There are good guys and bad guys in this story, and as much as it pains some to hear it, we are the good guys. We are not talking about confused teenagers caught up in events larger than themselves. We aren't talking about mistaken identities. We're talking about the cream of our enemy's crop in the war on terror...
Any new Gitmo would quickly gain the same reputation as the old one because a) al-Qaida is under strict orders to allege all manner of abuses for propaganda purposes, especially now that such tactics have proved so useful, and b) because the "international community" and other lovers of runny cheese desperately want such allegations to be true, regardless of the evidence. That the head of Amnesty International could call Gitmo, where we spend more money on the care and feeding of detainees than we do on our own troops, the "Gulag of our time" is all the evidence we need for that. Caving into such bullying would send the unmistakable message that American can be rolled.
Next is Rich Lowry:
The administration should defend the facility there unabashedly. It should force Democrats to argue that the 9/11 hijackers shouldn’t have women stand too close to them and that rice pilaf isn’t good enough fare. It should make Democrats explain how to fight a war on terror without detaining enemy fighters, and work to stem the panic, rather than surrendering to it.
Of all the reasons given as to why we should shut down Gitmo, the most stupid reason- and its difficult to narrow it down to one- is that it is generating such bad press that it makes the Arab world hate us and creates more terrorists. This is almost too stupid for words.
Message to the left: They already hate us. Let's try that again. They already hate us. One more time. THEY ALREADY HATE US! 9/11 ALREADY HAPPENED! THESE PEOPLE CANNOT BE BARGAINED WITH. THEY CAN'T BE REASONED WITH! AND THEY WON'T STOP UNTIL THEY KILL EVERY ONE OF US! WHAT ABOUT THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?!!! (Thanks, Arnie)
Here's another thing the left doesn't get. One of the reasons their first reaction is to try to appease terrorists- other than being craven, spineless wimps, that is- is that terrorists have raised the cost of opposing them. Say a bad word about them and they are likely to try to kill you by cutting off your head with a dull knife and put a videotape of the event on the internet. On the other hand, when the Democrats have their way, the cost of opposing the US is very low. There is literally almost nothing that our enemies can say or do that will convince Democrats to take strong measures. Indeed, Democrats are more likely to blame the US when we are attacked. Therefore, our enemies can say or do pretty much anything they want with little fear of retaliation. This is why in times of strife the US cannot afford to have Democrats in power.
But even when Democrats are out of power, they do tremendous damage to our security. As Republicans are trying to raise the cost of attacking the US, the Democrats (and their media allies) are steadily trying to lower it again through giving our enemies hope by siding with them at every instance.
Democrats need to decide once and for all which side they are on. In the war on terror, either one is part of the problem or part of the solution. And Democrats, through their repeated actions, have shown they are part of the problem.