Occasionally you actually argue with other premises and axioms, but usually you don't. You just assume they're wrong or ignore them.

If Gitmo is the "only" answer then why do you surmise Bush was looking to close it?
Other possible answers included in-situ POW camps in Iraq or Afghanistan or both or camps in the US.
The first would be more insecure - but as with Abu-Ghraib it was an option.
The second would have caused more legal problems. Bush wouldn't have gotten away with making up "enemy combatant" status on US mainland soil. Actually, faced with a rubber stamp Congress maybe he would have.
Gitmo was and remains the easy solution.
The hard part is clearing up the legal and ethical mess that was left.