Singin' N-I-M-B-Y

The White House was handed by Congress a setback concerning the closing of Guantanamo Bay. The Senate Democratic leadership chose to strip from the administration's recent war funding proposal the $80 million the Justice and Defense Departments requested to close down the facility and relocate its 240 prisoners, joining Republicans in singing the chorus of "Not In My Backyard" as they turned their eyes towards their constituencies to make sure the voters heard them crowin' loud and clear.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

The last time anyone checked, members of Congress seem perfectly fine with allowing serial rapist-murderer sex offenders imprisoned in their proverbial "backyards." They seem perfectly content building new prisons in their districts to incarcerate first time drug offenders and brag about just how "tough on crime" they really are. But placing the Arab guy with a Muslim-sounding name who allegedly committed an act of terror (but who hasn't been charged or tried) in a maximum security prison surrounded by uniformed men with high-powered rifles is apparently akin to unleashing rabid German shepards on sick American children.

Are moms going to stop dropping their kids off at the local prison complex for playtime and soccer games because a terrorist is now fraternizing amongst the good and decent pedophiles? Will corporations stop holding their conventions in downtown detention centers because Osama bin Laden's one-time cab driver is eating his lunch gruel in the mess hall with shackles on his ankles?

Yes, the Justice Department's plan to handle detainees was bungled and not nearly detailed enough, and I expect the White House to devise what Senator John McCain (who supports the closing of Gitmo) called a "comprehensive, well-thought-out plan" to bring these prisoners to the United States, charge them, try them, convict them, and let them experience the best of American solitary confinement facilities.

But to hear Senator Reid say "I can't make it any more clear, we will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States" is immensely frustrating and disappointing. By using words like "released," Sen. Reid and many other members of both parties are distorting the issue entirely. What's worse, he's now directly responsible for obstructing progress on this issue.

Why not answer the call, accept the "burden" of housing an alleged terrorist genius mastermind (or their cab drivers) in their districts or states, and take pride in the fact that your state, or your fightin' district helped the Commander-in-Chief protect our military and our country and serve righteous, steamin' hot justice all over the faces of these jihadist bastards? Seems like it'd make a damn good re-election ad to me.

I do hope the President and his administration have learned a lesson from this and will deliver to Congress a much more detailed plan regarding the transfer of detainees. But furthermore, I sincerely hope congressional Democrats and Republicans alike tone down the singing and show some leadership by supporting what may be (curiously) unpopular but is necessary to protect this country and ensure due process of the law.

Closing the Gap

The so-called "National Security Gap" between the GOP and the Democratic Party appears to have been erased. That's right, the bread and butter issue of the Republican Party, one they could rely on heavily in the past and a well they've since returned to (this being especially highlighted by House Minority Leader Boehner's recent scare-tactic, 9/11-laced, explosions in the sky doomsday Hans Zimmer-esque foreboding musical accompaniment adverterrorment) is now drying up.

I wonder what they'll fall back on now.

Polling data provided by Democracy Corps.

Sticks and Stones

The Republican National Committee is set to vote on a resolution renaming the Democratic Party the "Democrat Socialist Party."

In related news, GOP House members have introduced a bill that would declare Speaker Nancy Pelosi a "booger-FACE."

Chance of Showers, 05/15/09

Hello raindancers! Here are some of today's top stories:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's claim that she and the Congress were lied to by the CIA regarding the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" was rebuffed today by CIA director Leon Panetta, who, although not serving as director at the time, defended the agency and assured it never sought nor does not seek to "mislead" the Congress. Meanwhile, the Speaker's own story on her knowledge or lack thereof of so-called "EITS" has been changing with the wind. Perhaps the Speaker should start to consider who the public will believe: her (with her sagging poll numbers and polarizing nature) or the Central Intelligence Agency (not necessarily a bastion of transparency and forthrightness but still credible, especially since it is Speaker Pelosi who must prove her accusation).

I sincerely hope the Speaker is telling the truth about her lack of knowledge of the use of torture on detainees. But if she's not, the question becomes whether or not she could have done anything in her power to challenge the Bush Administration on the use of torture without revealing sensitive national security information.
The Obama Administration has decided to reinstate the military tribunal system to try detainees, a system the President had suspended in January by executive order. But the tribunals will now operate under some new rules: statements obtained through “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment will not be admissible in court (which the Bush Administration had permitted), hearsay evidence will remain permissible as long as the party which wishes to bring in out-of-court statements can prove the reliability of the source. Defendants will have greater latitude in choosing their legal representation, and those who refuse to testify in court will be protected.

Liberal groups have launched fiery criticisms of the President's decision, accusing him of breaking a campaign promise and endorsing Bush-like anti-Constitutional tribunals. But as Politico's Glenn Thrush points out, the President's decision is largely consistent with his stance toward these tribunals as a U.S. Senator.

Former Vice President Al Gore went after fellow former Vice President Dick Cheney for the latter's constant and early criticism of the current administration, saying that he waited "two years" before levying criticism on the nascent Bush Administration following the 2000 election.


Whether or not Al Gore actually waited two years before criticizing the Bush Administration is entirely irrelevant. There is nothing wrong, repeat, nothing wrong with Vice President Cheney offering criticism of those who have replaced him in power, regardless of whether it's two years or two minutes after President Obama took the oath of office. What IS wrong is the former Vice President's blatantly incorrect statements and false claims concerning the effectiveness of torture and his administration's handling of the war on terrorism.

The Dow dropped three quarters of a percent today with the NASDAQ falling half a percent and the S&P 500 falling over one percent. This flop of a day ended a pretty dismal week on Wall Street (3.6% drop for the Dow) which follows many weeks of rally.

And finally, the World Series Champions Philadelphia Phillies visited the White House today and presented the President with his own number 44 jersey.

"Yet to Come": Reprise & Resolution

Back in April I went after Arizona State University, where the President recently delivered a commencement address, for not bequeathing an honorary degree to the President (See "Yet to Come").  Well the President didn't try to circumvent the controversy, but instead chose to spin it around and build his message to the Class of 2009 around it.  Watch the clip of his remarks below, and stay through until the end (past the jokes).

Rhetorical skill + Sense of Humor + Deep Humility  =

The Difference: Recruitment

President Obama decided to reverse course today by not releasing the anticipated photos of more Abu Ghraib-esque detainee abuse. The release of these photos has been requested of the Department of Defense by the American Civil Liberties Union by way of the Freedom of Information Act. The Department of Justice was prepared to release the photos after hearing the lawsuit, but the White House intervened. The President cited the fact that the potential risk the release of these photos poses to our servicemembers currently in combat had not been thoroughly presented in court. He believes the release of these photos will only create greater risk to our troops who would undoubtedly be subject to an increase in attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan similar to the kind seen after the release of the first round of Abu Ghraib detainee abuse pictures. Despite loud and fiery objections from the livid left, in making this decision to protect our soldiers the President has made the right call.

Of course, the good people at Fox News, who I am subjected to on a weekly basis at the DCCC (we like to call it opposition research), couldn't agree more with the President's decision and couldn't struggle more with trying to express this agreement. The phenomenon of watching Bret Baier attempt to reconcile the overlap of opinion between himself and the Socialist-In-Chief and his undying contempt for said Chief was equally hilarious and fascinating. The conservative commentators/fair and balanced news anchors on Fox, along with undoubtedly many more conservatives around the country, scream "hypocrisy!" at the White House for seeing no problem releasing the so-called "torture memos" of the Bush Administration that apparently undermined our national security but objecting to the release of pictures of prisoner abuse for fear of, well, undermining national security. They do not see the distinction between the torture memos and the abuse pictures, and have criticized the President for this apparent double-standard.

Well there is a difference. A big one: torture memos don't make good recruitment posters in Ghazni and Tikrit.

To think that somehow the very same terrorists who wish Death to America, who plot and execute attacks on our troops oversees and our citizens at home, who despise us for any number of reasons, not the least of which being our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and our abuse of prisoners, are not fully aware of the fact that we torture members of their ranks who we capture in combat is ludicrous. They know. They have known.

Despite the previous administration's dishonest assurances that the United States of America is not a country that tortures prisoners, do not believe for a second that those who fight for Al-Qaeda were not and are not privy to the fact that the United States of America does (did) torture its captured brethren. Unfortunately and also predictably, the torture of terrorists has become the single most effective recruitment tool for Al-Qaeda. And no recruitment campaign was arguably more effective than the one inspired by the photos depicting prisoner abuse by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

Pictures such as the ones shown here have become propaganda posters for groups like Al-Qaeda and others who wish to swell their ranks. Nothing enrages an Arab youth whose father has been killed by an American aerial bombing like the sight of a poster outside his mosque depicting the humiliating subjugation of Arab Muslims to such abuse as suffered by prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It could be the tipping point, the moment his heart and mind flood with such hatred so as to compel him into armed insurgency against our soldiers.

By releasing either the torture memos or the abuse photographs, the White House isn't, to use their own language, "illuminating" anything new to the American public, the world, or our enemies. But by releasing the photos specifically, we would be handing terrorist organizations some of the best, most effective marketing material they could have ever wished for. Have no doubt that these photos, had they been released, would enrage terrorists already engaged in war against our men and women, but would help enormously to "inspire" more of them.

For the Arab youth who is teetering on the edge of radicalization, the knowledge that the "American Devils" torture Arab "freedom fighters" is not a new revelation. But the sight of it just might set him off.