Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Gitmo’


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 7, 2010

A bit of a follow-up to my piece yesterday, “Enough With The ‘Gitmo Is A Recruiting Tool’ Crap”…

According the AFP, Al Qaeda says that last week’s suicide bombing that killed seven at a CIA base in Afghanistan was retaliation for American drone missile strikes in Pakistan.

While I obviously applaud the President for carrying out those strikes (being the slobbering, war-mongering, gun-loving, kitten-kicking ruffian I am), I can’t help but wonder …

Now that Al Qaeda has been very specific in saying what the US has done to prompt them to take their “revenge,” what will Barack Obama do? How will he react?

Will he take a page from his “I Hate Gitmo” handbook and conclude that air strikes – like the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility itself – are a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda?

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

If a prison for enemy combatants in the Caribbean is enough to bring in new suicidal talent to Al Qaeda Re-Up Centers, certainly full-blown missile attacks would be at least as effective in attracting fresh blood. I would think American war planes dropping bombs anywhere is a good propaganda tool for enemies of the United States, no?

Maybe we should quit the whole “dropping bombs” thing, too.


There must be a way to keep the enemy in check while doing all we can to make them happy.

Man, it’s tough to be President, isn’t it?

wordpress statistics


Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010

Yesterday, the President of the United States once again blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for boosting Al Qaeda recruitment.

It is a devastatingly idiotic contention that makes him – and this nation – look stupid and anemic.

At the risk of coming across as an aimless bomb thrower and smear merchant, I truly have to believe that Barack Obama and his senses are no longer on a first-name basis. Despite rumors to the contrary, his ability to dabble in coherence appears to be nonexistent, almost mythical.

I sincerely mean that.

To listen to him say anything anymore is both exasperating and frustrating. With each syllable that bounces out of his pie hole, he embarrasses himself and weakens my country. With the world watching – and with America’s enemies feeling as if they’ve been left the keys to daddy’s Porsche – Barack Obama continues to master the art of clueless charisma, showcasing his inability (or unwillingness) to grasp the real world, reprimanding his own country for the creation of terrorists elsewhere.

It’s not about the bad values or evil deeds of our enemies, because Lord knows if this country only gave in a little bit more, peace could actually become a reality.

No, it’s Gitmo’s fault – which translates into being George W. Bush’s fault – that the “underwear terrorist” was this close to carrying out his mission.

I assure you, I derive no great pleasure in saying that, as a Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has earned a photograph next to the enty for “mortifying” in the Encyclopedia Do-Nothinga.

It’s as if the realities of terrorism have been annoyances to Obama, drawing attention away from his real work, temporarily derailing his Messianic train, throwing a monkey wrench into his Messianic machine, messing up his great Messianic plan. Such inconveniences, such pests these terrorists are.

As soon as he started talking yesterday, the stomach juices started gurgling in anger. My left eye began to jump.

How on Earth can the President look at his teleprompter with a straight face and effectively bend over like the noodleheaded wartime leader he is, grabbing his ankles for the throat-cutters and suicide bombers of radical Islam, and make the imbecilic claim that Gitmo’s existence is a “recruiting tool?”

How exactly?

This is an explanation I, for one, would love to hear.

Terrorist A: “Hold on, Mohammed. They’re going to be closing that Guantanamo Bay prison.”

Terrorist B: “Praise Allah. Do you think I can get my money back on these pipes, nails and fertilizer?”

Why the hell do liberals think they have the ability to transcend the space-time continuum and make terrorists see the evil of their ways and repent?

Wasn’t the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia a “recruiting tool” as well, according to Osama Bin Ladin?

How did that withdrawal work out for us?

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Osama Bin Ladin issued a statement in which he specifically blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for an increase in the number of recruits into the ranks of Al Qaeda. And let’s say that the Yemeni division of Al Qaeda came out with their own statement saying that because of Gitmo, they’re recruitment numbers are up eighty-seven percent in the last twelve months. And what if Al Jazeera hosted a round table of Al Qaeda terror cell representatives from sixteen nations, and among the resolutions agreed upon is one that says recruitment increases among aspiring terrorists are directly attributable to the existence of Guantanamo Bay? And what if a petition that read, “You are right, President Obama … Gitmo has been our greatest recruiting tool. Love, Al Qaeda” undersigned by twenty million terrorists were presented to the Commander-in-Chief, notarized and framed?

Even if all of those things actually happened – and even if Al Qaeda opened up a recruiting office in the heart of Times Square with posters all over the windows and doors saying, “Thank you, Gitmo!” – so what?

Who cares?

What difference should it make?

Does the United States now take its cues from the enemy?

Apparently so, because the sad reality is, the President of the United States is closing Gitmo because it agitates the terrorists.

And he is not kidding.

Welcome to “hope and change” national security.

what is with the big belt, Mrs. Obama?

One can only guess the Obamacratic response if, for instance, Al Qaeda claimed tomorrow that US battleships on the open seas are provoking them to murderous actions. Or that American aircraft carriers are making their otherwise disaffected males jump up to join the ranks of the terrorist class. What if they said they were angered because we don’t do enough in this country to make Ramadan more prominent? Or that MTV drives them to slaughter infidels? Will an emergency session of President Obama’s Cabinet be called to discuss “toning things down a bit” so we aren’t so provocative?

Does the United States now take into consideration that which may or may not offend those who are at war with her?

Seriously, since when does the President of the United States concern himself with the feelings, sensitivities and concerns of Al Qaeda? Since when does the President of the United States have the audacity to blame his own nation for the actions of those sworn to slaughter innocent Americans? Since when does this country acquiesce to the butchers who would slice the throats of our President’s daughters if given the chance?

Honestly, I don’t get it.

What happens once Gitmo closes? Does Al Qaeda finally calm down a bit? Like they did after American troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia?

And if Al Qaeda announced that NBA basketball caused recruitment to jump, would the President suspend play? If the terrorists said that Rachel Maddow was to blame for the boost in new recruits, would he move to have Rachel taken off the air? And what if Osama Bin Ladin said that Michelle Obama’s big black waist belts were to blame for Al Qaeda recruitment increases, would Bammy lay down the law and tell his wife she couldn’t wear them anymore?


On second thought …

One last question … if the closing of Guantanamo Bay was so critical to national security, as professed by Obamacrats across the board, shouldn’t it have been closed immediately?

As it stands now, it could be two years (or more) before it actually shuts down. That’s a long time to compromise the security of the country.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Afghanistan, Evil, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.

I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?

The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.

Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.

The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.

As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”

An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).

Obama said:

We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.

Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.


This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.

It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.

In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:

If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.

Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.

Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”


Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?


The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.

Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?

We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.

So what? What does that mean exactly?

If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.

And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.

Another thank you to President Obama.

If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.

I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009

ThomsonHow many misfiring synapses does it take to enable one to come to the conclusion that moving incarcerated terrorists from a detention facility in Cuba to the mainland United States is a good idea? Uprooting human debris hell-bent on destroying America from a perfectly functioning maximum security military installation so that they can be locked up in America is the embodiment of absurdity. Where else but from the muddled minds of liberals could such thinking come? Where else but from the left could such a plan be born?

President Obama has said that Gitmo’s mere existence has served as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Thus, in Obama-speak, it stands to reason that once these terrorists are transported to the American mainland, recruitment for the terrorist organization will begin to fall off, right? Those who would have thought nothing about strapping bombs across the chests of their children to kill infidels will rethink their positions if the enemies of America could actually be moved here. Osama bin Ladin’s heart will surely soften once these jihadists are living in the midwest.

Makes sense, no?

Setting aside whatever anti-Bush motivations there are concerning this obsessive need among Obamacrats to close Guantanamo Bay, proponents of the terrorist transplant plan claim that it will also be a huge economic boost.

Target: Illinois.

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times writes:

If [the Thomson Correctional facility] is acquired by the federal government, [it] would be run as a supermax facility housing federal prisoners. A portion of it would be leased to the Defense Department for a “limited number” of Guantanamo detainees — about 100, according to Durbin. About 215 prisoners are now at Guantanamo.

[Senator Dick] Durbin’s office has been quarterbacking the potential sale of the prison through a series of meetings between the White House and [Governor Pat] Quinn, who is looking to generate revenues for the cash-strapped state.

According to an economic impact analysis by the Obama administration, the federal purchase and operation of Thomson could generate $1 billion for the local economy over four years and create between 2,340 and 3,250 jobs.

Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Everybody wins, yes?

Here’s the problem.

Every one of those jobs is a government job. That means every one of those employees’ salaries would come at the taxpayers’ expense. That means all of that money would be sucked out of the economy first before it is redistributed in the form of paychecks.


Durbin and Quinn called the possibility of opening such a facility in their state “a dream come true.”

That’s three thousand new jobs that can be added to the billions and billions of new jobs that have already been created by this administration.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 3, 2009

The sun is setting on Gitmo

The sun is setting on Gitmo

Democrats long ago lost their ability to keep themselves from advocating policies that are proven failures. They, too, misplaced their capacity to distinguish between things that sound real nice from things actually rooted in common sense (the War on Poverty, multiculturalism, raising taxes on the rich, etc.). In the “PM” days of William Jefferson Clinton (Pre-Messiah), Dems used to be very good – in fact, remarkable – at being able to twist, convolute and rework facts to cloak their misguided allusions while keeping things sounding so reasonable. They could look you in the eye, wave their fingers at you, convince you they were brewing cappuccino from mud water and charm your socks off while chipping away at your liberties.

They were clever that way.

These days, Dems run a more “in-your-face,” let’s-have-a-go-at-Marxism kind of ship. 

Sure, President Barack Obama is as good as anyone – if not better – at shoving a whole lot of platitudinal cadence together to create some of the sweetest sounding emptiness this side of Mario Cuomo. It can hardly be denied. From redefining “earmarks,” to declaring that a recession is no time for corporations to make profits, to his “strategic” silence in the wake of the violent upheaval in Iran, no one can peddle the farm food – and be praised for it – like our current Commander In Chief. In fact, early on in his seventh-months-feels-like seven years term, he was running circles around Bubba in terms of yanking the wool over the eyes of salivating disciples.

However, in recent times, it seems that Democrats are also losing the ability to hear when their own “stupidity” alarms go off. Whereas at one time, they could catch themselves, regroup, and redefine the parameters of the game in short order, today’s Dem – including the Messiah himself – is slipping. Oh sure, they still promote stupid, unproductive, emotion-based policies, but they don’t seem to be able to play their smoke-and-mirrors game as well as they used to. Maybe they’re getting lazy. Maybe they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

I opt for the ladder.

For instance, why on earth would it be necessary to open up a prison for terrorists within the contiguous 48 states when a perfectly functioning, tremendously successful, fully-equipped, enormously secure, efficiently run facility already exists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Why would anyone bring suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and enemy fighters who are already under lock and key onto the mainland United States so they can be locked up closer to the American people?

Who thinks up this stuff?

The words “ill-conceived” seem somewhat understated, but House Republican leader John Boehner is otherwise spot on: “The administration is going to face a severe public backlash unless it shelves this plan and goes back to the drawing board.”

At the very least, yes.

The President has had a wild bug in his nest since Day One in wanting to see the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay closed. His rationale has yet to move the needle on the “Makes Sense” meter, but it doesn’t matter. To Obama and all the happy little Obamacrats, anything connected in any way to his predecessor George W. Bush, no matter what it is, no matter how effective or successful it has been, must be eradicated. It is irrelevant that Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has absolutely nothing to do with the prison at Abu Grahib, Iraq, but it just sounds so good – and feels so right – to Leftocrats that Gitmo is being crushed by President Transformation.

True, speaking out against such atrocities as the Iranian government slaughtering its own people may be too much for any Annointd One to have to handle, but shutting down a well-run, secure detention facility that houses people who wish to wipe America off the face of the earth with such decisiveness is the mark of real leadership.

Besides, the world will love us for it.

So, in the deep recesses of the liberal mind, it stands to reason that the best thing to do – the right thing to do – after Gitmo closes up shop is take those well-guarded murderous vermin from their secure confines outside of the United States and bring them into to the United States.

From Fox News:

Several senior U.S. officials said the administration is eyeing a soon-to-be-shuttered state maximum security prison in Michigan and the military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as possible locations for a heavily guarded site to hold the 229 suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and foreign fighters now jailed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.

The officials outlined the plans — the latest effort to comply with President Barack Obama’s order to close the prison camp by Jan. 22, 2010, and satisfy congressional and public fears about incarcerating terror suspects on American soil — on condition of anonymity because the options are under review.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Friday that no decisions have been made about the proposal. But the White House considers the courtroom-prison complex as the best among a series of bad options, an administration official said.

This is why Democrats cannot be trusted with national security or other serious matters.

Indeed, as alluded to in the Fox News article, it makes perfect sense that there are only bad options to choose from; That’s because Obama’s plan to close Gitmo is a monumentally bad idea.

Why do it?

What is the strategic advantage in it?

It simply is not necessary. Doing so will provide absolutely no benefit to the nation and will not make her more secure.

america is safeEven if someone spiked the White House stash of Lucky Charms with LSD, how could anyone possibly think such an assinine suggestion as bringing terrorists into America when it doesn’t have to happen sounds like a reasonable alternative to keeping the facility at Guantanamo Bay open? That Obama is willingly and voluntarily closing Gitmo, and is considering bringing the terrorists detained there onto American soil, is just the latest prize from his Big-Bag-O-Incompetence.

Since January 20th, it is astounding how regularly the citizens of the United States are peppered with embarrassingly bad, horribly reasoned policies based in sheer demagoguary.

That’s why today’s liberal is dangerous.

Why go through what will be a costly, time-consuming, totally unnecessarily symbolic move when there is simply no good reason to do so?

Does closing the facility make America safer?

Is it good for the country?

Those are the only questions that matter.

Because Leftocrats act almost entirely on emotion and resist the urge of the thinking class to ascertain “what happens next,” and because transporting terrorist thugs onto the very soil they wish to destroy stands as the “best option” to Obama and Company, America is quite literally made that much more unsafe for the sake of appeasing the whims of President Obama and the children in charge.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 29, 2009

barracks four at gitmo - this arrow points to mecca

barracks four at gitmo - this arrow points to mecca

This is one of those instances when the needle spikes heavily into the red on the “Obvious” meter.

If such a thing as a relevant “non-story” exists – one that might be extracted from the “Did You Know The Sky Is Blue” file – it is the reality that some of the prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have actually gone back into the terrorism business. It’s as shocking as finding out that a Hollywood actor is going “green.”

The revelation that some ex-Gitmo prisoners have returned to the vocations from whence they came – blowing up innocents, preparing for a profusion of virgins in the afterlife – should amaze no one. It would be akin to contending that some prisoners who are released from jails in this country actually go back and commit more crimes.

Did you also know that water is wet?

Still, the significance of this cannot be overstated.

From Fox News:

The Pentagon said Tuesday it has fingerprints, DNA, photos or reliable intelligence to link 27 detainees to the battlefields since their release from the prison on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

That’s about 5 percent of the 540 terror suspects released from the prison. Another 9 percent of freed Guantanamo detainees are suspected to have rejoined the terror activity. That’s 74 detainees in all.

“What this tells us is, at the end of the day, there are individuals, that if released, will again return to terrorist activities,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday.

Some constitutional lawyers have disputed the data because it is not specific about the evidence used to track the detainees.

The Pentagon said all the detainees captured, and in most cases held, for years at Guantanamo were tied to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or other foreign fighter groups.

It was interesting to read some of the comments from Obamaniacs at the website regarding this story.

Among the more fatuous lines of thinking I came across is one that (naturally) takes aim at former President George W. Bush.  The idea is that the people released from Gitmo were set free while Bush was still President, thus the blame for any terrorist activity or acts of war that eminate from any of the big 540 can be placed directly at the feet of former President.

Yet another inherited problem for President Messiah to have to contend with.

(Couldn’t we just let him finish his waffle?)

This logic, presumably, is aimed to refute those who express disdain and outrage over President Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo (like me). According to the dancing Obamacrats, those of us quick to attack the current President for his decision to close the facility ought to sling their poison arrows at former President Bush for allowing terrorists to run free under his watch. After all, most of the Gitmo-folk would never have even considered engaging in such a deplorable way of life had the Muslim-hating Bush not driven them to it. (Remember, just a few days ago, President Obama said Gitmo’s mere existence has caused Al Qaeda recruitment to increase).

Is there anything that requires less thought than the “Blame America First” approach?

Indeed, there is a cartoonish myth that exists among Leftocrats and screeching anti-war types that many of those held in Gitmo shouldn’t even be there – that they were innocently living their lives, minding their own businesses, exchanging eggplant recipes, bothering no one, when they were suddenly and ferociously abducted by American gun-toting, bible-thumping, Qur’an desecrating, anti-Muslim military men with bad attitudes and a whole lot of artillery.

If anything is further from the truth, I’d love to see the brochure.

typical gitmo cell - how inhumane

typical gitmo cell - how inhumane

That I even have to pose these questions is exasperating enough, but as I regularly ask my liberal friends (without ever getting a sufficient response), is it not clear by now that the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are a different breed than the ordinary, off-the-rack, garden variety bad guys that occupy our nation’s jails? Isn’t it obvious that these dregs of society exist in a league all their own? Isn’t it clear what separates these lowlifes from others?

Unlike the armed robbers, rapists, murderers, and other detestable examples of human debris that populate our prisons, the Gitmo “detainees”  are a direct threat to national security.

That’s the key.

The prisoners of Guntanamo Bay are a threat to national security.

These are people picked up on the fields of battle, waging war against the United States – those who do not wear the uniform or insignia of a specific nation. These are not “wrong place at the wrong time” halo-wearers snatched from libraries while studying for their medical degrees. These are not innocents rounded up at soccer games or kidnapped from neighborhood florists.

These are terrorists.

It really isn’t hard to understand – for those who allow their synapses to fire correctly.

Because of this unique status, the Gitmo crowd cannot be treated as typical criminals. They cannot be afforded Constitutional rights. Matters of national security cannot be put on display for public consumption in a court room.

This is war.

Even if the argument had a scintilla of credence – that Bush is to blame for releasing these terrorists, therefore conservatives who oppose Obama’s proposed closing of Gitmo are being, at the very least, hypocritical – what exactly has President Obama done or proposed that would change that situation for the better? President Obama stands firm in wanting to see Gitmo closed, although there is isn’t a single reason that can justify it (other than attempting to get people around the world to “like us” again), nor is there any plan in existence that betters it.

Guantanamo Bay exists because it works.

This “non-story” highlights two important points – one, that Guantanamo Bay must be kept open to house those enemy combatants deemed genuine terror threats against America, and two, that the process of releasing anyone from its confines had better be an undertaking so difficult and complex that blindfolded neurosurgery would seem easy by comparison.

(The photos were taken by US Army Sgt. Sara Wood in 2006. The entire set can be seen here).

Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009


Are you aware that recruitment into Al Qaeda was bolstered because of the existence of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay? Did you know it became a symbol for that recruitment? Did you ever stop to consider that because the United States kept known or suspected terrorists under lock and key at Gitmo that otherwise complacent, law-abiding folks were compelled to join the ranks of Al Qaeda? Doesn’t it make sense that as a direct result of the actions of the United States of America, and the very existence of Guantanamo Bay, terrorism remains alive and well?

How do I know this?

The President of The United States has said so.

He has effectively placed the blame at the feet of his own country for the recruitment of otherwise halo-sporting, olive-branch carrying people into the Al Qaeda network. If not for maintaining a facility that affords a collection of human debris far more respect and conciliation than they deserve – a place where American soldiers, in order to accommodate their prisoners, are not even allowed to touch the Qur’an with their bare hands – the world would see Al Qaeda’s numbers shrinking and world opinion of America shooting up exponentially.

Bam said on Thursday:

Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol to help Al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”

Pray tell, how ever did Al Qaeda recruit folks into its ranks before Gitmo came along?

Stripping away the mesmerizing dulcet tones that wrap themselves around the text of his speech like a ravenous rattler on a field mouse, attempting to find any real meaning in what Obama says can become a full-time vocation.

According to Obama, Gitmo’s mere existence created terrorists.

Interesting logic.

In a nutshell, according to my Obama/English dictionary – no Gitmo would have to mean fewer terrorists.

Does that mean, for instance, the existence of maximum security prisons serve to recruit people to become criminals? Would violent felons rethink things if jails were closed? If certain penitentiaries were shut down as a sign of good will toward malcontents and miscreants everywhere, would crime suddenly plummet?

Thus, can one draw the conclusion that fewer prisons mean fewer criminals?

Do liberals ever listen to the things they say?

And how many people have been held at Gitmo in its entire existence? Hundreds? Is the President aware that there are tens of thousands of people involved in terrorist groups the world over that are not Al Qaeda?

To hear it from the president, the war isn’t about fighting the evil that is Islamo-facism. That kind of big-tent thinking can get you in real trouble. It’s all about Al Qaeda, stupid.

And that’s it.

(Love that renowned liberal nuance).

Lord help us.

Posted in Liberalism, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009

Our Commander-In-Chief

Our Commander-In-Chief

Let’s say, for instance, a man – I’ll call him “Bip” – is suffering from a severe headache at work. Bip tries various things to try and ease the pain, but nothing has proven successful. Finally, after trying a host of new age medications and techniques to no avail, Bip decides to try some good old fashioned headache powder. He is no fan of headache powder – never has been – but killing the pain is his priority.

Twenty minutes after taking it, the pain has subsided and he is able to function “normally” again.

Now, let’s say another person  – I’ll call him “Pain” – comes along who is adamantly anti-headache powder, for whatever reason. Pain has a passionate dislike for the stuff. You might sat he is ideologically wired to hate it. In fact, for the sake of this argument, let’s pretend that Pain is so opposed to the use of headache powder that he has actually led crusades to do away with it in the workplace.

Pain finds out through the grapevine that Bip had the audacity to use the dreaded powder to beat back his horrible headache. Pain learns that others have done the same. He obviously isn’t happy. In fact, he is livid. Headache powder should never be used at work, he says with a raised fist.

Pain runs directly to the boss to protest:

The decisions that were made over the last several years to allow headache powder in the work place, when there are so many other methods to combat headaches, has established an ad hoc approach for fighting headaches that is neither effective nor sustainable.”

The boss nods.

Pain is smooth, articulate and always sounds like he knows what he is talking about. (You’d have to be to lead workplace crusades against headache powder, wouldn’t you?)

Despite the fact that the headache powder did take care of Bip’s headache, the assertion has been made by Pain that headache powder is ineffective. Despite the preponderance of evidence that shows how successful headache powder has been at combating painful craniums, Pain continues to stand firm. The fact that Bip is now walking around, functioning in the workplace, free of hurt thanks to the headache powder seems to be irrelevant to Pain. The use of headache powder, according to Pain, is “neither effective nor sustainable.”

Pain is not backing down even though the realities that contradict his claims keep smacking him in the puss.

Absurdity at its best, yes.

With this analogy in mind, let’s now move from the pretend world of a contrived headache powder controversy to the real world of adults and liberals. Let’s substitute Pain – the anti-headache powder crusader – with the President of the United States. I’ll call him Barack Obama. And instead of headache powder, let’s use former President Bush’s methods of prosecuting the War on Terror as the target of Obama’s criticism.

Said President Obama on Thursday morning:

“The decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable.”

Understanding that cold hard reality can be a tough thing to wrap one’s mind around – especially when that reality rains down on the childlike worldviews and fairy-tale parades that drive liberal thought – this goes far beyond making the case for “two-plus-two equals six.”

This is sheer denial.

This reflex on the part of Obama and his dancing Obamacrats to continually trash the previous administration at every turn is beyond tedious. To do so while asserting complete falsehoods is equally embarrassing. President Obama is not entitled to his own set of facts.

Mr. Obama, how many terrorist attacks on America have there been over the past eight years?

This matters.

That this point even has to be made is both tragic and laughable, but at the risk of stating the glaringly obvious, the lack of a terrorist attack in nearly eight years is a good thing Yet, this reality is something regularly dismissed by Leftocrats across the board as too simplistic to mean anything, grossly irrelevant in the grand scheme, and hardly the result of anything undertaken by President Bush. Obamacrats view the absence of a terrorist attack as being attributable to anything and everything but the initiatives undertaken by President Bush. 

It’s osmosis, or luck, or a Muslim awakening, or climate change, or something.

The fact of the matter is, the absence of a terrorist attack on this country since 9/11 is the primary indcator in measuring the effectiveness of the policies employed by President Bush in defending the American people.

bam and bushWith the same verve that President Obama has thus far used to redefine terms like “earmarks” and “tax cuts,” he is reconstructing – without challenge – the word “effective.” Thus, according to the fluidly opaque President of the United States, his predecessor was ineffective in the way he prosecuted the War on Terror – despite the conspicuous void of a single terrorist attack against the United States.

If one does not measure the level of effectiveness in the way the United States has defended herself since 9/11 by the lack of attacks against her, then how?

By how many people overseas say they love us?

How many attacks have been thwarted thanks to Bush administration initiatives like The Patriot Act? The answer is several – including a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.

How much information was obtained through the very selective use of waterboarding of three – yes, only three – individuals? The answer is plenty – including information that led to the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks.

If eight years of George Bush were “ineffective” in fighting Islamo-facist terrorism, what can be said for the previous eight years under President Bill Clinton, where American interests were attacked time and time again, including the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the first World Trade Center attack?

President Bush’s ability to draw unrelenting blame and ridicule for keeping the country free from further attack during the last seven-and-a-half years of his Presidency should be astounding to those of us who think, but it isn’t. His actions, which kept the country safe in the aftermath of 9/11, should be the object of universal high praise and gratitude, but they aren’t. While London and Madrid suffered devastating terrorist attacks, attempted strikes against America – including a comprehensive plot that included an attack against JFK Airport in New York – were snuffed out.

As talk show host Dennis Prager regularly says, “First tell the truth, then state your opinion.”  To deny the effectiveness of Bush administration policies in the ongoing War on Terror is to deny reality.

Of course, this is the modern liberal motif – to wish something was so, pass it off as reality, and then hope for the best.

In that context, I suppose an argument can be made that if one says it long enough, two and two may eventually equal six.

Posted in Liberalism, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 25, 2009

but it's a park

but it's a park

The entire problem could be taken care of if Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania simply switched districts with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi – that way, Murtha’s offer to bring the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay to his district could mean the re-opening of Alcatraz (currently located in Pelosi’s district). Pelosi, however, is not exactly warm to the idea of bringing terrorists to her district, no matter who represents it – not necessarily because they are cold-blooded murdering pond scum, or because they might have to be wrongly afforded the rights of Americans – but because it is a tourist attraction … and a park, sort of.

That this “odd suggestion” is even a matter of discussion at all can be credited – at least in part – to House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, who appeared on Meet The Press Sunday. Boehner was echoing earlier suggestions that “The Rock” be used an alternative prison for the Gitmo detainees now that President Obama has signed an Executive Order closing the facility in Cuba.

From Fox News:

Republican Rep. Bill Young … suggested to White House counsel Greg Craig that the prisoners who could not be released back to their home countries or sent to a third country be put up in “the Rock,” the famous military installation and prison that closed down in 1963 and is now part of the National Park Service.

Asked whether that was a serious proposal, (Nancy) Pelosi said, “It is — no.”

“Perhaps he’s not visited Alcatraz,” Pelosi said of Young while displaying little sense of humor. “Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It’s a prison that is now sort of like a — it’s a national park.”

That explanation didn’t stop House Minority Leader John Boehner from repeating the suggestion on Sunday, making that point that closing down Guantanamo by year’s end may not be the best plan considering the recidivism rate of terrorist detainees is about 12 percent.

“If liberals believe they ought to go, maybe we ought to open Alcatraz,” Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC “Meet the Press.” Being reminded that Alcatraz is a national park, Boehner responded, “It’s very secure.”

Recall that John Murtha, who sang the praises of the decision to close Gitmo, extended an invitation to have the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay jailed in his district in Pennsylvania. Bob Layo, President of the Greater Johnstown/Cambria County Chamber of Commerce, agreed that Murtha’s suggestion was a stone cold groove, saying:

“I don’t see any downside. There has to be an added level of security for those types of prisoners, so they would probably build new facilities and add staff.”

Yeah, okay.

Here’s a fair follow-up question …

What the hell are you talking about?

Can someone – anyone -answer this simple question: If there already exists a more-than-sufficient, extremely-secure facility in which to house these extremely dangerous individuals – namely Guantanamo Bay – why on earth would anyone in their right mind think that the best thing to do is move them out?

Listen up, Dems … I’ll keep it as monosyllabic as I can … This is not Abu-Grahib.

Honestly, I do not know if the suggestion to re-open Alcatraz is a realistic one, or if it is just an attempt by Republicans to goad the majority party a bit (which is a good thing), or even a way of attempting to illustrate the absolute absurdity – and blatant irresponsibility – of closing Guantanamo Bay.

But whatever it is, I’m okay with it.

In other news, Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2009

Obama and GuantanamoThis is utterly burlesque.

No propaganda. No partisan smoke screens. Just cold hard reality.

The President of the United States is not sure what will be happening with the detainees who currently reside at the detention center in Guanatanamo Bay once it closes next year.

He said so.

He just doesn’t know.

There is no plan.

He’ll figure it out.

Pinch me, Mabel, I’m dreaming, right?

He knows enough to be able to say with certitude that the closing of Gitmo is the right thing to do – just as he knew that “a woman’s right to choose” an abortion was the correct position to take, despite not being able to say when human life actually begins – but other than that, he’s just not able to speculate with any confidence where these examples of societal excrement will wind up.

How is it possible that the Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America in good conscience, in the midst of a war against barbaric murderers who will stop at nothing to destroy us, can shut down the prison that houses the very scum that would think nothing of slicing the throats of his own children if given the opportunity without a definitive plan in place? And in the name of what??

(If it helps, Mr. President, pretend the prisoners at Gitmo are Rush Limbaugh).

Not surprisingly, this does not appear to disturb the dazed and confused giddy Obamacrats who are still smoking their post orgasmic inauguration cigarettes one bit. As long as President Obama implements policies that  run contrary to anything undertaken under George W. Bush, the planet is better off.

These are the same people, of course, who screamed, “What’s the exit strategy?!” at the Bush administration following the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Indeed, if there’s another attack against the United States, perpetrated by anyone released from Gitmo as a result of “preserving American ideals and decency,” there’ll be a whole new round of screaming going on.

As it turns out, some of the former graduates of “Club Gitmo” (as Rush Limbaugh calls it) have, in fact, moved on to bigger things.

Two ex-prisoners in particular are especially making their moms proud.

From the AFP:

Two men released from the US “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.

A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.

“We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure,” said Gordon.

“We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose,” he said.

On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

“By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for,” al-Shihri was quoted as saying.

The Pentagon estimates that a little more than ten percent of the 521 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to “the fight.”

To those who find this number too small to be of real concern, consider that even if ten percent of the world’s one billion Muslims sympathize with the “fight” waged by these Islamo-fascist murderers – and even if only ten percent of those sympathizers consider themselves active and enthusiastic supporters of “the cause” – that is, by any measure, substantial.

Said the President on Thursday:

“The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”

Wrong, Mr. President.

The message this sends, not unlike the message sent by those opposed to capital punishment, is that the lives of the innocent have equal worth to the lives of murderers … and they most certainly do not. The naivety in the President’s position is the assumption that the enemy holds the same value set we do. Remember, aggressive interrogation methods are not standard-fare in this country. No one advocates that they should be. By contrast, torture is as normal a cultural devise to our enemies as outdoor barbecues on Memorial Day are to Americans.

American values and ideals are altogether consistent with the protection innocent life, rewarding those who do good, and fighting those who would inflict evil on the innocent. This is precisely the charge of the United States.

Obama further said:

“We intend to win this fight. We’re going to win it on our terms.”

How about defining them first, sir?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2009

There will probably be some who don’t pick up on the reference to the classic Mel Brook’s movie Blazing Saddles, but today’s signing of the Executive Order by President Barack Obama calling for the close of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay was not unlike watching a scene from what is one of the funniest motion pictures ever made.

The President reminded me of Governor William J. Lepetomane (Mel Brooks), the man in charge who is far more focused on the buoyant breasts of the lady in his office than the matters at hand. By his side is Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman), the informed, conniving side-kick with all the answers, diligently (frantically) keeping Lepetomane in the loop. That role was played today by Gregory Craig, the man who defended President Bill Clinton during his impeachment proceedings, now White House counsel.

Indeed, the President seemed a bit lost, not exactly sure of what it was he was signing – although, oddly enough, he is the President of the United States. (It was in all the papers).

Here is a link to the complete video of the President of the United States effectively compromising the country’s security in the name of whatever foolhardy politically-motivated excuse he is using to justify it, via MSNBC.

For those who wish not to sit through the entire seven minutes of the Obamacratic ongoings, the key moment, where the President asks Mr. Craig about the content of his own Executive Order, is at about :45 seconds into the video.

Incidentally, here is the clip from Blazing saddles, via You Tube, I am referring to.

You be the judge.

By the way, watch Blazing Saddles, if you haven’t.

Posted in Big Government, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2009



He’s already frozen the pay of the White House staff.

For those keeping score at home, Barack Obama’s second full day as President looks to be at least as eventful.

This is, indeed, the portion of the program where the new President not only starts to rearrange the furniture and hang up vacation plates in his new Pennsylvania Avenue diggs, but where he begins putting his own stamp on the Presidency.

Today, if he sticks to the docket, he’ll be slipping on his “Executive Order” shoes early, breaking out his ball point pen and signing the death warrant of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, granting it one more year of feeble existence before it closes forever.

According to Fox News:

Under a scenario foreshadowed in the draft orders, some detainees being held at Guantanamo would be released, while others would be transferred elsewhere and later put on trial under terms to be determined. Closing Guantanamo could potentially mean moving the remaining detainees to federal prisons in the U.S., such as the Leavenworth prison in Kansas.

That’s no misprint.

The scenario prescribes that “some detainees at Guantanamo would be released.”

How’s that for a warm and fuzzy thought?

The President’s decision to slice the throat of the Guantanamo Bay facility (ugly pun most definitely intended) means that the options for the remaining vermin being held there include bringing them to the United States for trial (thus granting them the rights of citizens), releasing them to “other nations” to incarcerate, or sending them back where they came from so that they might return to the peaceful lives they were leading before being dragged to Gitmo.

Offering them discounted out-of-state college tuition hasn’t been officially proposed yet, but that, too, may be forthcoming.

It is no wonder the families of 9/11 victims are outraged.

“To me it’s beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists,” said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. “Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again.”

Back on January 14th, in an article called “Life After Gitmo,” I wrote:

” … a new revelation from the Pentagon has come to light – namely, that as many as 61 former detainees have returned to terrorist activity after being released.

(jaw hits floor)

I don’t know about you, but I would have guessed the existence of Santa Claus – or clear thinking liberals – to be more of a likely prospect.

Who’d have guessed that upon discharge, the human dregs that made up the population of Gitmo would have returned to the cesspool from whence they came.”

Former Commander Kirk Lippold, who saw seventeen of his sailors murdered when the USS Cole was bombed by suicide terrorists in 2000 said:

“There is no need to suspend [the military tribunals]. There is no reason why [Obama] can’t conduct a concurrent review at the same time that the military commission process is moving forward to render justice for the terrorists that have murdered thousands of people. It demeans their deaths because we seem to be more concerned with the rights of detainees than we are with the justice that is being denied to my sailors that were killed.”


As a side note, Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania says he’d have no problem letting Guantanamo Bay detainees occupy jails in his district if it should come to that.

Of course, if all this Gitmo talk has you bored to tears, don’t fret.

President Obama also intends to reverse what is known as the “Mexico City Policy” – a ban on funding for groups overseas that provide abortions.

From Fox News:

President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-governmental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States.

Obama will sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The policy, known in governmental circles as the “Mexico City policy,” requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”

Yes he can.

And just think … The Freedom of Choice Act is still to come.

Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2009

camp_delta_guantanamo_bay_cuba1From the “No Way” file …

With talk radio, op-ed columns and spinning-head television all abuzz in recent days with conjecture of what the future holds for the military prison installation at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a new revelation from the Pentagon has come to light – namely, that as many as 61 former detainees have returned to terrorist activity after being released.

(jaw hits floor)

I don’t know about you, but I would have guessed the existence of Santa Claus – or clear thinking liberals – to be more of a likely prospect.

Who’d have guessed that upon discharge, the human dregs that made up the population of Gitmo would have returned to the cesspool from whence they came.

There’s just no telling what people will do.

From Reuters:

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as “returning to the fight” and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.

“This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world,” he told reporters.

Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.

As egregiously academic as it to have to make this point (but I do so knowing that I am dealing with the morally bankrupt), to allow just one of these killers – who, incidentally are not afforded the same rights as American citizens, nor should they be – to blend back into the murderous community of lowlifes that look to do as much harm to this country as possible is one person too many.

If, indeed, the closing of Gitmo is on The One’s agenda – and it almost certainly seems like it is – who can argue, with any degree of reasonability, that doing so is anything more than an act of vacuous symbolism? That to “undo” anything that is directly tied to the Bush administration carries far more weight with Big Bam than the actual practicality of keeping these dangerous killers under wraps?

Mr. Obama, what happens to these terrorists once Gitmo goes away?

Where do they go?

Are they sent to “better” facilities? Are they shipped to prisons with better human rights records?

Portugal, perhaps?

Rights advocates said the lack of details should call the Pentagon’s assertions into question.

“Until enough information is provided to allow the press and the public to verify these claims, they need to be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism,” said Jennifer Daskal, a Washington-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch.

Rights advocates contend that many Guantanamo detainees have never taken up arms against the United States and say the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining “the fight” because they spoke out against the U.S. government.

“The Defense Department sees that the Guantanamo detention operation has failed and they are trying to launch another fear mongering campaign to justify the indefinite detention of detainees there,” said Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the American Civil Liberties Union.

obama-and-gitmoAn important Rule of Thumb for Americans to follow is that anytime Human Rights Watch or the American Civil Liberties Union is involved, it is prudent to find out what positions they take and then support the opposite.

I find the use of the term “rights advocates” as laughable as having Cuba on the Human Right Council of the United Nations (which they are).  These organizations foster victimhood of the undeserving while ignoring those who truly are victims.

As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “Those who are kind to the cruel will often be cruel to the kind.”

Over at the Vocal Minority blog – one of my favorites – they comment on these so-called “rights advocates”:

You’re not rights advocates, OK. You’re aiders and abettors of terrorists. Of murderers. Of thugs. What about the rights of the innocents these animals have slaughtered all over the world? When have you advocated for their rights, huh?

You’re on the wrong side of morality and history, a’ight? And you’re an enemy of this country.

Verify these claims? Easy! Just read the paper! Gateway Pundit has done the courtesy of compiling a list of reports for you:

Gitmo Detainees Re-Arrested in Russia

Former Gitmo Prisoner Arrested for Terrorism in Moscow

Three Former Gitmo Detainees Held in Morocco

Former Gitmo Inmate Involved in Russian Terror Attack on Nalchik

Camel-Riding Former Gitmo Detainee Blows Himself Up

Former Gitmo Detainee Re-Arrested in Pakistan

Seven Percent of Gitmo Detainees Return to Battlefield.

Former Club Gitmo Detainee Carries Out Suicide Mission in Iraq

Say it with me: Leftists cannot be trusted with matters of national security.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 17, 2005

he's right

he's right

To the uninitiated, there is a misconception of the degree of difficulty involved in being a conservative talk show host, despite a fertile climate of Democratic inanity from which to draw inspiration (Howard Dean and Harry Reid immediately come to mind). Having been in radio, I appreciate fully how much hard work and dedication must be invested. As a chef friend of mine says, “Just because you have a bowl of big beautiful tomatoes, doesn’t mean you can make a great red sauce.” How right he is.

Beginning with allegations in Newsweek that Korans were being desecrated in G’itmo, the latest assault on President Bush (and America) from the left in the form of alleged mistreatment of enemy prisoners by the American military has come to a head. This week, in the wake of all this, legendary talker Rush Limbaugh has been particularly effective, arguably as good as he’s ever been. Like him or not, he is the most enigmatic and compelling raconteur on radio, and if you take him at his word, accepting his contention that he is correct better than 98% of the time, then this week, his batting average has surely been bumped up enough to flirt with perfection.

Limbaugh understands that the situation at Guantanamo Bay is not a political issue – nor should it be. It’s an American issue. He has been spot on.

Unfortunately, all hell has broken loose from the left. Apparently, it has now become accepted practice to not only openly criticize, accuse and condemn the United States military in a time of war, but to equate it with the most murderous regimes the world has ever known. Focus and concern from the blue wing rests not with the defeat and elimination of those who murdered three thousand innocents almost four years ago on American soil, but — astonishingly — with the treatment and so-called abuses of those enemy combatants whose purpose is to see the destruction of America. Such practices by the US military were detailed in Time’s story on the twentieth hijacker, Mohammed al Qahtani. Among the unspeakable: The horrific Christina Aguilera music torture technique, the terrifying standing-for-prolonged-periods torment, and the petrifying shaving-of-the-facial hair ordeal. (I don’t even want to get into the anguish of lowering the air conditioner in the middle of the tropics.)

Almost commonplace now are the tedious comparisons of Bush’s America to Hitler’s Germany, and more recently to Stalin’s gulags. The sheer stupidity of such comparisons should be obvious to even the modestly informed. Yet, right on cue, a new old voice has emerged, the latest unapologetic spokesperson for the ever-growing anti-American wing of the Democratic party – Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. Predictably leafing through his Vietnam-era playbook, reflexively affording the enemy the benefit of the doubt, choosing to condemn the United States with the most outlandish, ill-informed, hateful ramblings imaginable, he has reached new lows. He’s made the anti-American campus-burning dope smoking rejects of the sixties seem like amateurs.

Of course, the issue at hand is not freedom of speech. It is about lending aid and comfort to those who are at war with us and wish us infinite harm.

what the hell are you talking about?

what the hell are you talking about?

Rush Limbaugh, to his great credit, hasn’t put up with this. On Wednesday’s show, he unremittingly condemned Durbin for his comments wherein the Senator enumerated so-called torture techniques employed by the Americans – including the playing of rap music, the fluctuating of enemy prisoner’s room temperatures, and (unbelievably) keeping prisoners in chains. In an historical context, one shudders to think of the unimaginable brutality that would have been inflicted on captured Nazis should they have been subjected to lethal doses of Bing Crosby during World War Two, or even the Andrews Sisters. (Perhaps the backs of the Japanese could have been broken without having to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps we just needed to tinker with the thermostat a bit.)

Durbin then concluded: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the American military – a veritable fab four of despotism.

Well done, Mr. Durbin.

If this doesn’t qualify as aid and comfort to the enemy, what exactly does?

Meanwhile, Limbaugh was unforgiving. He angrily ripped into Durbin, saying, “We don’t deserve to win this war as long as we have people like Dick Durbin in the US Senate.”

He’s absolutely right.

“If we’re going to be led by such idiocy and such ignorance as this, we deserve to lose it, folks. There’s a price to pay for having this kind of thinking at the highest levels of government.”

He’s absolutely right.

“This is what you get when you have a political party that’s so obsessed with hatred for the sitting president that they’ll do anything they can to beat him … they’ll do anything to get their power back.”

He’s absolutely right.

Limbaugh’s website also offers Club G’itmo merchandise, including a t-shirt that reads, “Your tropical retreat from the stress of jihad” and “My Mullah went to Club G’itmo and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”

Here, too, Limbaugh is absolutely right. The absurdity of all of this cannot be overstated.

Predictably, rather than be outraged at the accusations of torture being leveled at our military, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chose to make Limbaugh’s “Club G’itmo” campaign the issue at Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Meeting by saying, “This idea of changing the focus … seeming to argue (G’itmo) is more a Club Med than a prison. Let’s get real. These people have been locked up for three years, no end in sight, and no process to lead us out of there.”

Lest we forget, “these people,” as Senator Leahy refers to them, are our enemies – not rounded up from innocent summertime picnics, universities and private homes, but captured on the field of battle in the process of attempting to kill Americans. Indeed, most human beings have a better-than-reasonable idea of what constitutes genuine torture. Understanding the ravages the Nazis inflicted on human bodies is to understand torture. Knowing what really went on in the Soviet gulags under Stalin is to understand torture. Pol Pot, for the most part, didn’t even afford his victims torture. He simply eliminated them, about two million souls.

If the United States military can obtain critical intelligence from enemy combatants (which they have) by implementing techniques that most reasonably informed people would see as benign – such as blaring rap music or having someone withstand discomfort by standing for hours on end or even denying air conditioning (as opposed to something like, say, applying electrodes to human genitals) then what exactly is the problem? Doesn’t America benefit by not having to inflict on enemy combatants what most people would define as genuine torture? If, indeed, the enemy can be “broken” by such relatively innocuous methods as loud music, being chained up in fetal positions, having scantily-clad woman encroach on their personal space, and being forced to shiver in overly air conditioned rooms, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that every proponent of human rights, from whatever corner of the globe they come from, would be, at the very least, supporting our efforts? In other words, if the enemy feels tortured and compelled to relinquish vital information, even though it is clear by most reasonable standards that torture is not taking place, aren’t we actuality demonstrating for the world the civility of America and our dedication to human rights?

Let’s not forget, this is war, not a college campus. War is ugly. That’s why we try to avoid it at all costs.

When the rhetoric of America’s enemies becomes indistinguishable from that of a United States Senator, it is time for something to be done. The arena of public opinion must now exercise its power.

On Thursday’s program, Limbaugh made it clear that he had no desire to hear Senator Durbin apologize for his remarks, even after other pundits were outraged when the Senator steadfastly refused to retract his statements. Instead, Limbaugh called for Senator Durbin to resign in disgrace.

Again, Limbaugh is right.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »