Obama's failure to know the enemy leads to Gitmo gaffs

It’s been a week of detainee drama for the Obama administration, none of which would have been necessary but for President Obama’s self-inflicted policy problems.

Obama rode (and stoked) the fire of anti-Bush liberals into the White House by being The Anti-Bush: Everything was Bush’s fault. Pertinently, Obama promised during the campaign to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, claiming it and the military tribunals enacted by Bush were “an enormous failure.” On only his third day as president, Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within a year. Problem solved, right?

Not so fast.

Obama still wants to close Gitmo but closure is a tougher sell when you haven’t figured out what you’ll do afterwards. The Senate today voted 90-6 to scrap funding for Obama’s closing plans meaning every Republican and virtually every Democrat rejected the plans. The administration spins this—with Democrat support—as a matter of Congress needing more details before agreeing to fund the closure. That’s putting lipstick on a pig.

President Obama can say he’s keeping his campaign promise, and he is to a point. But promises made in the heat of a campaign, where facts are few but finger-pointing is plentiful, are difficult to keep once the campaign stops and the facts become known. Now that Obama is receiving the most top secret of information, closing Gitmo still sounds good publicly but makes him wince privately.

Any closure plan—no matter how specific or detailed—will face huge obstacles. Primarily there’s the pesky matter of what to do with the 240 or so detainees. No one save the ACLU seems to like the idea of housing them in US prisons. Other nations are smart enough not to take them. That was one of the problems President Bush ran into when he wanted to close Gitmo, a fact liberals conveniently forget. Nevertheless, even most liberals don’t want the detainees released into our population, though ACORN could use the volunteers.

Then there’s the justice angle. Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling last year, Obama has the green light to prosecute detainees in our federal courts. You’d think that would please The Anti-Bush, except that Obama recently expressed support for the very military tribunals he criticized during the campaign. And the administration successfully convinced a federal judge this week that some Gitmo prisoners can be held indefinitely without charges—just like the previous administration Obama so eagerly disparaged. Would the real Obama please stand up?

Worst of all were the comments of administration Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today. In response to questions about Gitmo, Gibbs reiterated that the president believes it should be closed because (Bush is evil and) Gitmo is a “rallying cry” for terrorists.

This, the administration’s official position, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemies. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists don't need a “rallying cry” to plan and carry out terror attacks against us. Our very existence is their rallying cry! Our stench as the Great Satan has led them to war against us for decades, only we didn’t wake up and smell the jet fuel until 9/11.

Gitmo itself is not a rallying cry. Rather, the claim that Gitmo must be closed is a rallying cry that plays into the terrorists’ notion of America as the Great Satan. If America would just close Gitmo, liberals claim, our evil (read: Bush/Cheney) would be vanquished and the Muslims would like and respect us again. That will stop them from wanting to hurt us.

Hogwash. The terrorists have sworn to destroy us because of who we are. You can’t compromise a dispute with someone whose singular objective is your death. The enemy publicly expresses support for the nicest, most compassionate outreaches but privately views them with derision and as weakness.

Obama boxed himself into a corner during the campaign and by so quickly ordering Gitmo closed. In recent weeks, he has vacillated between his promised Change and his continuation of Bush’s policies. Now he has yet to come up with a viable plan to deal with closure and the related issues comprehensively. The right answer is to keep Gitmo open and stop the self-flagellation.

Being The Anti-Bush isn’t so easy after all.

Prosecute Yoo? You too, Madam Speaker

Yesterday, I wrote a defense of former US Justice Department lawyer and current Berkeley law professor John Yoo for the so-called "torture memo" he wrote in August 2002. I encourage all my fans to read Yoo's memo for yourselves. Yes, it's a bit dry and sounds like a stuffy lawyer wrote it. But it is a concise analysis of the issue on which Yoo was tasked with opining.

Today, the CIA revealed a memo showing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew of the Agency's plans to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques"...in September 2002. In other words, one month after Yoo's memo hit Attorney General John Ashcroft's desk, Pelosi, then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed by the CIA on the very issues discussed in Yoo's memo. What's worse, Yoo's memo speaks in generalities never mentioning any specific techniques being reviewed while, by contrast, Pelosi's briefing included details.

Pelosi raised no objections during the briefing or afterward. That is, until about 18 months ago when Bush Derangement Syndrome manifested itself in the form of Attorney General Michael Mukasey's confirmation hearings. Over the past months, Pelosi has gotten out in front of the parade and formally endorsed a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.

Tell you what, we'll make you a deal. Let's shine the light of truth on everyone involved, including you and your fellow members of Congress, and let the chips fall where they may. I propose we establish jointly with Congress and the Obama administration a blue-ribbon "torture truth" investigative team. If waterboarding or other techniques are torture, then everyone who actively approved or participated in the practices, or tacitly supported them through failures to object when alerted, should be investigated and tried for federal crimes. Yes, that includes you, Madam Speaker, many of your fellow representatives, and Professor Yoo, too.

Of course, the Anointed One would also have to go back on his promise and allow investigators to pursue the CIA agents and operatives who actually did or supervised the dirty work. And it would all have to be made public so we'd be providing invaluable intelligence to our enemies. Hmmm, that could get ugly. America would be in significantly greater danger, the CIA would be further emasculated, and terrorists would be emboldened. The damage would likely be catastrophic.

Ah, no matter. That's the price we pay for full disclosure.

Or we can recognize this issue for what it truly is--a half-baked, hysterical, hypocritical attempt at political gamesmanship, rewriting history, and blaming that Evil Bush, his puppet master Cheney, the war-mongers in his administration and those mean-spirited Republicans for every perceived ill--and realize that the rare American misdeeds (if they can be categorized as such) are not the equivalent of anything our brutal, misogynistic, Stone Age enemy does on a daily basis.

Choose your side, Madam Speaker. I'll pick the American patriots, who willingly do whatever it takes to protect us, over your blue ribbon commission every time.

Leave Yoo Alone

Let me see if I have this straight.

It’s 2002. The US is still reeling in the aftermath of the terror attacks on 9/11. Al Qaeda is now Enemy No. 1 and we are at war. A lawyer for the US Justice Department is given the assignment to research the issue of whether interrogation methods proposed to be used on al Qaeda suspects constitute torture under US and international law. He reviews applicable federal statutes, treaties and agreements. He concludes that the proposed interrogation methods do not violate US or international law or treaties.

So he puts it on paper.

His reward? If some have their way, it’ll be disbarment and criminal prosecution..

Liberal lefties are having a conniption over Prof. John Yoo, the former Justice Department attorney who drafted the now infamous memo. They call him a war criminal, picket and protest his speaking engagements, and are demanding he be fired from his position as a Berkeley law professor. Nothing gets under a socialist hippy’s skin quite like a “person of color” who achieved high levels of success the old fashioned way (see e.g. Justice Clarence Thomas).

Whatever happened to free speech? I thought the liberal loons were all for it. Unless it’s racist. Or not politically correct. Or Christian or mentions God (or “god”). Sorry, I digressed.

Back to free speech. If you read Yoo’s memo you’ll find a thoughtful analysis of the issues presented. You won’t find any mention of “waterboarding” or other techniques some describe as torture. Instead, Yoo dispassionately interprets the relevant language in statutes and treaties and concludes the proposed (but unspecified) techniques are not torture. You might disagree with his analysis but he clearly is not war-mongering or out for blood.

The dean of Berkeley’s law school, Christopher Edley Jr. has rejected calls to fire Yoo but, like the good lefty he is, couldn't miss the chance to throw more fuel on Yoo's bonfire. “Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry.” Gee, thanks Dean Edley for the words of support. In other words, I agree with you liberal lefties about Yoo and even though the sight of him makes me vomit I just can’t fire him unless he's committed a crime...so keep it up and I'll have my chance to fire him.

Unlike Yoo, the liberal left is out for blood. They are all too ready to frog-march Yoo from his office directly to Gitmo. Maybe we should waterboard him to see if he knows anything about the Valerie Plame case. That way he can feel what it’s like. Yank his law license, vandalize his house and threaten his wife and kids while you’re at it. They deserve it for hitching their wagon to him. And get Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice at the same time.

Calling Yoo a war criminal is ridiculous and reprehensible. It’s nothing more than an attempt to project Bush Derangement Syndrome on anyone and everyone involved with the War on Terror. The lefty wackos should be ashamed of themselves, but apparently being a lefty means having no shame.

How do you expect an attorney to provide honest and comprehensive legal analysis of a complicated and controversial issue if he knows that he can be disbarred and prosecuted if he doesn’t come to the “correct” conclusion? I’m sure lawyers will be lining up for that job.

Prosecute Yoo and you might as well eliminate the Justice Department. In its place we’ll establish the Department of Peace, American War Crimes Prosecution, and International Criminal Court Enforcement. That’ll scare the crap out of al Qaeda.