considered in consultation with national security officials in weighing the pros and cons.” - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 4:35 pm: VM, I note with delicious irony the title of this thread is “Attempting to lower the decibel level.” I think the 45,000 deaths figure can be explained if you think about it this way: imagine a restaurant worker riding the el to work his job on the late shift at a hotel. He feels a sharp pain in his stomach, but the pain goes away quickly, and is soon forgotten. Now if that worker had insurance, he might make an appointment with his doctor and get it checked out. But this particular person doesn’t have insurance, and hey, it stopped hurting and there’s no sense missing work and all. So it is quickly forgotten again. Until it starts hurting again. After a couple of months, maybe even years, the pain is too much. The restaurant worker decides to go to one of the county’s clinics to get it checked out. They run some tests, and it turns out the stomach pain is colon cancer. Of course, if he had insurance and was in regular contact with a physician, maybe they’d catch it in time. In this example, the lack of insurance prevents the relationship with a physician and by the time the problem gets diagnosed, it has metastacized into a fatal illness. Take this example and multiply by 45,000. That’s how you reach that figure, which I suspect is on the low end of deaths due to lack of insurance. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 4:39 pm: Nailed it 47. I know it’s hard for some people who have insurance to understand, but I know a number of people who are uninsured or underinsured and that is exactly what happens. They only use health care when it is a crisis for them. Too often that’s too late. I don’t know whether 45,000 is too many or too few, but it is certainly in the 10s of thousands. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 4:39 pm: Oh, and I note that we’re very close to 100 comments for the third day in a row. Who’s going to get us over the top? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 5:08 pm: 100 There. Threshold reached. lol - AstonishedAmI - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 8:46 pm: Schock, as usual, is wrong. Of course, he’s taking his marching orders from Boehner so that’s not unexpected. The GOP simply lives on feeding the American people fear; it is bereft of any real idea of how to deal with the problems that fact this country. Schock just buys into it since he’s bought and paid for by the RNC. One question for the GOP: are you really that afraid of these terrorists that you don’t think we can keep them locked up until the death sentence is carried out? If so, you are truly weak. - Ayn Rand - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 9:12 am: So, is the fed officially offering $120mil to buy Thomson? I see that some posters here think we should demand a much higher figure. Are we really in a position to negotiate? - VanillaMan - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 11:45 am: First of all 47, I was asking YDD. Secondly, your story is weak. There are plenty of people with insurance discovering too late that they have cancer. It isn’t this guy’s lack of insurance that caused him from getting treatment earlier, it was his decision not to be treated. No one gets turned away from medical treatment that is needed. Even drunks regularly stumble through the Emergency rooms and aren’t shown the door. Your story needs another ending, but destroying the world’s best health care system to try another approach is even more deadly. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 12:21 pm: VanillaMan, This is a blog. You want to have a private conversation with Yellow Dog, do it somewhere else, preferably off-line, so I won’t have to read your nonsense. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.