KSM Decision After November

The decision on where to try KSM has been buried and that may be no accident.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the decision over where to hold the trial for alleged 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was “weeks away” — three months ago.

Now advocates on both sides of the issue say they expect the Obama administration to punt the decision until after the November midterm elections— when the controversial plan could do less damage to the political fortunes of endangered Democrats and might face less resistance on Capitol Hill.

Holder last week explicitly denied the midterms had anything to do with the timing but would only say discussions are continuing. The White House had no comment.

We, as a country, have a lot on our plates. So, it's not exactly clear how much people will notice this lack of action. There's no doubt, however, that it's entirely political. KSM was about not merely to be tried but to plead guilty and accept the death penalty at the beginning of the Obama administration. Instead, the president stopped that process and moved the trial to New York. Following outrage, that was stopped and KSM has been in legal limbo since. The administration has had more than enough time to make a decision. It simply has continued to punt.

Meanwhile, it's important to note that President Obama said once that KSM would face swift justice.

I think this notion that somehow we have to be fearful, that these terrorists possess some special powers that prevent us from presenting evidence against them, locking them up and exacting swift justice, I think that has been a fundamental mistake.

Meanwhile, KSM was on the verge of pleading guilty and accepting a death penalty when Obama stopped that about a year and a half ago. Now, it looks as though we'll be two years into the Obama administration before a decision is even made. Obama likely is concerned about the wrath from groups like Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, and Amnesty if he simply goes back to military tribunals. Meanwhile, he's finding that the logistics behind a civilian trial are nearly impossible.

Of course, it should be noted that as State Senator Obama didn't take a record number of votes. This was one of many overlooked criticisms while he ran for President. Obama is again voting present however he's no longer in a position to vote present.

Point Counter Point Weekly Addresses

The president spent this week's address touting pay go. Pay go is a good idea in theory. If it's strictly enforced and applied to all, or at least most of the budget, it makes sense. In pay go, any new spending is countered with a cut somewhere else. Of course, the current pay go only applies to about 60% of the budget.

Of course, the president's sudden push toward fiscal responsibility is not the least bit absurd. The president claims that D.C. spends too much as though he hasn't been leading that spending binge. He also took yet another shot at Bush by proclaiming that we had a budget surplus at the beginning of the decade and that he inherited a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion. We did have a budget surplus but we also didn't have a GWOT. His budget deficit numbers are dubious at best.

Lindsey Graham used the Reps' weekly address to go after the president's GWOT policies. He hit on familiar themes: KSM in New York, closing GITMO, and reading the Christmas Day bomber his rights.

It's hard to imagine that the public would loathe anything more than they loathe Obamacare, but if these talking points continue as effectively that may just happen. The president's Afghanistan policy is generally well liked, and his use of drones is effective. Of course, those get little coverage.

Instead, all the coverage is of the debacle on Farouk and the total nightmare that is the KSM trial. Graham effectively verbalized talking points that will become very familiar over the next few months. Of course, this was a target rich environment for him.

Lincoln, Webb, Supporting Cutting of 9/11 Trial Funding

There are two concurrent stories that show the fascinating manner in which our system exposes the weakness of the Obama administration. The first has two Democrats, Jim Webb and Blanche Lincoln, joining with nearly every Republican in an attempt to not fund 9/11 trials in civil courts.

Trying the 9/11 co-conspirators, including Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, in federal, civilian court just got a bit harder. Support for trying these men in New York City has been dwindling, and some reports indicate the site has been scrapped, though the Administration contends NYC is still a viable option.

Now legislation has resurfaced that would shut off funding for civilian trials
altogether, only this time it has Democratic support. Sens. Jim Webb, D-VA, and Blanche Lincoln, D-AR, have joined the fight to deny the funds, making it harder
for such trials to continue.

On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, an Army Reserves JAG officer, will be joined by Lincoln (Webb could attend, says a spokeswoman, but he might be stuck in hearings) and his usual group of colleagues on national security matters, Sens. Joe Lieberman, a self-styled 'Independent Democrat", and John McCain, R-AZ, to unveil their bill. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, a co-sponsor, will also attend.

Back in 2007, there was a legislative game of chicken between the President and Congress. The president refused to sign any funding bill with a timeline. The Congress, lead by Nancy Pelosi, refused to fund any Iraq war operations without one. The Democrats eventually blinked. The surge worked and the rest is history.

The President is the one and only Commander in Chief. Congress, however, has the exclusive power of the proverbial purse. Lately, they've used that power for a variety of spending measures. Congress rarely withholds funds for the military. This is of cours unique. After all, no military person will be put into harm's way if these funds are withheld. Furthermore, last year Congress refused to fund the closure of GITMO without a plan. That effectively slowed down its closure by years.

Now, with support for trying KSM et al anywhere but GITMO fading, Congress is exerting its power in a bi partisan manner. This effectively ends any options for the President to try KSM et al anywhere but in GITMO. It also means that GITMO will remain open indefinitely.

On a separate track, the State of Virginia has voted to make it illegal for any of its residents to be mandated to buy health care insurance.

The Democratic-led Virginia Senate sent a strong message about health care reform efforts in Washington, D.C., on Monday (Feb. 1), passing a bill that makes it illegal for Virginians to be required to buy health insurance.

With Republicans in control of the state’s House of Delegates and governor’s mansion, the bill could become law, The Washington Post reported. The effort would throw another wrench into congressional Democrats’ plans to revamp the nation’s health care system in the wake of a special election in Massachusetts that stripped the party of its 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

An “individual mandate” that requires Americans to buy health insurance is a centerpiece of federal health care legislation. Virginia’s move could suggest that President Obama — who reiterated his support for reform during his State of the Union address last week — “is failing to reassure members of his own party that current reform efforts remain worthwhile,” The Post said.

This would set up a Constitutional battle over the tenth amendment if health care reform would pass. Virginia is one of about 30 plus states thinking about voting in such a measure. That would create constitutional chaos if health care reform with a mandate passed. Without a mandate, the Democrats would lose the support of the insurance companies. It would change the profile of health care reform dramatically.

As such, the states are now exerting their will to challenge a politically weak president. In this case, they've made passing health care reform, already next to impossible, even more difficult.

KSM Out of New York?

If you've been following this story closely, this should come as no surprise.

Bowing to intense and deepening bipartisan opposition to conducting the criminal trials for the 9/11 hijackers in the heart of New York City, the Obama White House has begun discussing alternate locations with the Justice Department, senior administration officials told Fox News.

The White House denied a New York Daily News report that it ordered the Department of Justice to find a new location for the trials, which are sure to attract massive publicity and require intense security preparations wherever they are held.

The New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is just the latest area politician to come out against this plan. Meanwhile, the Congress is mulling not funding these trials.

Of course, the problem for the president is that there's likely to not be a community that will want KSM et al once New York is no longer an option. This will be a case of not in my backyard. Ultimately, this will work out better for the administration because they will be embarrassed now. That's much better than the multi year circus that would have embarrassed them each and every day.

The president may in fact even have to move these folks back to GITMO. I can't imagine any other community taking them. That will of course be a big embarrassment but that embarrassment will be temporary. It would be much worse for all of us if these trials were held in country.

GITMO to Yemen?

Three Democrats have come out in opposition to this move and you can expect more.

Some Democrats are joining Republican lawmakers in opposing the transfer of suspected terrorists from the Guantanamo Bay prison to Yemen, citing Al Qaeda's increased activity in the poor Arab nation.

President Obama's top counter terrorism adviser, John Brennan, told Fox News that the transfers will continue if the administration deems them warranted.

"The Guantanamo facility must be closed," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It has served as a propaganda tool for Al Qaeda. We're determined to close it. We're not going to, though, do anything that is going to put American security at risk."

The president himself has identified an Al Qaeda splinter group that was operating out of Yemen as responsible for the planning and operation of the Christmas day hijacking plot.

This practice of repatriating these guys back into their home country was a colossal failure under the Bush administration and it will be under the Obama administration as well if it isn't halted immediately.

There's about 90 Yemeni being held in GITMO now. About half are being scheduled to be sent back to their home country and the rest will be tried domestically in civilian courts.

Obama on His Way to Infamy

Let me give my presidential grade for President Obama's first year. If the next three are as "good" as this one, he'll be challenging Hoover et al for the worst president of all time. He's got plenty of time to turn things around, but let's not kid ourselves. So far, he's been really close to an unmitigated disaster. My dad, who didn't vote for him but generally likes him, constantly harps on his extension of unemployment insurance as an accomplishment. Now, if a supporter makes that your accomplishment, you know you've got problems.

Whether it's domestic policy, foreign policy or political acumen, Obama continues to show that he's simply not up to the job. Most of our worst fears about the president continue to be realized. His complete lack of experience is clearly showing. Clearly, he didn't have a proper vetting process in place. Furthermore, on multiple occasions, the Van Jones affair in particular, he showed a total political tone deafness that's simply stunning.

The biggest folly has to be health care reform. Such sweeping reform usually add to a legacy. Look at Social Security. That's nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme and yet that's a lasting legacy for FDR. This won't be anything like that. That's because even if it does pass it will be so roundly rejected that it will be repealed in no time.

Obama's inexperience has clearly shown on that one. Remember when he urged the legislature to send him a bill by August. What could have possibly put in his mind that such a complicated piece of legislation would be done that quickly. That misstep cost him credibility. Worse yet, he let the Congress craft the bill and didn't control them in the slightest. By the mid summer, the process was an unmitigated disaster and he couldn't contain it. Now, we're at a point where he'll attempt to shove a bill with 30%+ approval down everyone's throat in a totally partisan manner.

On the economy, the president has spent a lot of time talking about health care. The administration promised that unemployment wouldn't cross 8% and now it's 10%. They promised the stimulus would create jobs right away and we're still losing jobs. They promised that spending $787 billion would create jobs and now the Democrats want to spend $150 billion TO CREATE JOBS. He's locked himself into GM, AIG, and Fannie/Freddie and all are a black hole of money and the president has no idea how to extract himself from all of them.

Then, there's GITMO. He proclaimed boldly that it would be closed in a year and then didn't have a plan. Moving the terrorists anywhere in country is deeply unpopular not to mention just plain dumb. Yet, he's now so committed that he's going to do it no matter what. In fact, he's brushed off calls not to transfer the terrorists in light of the attempted attack since several of the planners are former occupants of GITMO. Even worse is his bone headed decision to try these terrorists in country in civilian courts. Whereas a Bush legacy is to once and for all treat terrorists as enemies in war, Obama's may very well be to send us back to treating them as criminals despite the historic failure of that approach.

He has a chance to secure his legacy by pulling out a victory in Afghanistan. I believe Bush went a long way to cementing his with the surge in Iraq. It remains to be seen just how things will go in Afghanistan. I believe he has the right strategy but it's yet unclear if he has the will to win. In his first year, the most troubling aspect of his presidency is his lack of will to fight the terrorists. Without that we won't win in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

His foreign policy is still evolving and it may evolve properly. His Nobel Prize speech was a breathe of fresh air. The president may be ready to get tough with Iran, and he certainly made the difficult choice in Afghanistan. Yet, he sided with the Socialist Zelaya in Honduras. He sat back and said nothing while Democratic forces erupted in protest in Iran and he was a way too buddy, buddy with the thug dictator Hugo Chavez. Embracing America's enemies, not supporting democratic forces, and a lack of will are the worst kinds of legacies.

Then, there's the events of the last seven days. It was nothing short of a disaster. The president said nothing for four days. He refused to leave Hawaii and his DHS Secretary claimed everything went just fine. He wanted to present an air of calm so that panic wouldn't ensue. Instead, he created the perception that he didn't care and chaos ensued. That happened after a failed attack.

So, what's Obama's legacy so far? It's the stimulus. The only effect we know it's had is adding a massive amount of money to our debt and deficit. That's it.

Now, the presidency is a wonderful, challenging, and awesome thing. So, we expect and even demand that the office itself change the occupant. We hope and assume that President Obama will grow into the office as he continues in it. So, the next three years he should evolve and he should improve. Let's not kid ourselves. If the next three are like the first one, he's right next to Herbert Hoover in infamy of the presidency.

Emotions Run High in GITMO Townhall

The first opportunity for citizens in and around Thomson, Illinois to speak out about the potential for some of the GITMO detainees to move near them came this evening.

Emotions ran high Tuesday at a hearing that gave the state's residents their first chance to weigh in on a plan to bring terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a rural western Illinois prison.

Gov. Pat Quinn plans to sell the nearby Thomson Correctional Center to the federal government to house detainees and for a maximum-security federal prison, and the public hearing probably will not change that.

Many in Thomson, about 20 miles from Sterling, and other northwest Illinois communities say they welcome the estimated 3,000 jobs that the White House says would be generated by the prison. But opponents say the move is too risky.

"Terrorists would want to hit us to make a point, here in the Midwest, in the American heartland," protester Amanda Norms said before the meeting. "Is a little economic gain worth the risk?"

You can expect that scenes like this to continue. Much like the summer was known for the scenes created at health care town halls, so to will there be plenty of these scenes. Right after the health care debacle, President Obama is putting himself into yet another debacle with this decision.

The President Has Totally Misread GITMO

It appears near certain that in the next year some or all of the GITMO detainees will wind up in Thomson, Illinois.

Republicans were lining up to criticize the Obama administration Tuesday
over its decision to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a prison
in Illinois, accusing President Obama of increasing the threat to America's
security by making the U.S. home to suspected terrorists.

The White House announced Tuesday that the government will
acquire the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., an underutilized
1,600-cell prison in a sleepy town near the Mississippi River, to house
detainees currently held at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo.


"The president has directed that the federal government proceed with the
acquisition of the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois to house
federal inmates and a limited number of detainees from the Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba," a senior administration official said in a statement released by the
White House.

The president appears to believe that the closure of GITMO is a victory in and of itself and moving these prisoners anywhere is justified. It's absolutely true that this prison is underserved. It's also true that as a result the local economy has suffered. It's also true that the government in Thomson is very happy with this move. Beyond that, nothing is certain. I don't know if the folks of Thomson want this. The polling nationally is heavily against this.

The president believes that moving these guys out of GITMO will be viewed as a significant human rights victory. That's of course nonsense. The conditions at GITMO are much nicer for the prisoners than they would be in a super max. Thomson is cold seven out of twelve months. The prisoners will see very little sunlight. Many will spend most of their time in isolation.

The America haters aren't going to be satisfied. They believe that none of these folks should remain detained indefinitely. They don't view them as enemy combatants but as criminals. They want them tried for crimes and released if they're found not guilty. President Obama has already said that some of these folks won't get that. If a terrorist is housed indefinitely in Thomson, that's no different to America haters than if they're housed indefintely in GITMO.

The terrorists are certainly not going to care. If the president thinks that this will remove a recruiting tool, he's sadly mistaken. The terrorists will simply turn Thomson into a symbol of America's treachery.

Beyond that, this is a logistical head ache. There are criminals at Thomson. The government will either need to move them elsewhere or make sure that none makes contact with a terrorist. If a terrorist is injured or worse at the hands of a regular inmate, that is a complete PR debacle. If a common criminal is recruited into Al Qaeda, that is a PR debacle and worse.

Furthermore, moving everyone onto U.S. soil immediately gives them significantly more rights. It will be very difficult to house them indefinitely if they are on U.S. soil. We'll have much less leeway to interrogate if they are on U.S. soil. Each prisoner will be stacked with all sorts of new rights once they are on U.S. soil. All sorts of evidentiary issues will be raised. Depending on how evidence was gathered against them, the government will have all sorts of problems using that evidence in court.

Whatever short term PR victory Obama will have, it will be short lived. As soon as the world sees a bunch of these guys stuck in a cell 23 hous a day, the same human rights issues will be raised. The same folks that demanded that GITMO be closed will now demand that each be tried or released. All Obama will do is now put pressure on his administration to give each and everyone a trial in a timely manner. Since some of these guys have been waiting eight plus years, there will be plenty of calls to make that time immediately.

Sure the economy of Thomson will improve. Thomson has about six hundred people in it. They may all think this is great but they are six hundred out of hundreds of millions. The majority will think this is looney.

GITMO to Illinois?

There appears to be growing momentum to send some or all of the GITMO detainees to Thomson, Illinois to the Super max there.

Democratic leaders in Illinois applauded a draft memo leaked to a conservative Web site Friday that they believe suggests the government is seriously considering transferring terrorist suspects from Guantanamo to their state.

The White House cautioned that the memo is merely a preparation in case such a decision is made, but Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Gov. Pat Quinn said in a joint statement late Friday that it signals "the administration has narrowed its focus" to a nearly empty maximum-security state prison in Thomson, a sleepy town of 450 people near the Mississippi River about 150 miles west of Chicago.

"Even though the final decision has not been made, we are encouraged by this development," Durbin and Quinn said. "We will continue working with the White House, the Defense Department and the Justice Department to address important questions regarding security and job creation, and finalize this agreement."

The story comes after a leaked memo wound up on the web site Big Government. Thomson, Illinois is a small town of less than 1000 people on the Northwest edge of the state. The prison is actually just outside the city limits. The area has been struggling financially since most of the prisoners were moved. As such, the city manager of Thomson cheered the decision when it was first floated in the fall.

Immediately, both Pat Quinn and Senator Dick Durbin cheered the decision. This is a major opportunity for Republicans. President Obama's old Senate seat is up for grabs and so is the Governorship. Pat Quinn, the state's current Governor, is already on record as favoring the decision. Dick Durbin has done the same.

I haven't seen any polling but I would be willing to bet plenty that the state in general is opposed to this by a wide margin. Congressman Mark Kirk, who's running for Obama's seat, came out and opposed the decision immediately when it was first floated in the fall. All Republican candidates for both Governor and Senate should be jumping over themselves to condemn this potential decision. The Democrats have giftwrapped a huge issue and the Republicans should be doing everything they can to make this gain as many legs as possible.

It should be noted that the Obama administration has stressed that no final decision has yet been made. Furthermore, in order to move any detainee the administration would have to come to Congress for funding. So, this is still a long way away from being finalized.

That said, Big Government is already reporting a protest forming near Thomson.

“This is America and our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, and we the people were not even consulted about this decision to bring suspected terrorists to Illinois.” Beverly Perlson, founder of the Band of Mothers, and one of the rally organizers, said during a phone interview.

The rally, organized by the Illinois Tea Patriots and the Band of Mothers, has been in the works since November when the Obama Administration’s plans initially surfaced. It is scheduled to be held three days before Christmas, on December 22, outside the State Officiated Public Meeting at Sterling High School, Sterling Illinois, at 1:00 pm.

This story is still developing and so stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE: Right on cue, here's a Rasmussen poll on Illinoisians view of moving the detainees to the state.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Illinois voters oppose relocating some suspected terrorists from the Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba to a prison in their state.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 39% of voters in the state favor housing the prisoners at the Thomson Correctional Center, a near-empty maximum security facility 150 miles west of Chicago. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

...

AG Holder: GITMO Unlikely to Close By Deadline

AG Eric Holder became the latest administrative official to announce that GITMO isn't going to close when it's supposed to on January 22nd, 2010.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that it will be difficult to meet the administration's Jan. 22, 2010, deadline to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

"It's going to be difficult for us to make the January deadline," Holder said in a press conference with reporters on Tuesday, adding, "It doesn't mean we're not going to try to do that."

Holder then asserted that GITMO will get closed sometime, though didn't give a date. I suppose that someday GITMO will get closed but it isn't any day soon. I believe that the Obama administration is now realizing that Bush didn't keep GITM open for nefarious reasons. Instead, Bush kept GITMO open because there was simply no viable option. I believe that Bush wanted to close GITMO but he simply couldn't find a way to do it.

Now, President Obama is realizing the same thing. No area of the U.S. wants them. Foreign countries will only take the mildest detainees. No one is going to take any really bad apples. Of course, there's all sorts of issues with moving these folks, be it into the U.S. or somewhere else abroad.

So, President Obama is realizing the same thing President Bush realized. He's realizing that closing GITMO is a lot more difficult to do than to say. The only difference was that President Bush made no bold proclamations about its closure.

Gates Closing GITMO "Harder Than Expected"

The administration is finally revealing to the public what most of us already knew. Yesterday, unnamed administration officials first revealed that GITMO will most likely still be open come January 22,2010, when it was scheduled for closure. Today, here's what Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said trying to close down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay has proved more complicated than anticipated.

Gates said "it's going to be tough" for the president to meet his goal of shutting the prison in January. He said there are difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other issues.

Now, there are all sorts of things here that should trouble everyone. First, President Obama pronounced that he would close GITMO within a year on his second day on the job. Now, we find out that figuring out the logistics is proving to be "more complicated than expected". What was he expecting exactly? He'd been on the job for two days. There was no time for a review or a plan to get out. So, his expectations weren't based on any sort of legitimate analyis.

Second, the president has been using its impending closure as the subject of accomplishment in nearly every foreign policy speech. So, at the same time he privately knew that closing it was proving more difficult than expected, he was still telling the world that we should view its closure as a source of pride.

Third, we're all finding this out now. How long has the administration known that things were more difficult than expected? I point this out because this stance is two days old. For the first eight months, the administration put on a very confident face. No one ever gave one hint that there would be any problems. Now we learn that there were problems all along. So, while privately the administration saw a major problem coming, publicly they were telling the world everything was going according to plan.

So, let's review. The administration foolishly made a grand proclamation without doing even a hint of analysis. Then, they found out that reality was much more difficult than the utopia they were creating in their speeches. This didn't stop them from using this proclamation as a point of accomplishment. Meanwhile, privately they knew that they'd never close GITMO on time. Yet, they waited eight months to tell the world what most already knew.

Admin Acknowledges: We Won't Close GITMO On Time

It was back in May when Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange in a press briefing regarding the closure of GITMO.

Q Robert, does the President still expect to close Guantanamo Bay one year after his announcement, which would be I guess January 20, 2010? And is --

MR. GIBBS: I think it's the 21st or 22nd, but, yes.

Q Twenty-first, thank you. And is he still planning on issuing a detailed map, if you will, of how to get there in another two months from now?

MR. GIBBS: I don't understand the second part.

Q Did he not say on January 22nd that within six months he would sort of issue -- the administration would issue plans for how it intended to close Guantanamo?

MR. GIBBS: I'd have to go back and look. I mean, obviously, Sheryl, the President remains committed to closing Guantanamo.

Q On January 22nd?

MR. GIBBS: On whatever date he previously intoned in the executive order.

Q And he's still confident that he can do that?

MR. GIBBS: He is. There are multiple task forces that are -- have been stood up, and are meeting to deal with the issues surrounding that closure.

There were many of us that were dubious of the President's claim that he would close GITMO by January 2010 from the beginning. He said it in his second day on the job. He never said where any of these terrorists would go. GITMO has become a punching bag for the left for going on six years. Yet, no one that has criticized GITMO has offered a credible alternative. That's how I was very dubious that Obama would actually be able to fulfill his promise of closing GITMO. For nearly two years he criticized GITMO, what he never did was offer a credible alternatitve. Still, Gibbs was confident back in this May briefing the administration would follow through on its promise.

Then, roadblocks began to appear. Only a handful of detainees were received by other nations and most of those were only received after we bribed them. Then, the Congress, nearly unanimously, cut off funds for the transfer of GITMO detainees without a plan. That happened in May. Then, all the sticky questions began. Where would the detainees be tried? What would happen if they were acquitted? What rights would they have, etc? Then, there was a very contentious town hall meeting in Michigan, a potential site for where some detainees would be moved, in which citizens furiously objected to any suggestions that any GITMO detainees would be moved there.

Still, the administration put on a happy face. In fact, as recently as this week, the President proclaimed in front of the UN that one of his accomplishments is the upcoming closure of GITMO. The closure of GITMO was one of several things that Obama cited in which he felt that the U.S. was joining the rest of the world.

The problem is that GITMO won't be closed by January 20th as promised, and the administration is finally acknowledging that.

President Obama is unlikely to close the much-maligned detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in time to meet the self-imposed deadline of January, as his administration runs into daunting legal and logistical hurdles in moving the more than 220 detainees still being held there.

The difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip, senior administration officials acknowledged for the first time Friday to FOX News.

The political damage of all of this will be directly related to just how quickly GITMO is closed and how messy that closure becomes. If it is closed in May of 2010 and that transition is smooth, the damage is minimal. If it's still open in November of 2010, that will be a huge problem not only for Obama but the Demorats in general.

President Obama's problem here remains the same. The reason that GITMO will likely not close by January is because there's absolutely no plan for where they can be moved if it's not GITMO. The president made this proclamation when clearly he had no clue what he would do. That's still the case. If the Democrats had stopped to think in the middle of their non stop criticism, they might have realized that the reason Bush kept GITMO open was because it was the best of bad options. Where exactly should we hold KSM? If he's moved into the U.S., then an ACLU lawyer will immediately move to mandate full constitutional rights to him. Then, KSM will lawyer up and we won't get any more information from him.

So, I'd be stunned if most of the folks currently in GITMO now aren't still in GITMO come November of 2012.

GITMO the New Health Care

There is going to be a town hall meeting in Standish, Mi. today.

Michigan citizens concerned about the controversial federal plan to transfer Guantanamo Bay terrorist detainees to the Standish Maximum Correctional Facility will hold an emergency town hall meeting this Thursday, August 20, at 12:00 noon, in Resurrection of the Lord Church, 423 W. Cedar St., Standish, Michigan. The meeting is open to the public and press.

The town hall meeting will address legal, economic and security issues that could affect the Standish area community, the State of Michigan and the nation as a whole. Slated to speak are U.S. Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-Holland), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee; David Littmann, Senior Economist, Mackinac Center for Public Policy; Debra Burlingame, Founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America and sister of the pilot of the plane which was crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001; and Thomas Kerrins, chief steward for Standish for the Michigan Corrections Organization. Invitations were also extended to Governor Granholm and other state and local officials

Boy, doesn't this sound familiar? The administration is determined to impose upon the country a very unpopular idea. Now, the folks are ready to rebel in a very public way against the administration.

The trajectory of health care and GITMO are awfully similar. Both health care reform and the closure of GITMO are favored by the public in theory. Most folks would say that they believe that health care must be reformed. Most folks would say that they would like to close GITMO.

The problems come in the details. Once the public took a look at health care they firmly rejected it. The public sees this as a budget buster, a highway to rationing, and a massive expansion of government power. With GITMO, the public wants GITMO closed just as long as no one shows up near them. That's what will potentially happen in Standish, Mi.

In August, protesters overflowed town hall meetings with Congress people to display their displeasure with health care reform. We've all seen the video of angry voters challenging their elected officials. Well, now you are likely to see the same scene regarding GITMO.

To understand just how corrosive this is, just imagine having non stop news coverage of angry voters rebelling against the President's central domestic policy for a full month. Then, for three to four months after that, you will see another set of angry voters rebelling against a center piece of his foreign policy. Visuals are a powerful thing and after the round of town hall debates on GITMO end, it will be hard to imagine the president's popularity being more than the low 40's.

A Plethora of Problems With The Administration's Current GITMO Scheme

Fox News is reporting that sources within the administration are saying that the latest Obama administration idea for moving GITMO detainees has them going to Leavenworth and a maximum security prison in Michigan.

The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities at a single maximum-security prison.

Several senior U.S. officials said the administration is eyeing a soon-to-be-shuttered state maximum security prison in Michigan and the 134-year-old military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as possible locations for a heavily guarded site to hold the 229 suspected Al Qaeda, Taliban and foreign fighters now jailed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.The officials outlined the plans as the latest effort to comply with President Barack Obama's order to close the prison camp by Jan. 22, 2010,

(note a White House spokes person said that no final decision has been made)

First, if this is the final plan, the president will have two Congress people, four Senators, two State Senators, several mayors, and dozens of city council members, not to mention thousands of voters that will vociferously object to the idea that terrorists will be housed any where near their homes and the homes of their constituents. Some folks are all right with having terrorists moved to the States, but almost no one is all right with moving them anywhere near where they themselves live. As such, whoever's "backyard" they are moved to are likely to object in a very vocal way.

Second, once you move these folks to the U.S. a lawyer can and WILL argue that they now have the full protection of the Constitution. If they are moved to the Federal prison system, which is what the Michigan prison is, a lawyer can and WILL argue that they are part of the criminal court system.

If they are part of the criminal court system, they have the rights of a criminal. That means they can refuse to speak without lawyer. That means that evidence would fall under criminal standards. It also means they have the right to face their accuser. So, if evidence was gathered without a warrant, it can't be introduced. That means that any terrorist that flipped would have to speak in open court where the defendants would see and word would get back to terrorists overseas.

That's not what the Obama administration wants to do. He wants to create some sort of a new court system that would act outside of the criminal system. That's much easier to do when the terrorists are overseas. That's one reason that Bush kept them in Cuba. Can you imagine the Constitutional challenges that will follow once the president puts terrorists on American soil but also creates a whole new judicial system just for them. Some the president doesn't even want to try but to hold indefinitely. Can you imagine the legal challenges that will come when the president moves a terrorist on U.S. soil but refuses to even give him a trial?

What if they're acquitted? Presumably, they could potentially be released into the community surrounding the prisons. After all, their home country most likely will 1) not want them or 2) will want them but to torture them. Either way, sending them home will be no easy task. So, we could face the prospect of a handful of the worst terrorists roaming the streets of Kansas and Michigan.

Finally, what are the logistics for housing? Leavenworth is where we house our worst military offenders. It's not as though we can put the terrorists into the general population. So, they will have to be isolated. That means that they will have one hour of sunlight a day. It will also means massive increases in security. Now, if human rights are the reason to move these prisoners from GITMO, how will it look if we then put them in a cell for 23 of 24 hours each and every day? Furthermore, how much will it cost to add all the security necessary for them not to escape and for fellow prisoners not to beat on them? It would, of course, be a P.R. nightmare if they were beaten up by an American in prison, not to mention a recruiting tool.

The president will have to figure a satisfactory answer to all these concerns if he is to move forward with this proposal. Of course, in reality, the president should have thought about all this before he signed the executive order. Instead, he has to figure it all out as he goes.

Hubris and Naivete Are Bring the President Down

I don't know the president and so I want to be careful in making character observations. That usually requires reading some one's mind. Instead, I want to analyze his actions which I believe speak for themselves. Right now, health care reform is on life support. If that doesn't pass, it will also spell doom for cap and trade. Without either initiative passing, the president will face mid term elections in which we'll have near double digit unemployment, near two trillion dollars in deficits, and no major legislative accomplishments. That will create a bloodbath for any Democrat running in November of 2010.



It's nothing short of remarkable that only six months ago President Obama had near 80% approval ratings. Now, he is about to be so politically damaged that he may never recover. How did this happen? In my opinion, it's a combination of hubris and naivete. The president exhibited his first fatal sign of hubris in only his second day in office. That's when he signed an executive order to close GITMO a year from that day. It's now clear that he had no plan to close it and the plans he had for it's closure were terribly naive. It's ironic and scary that GITMO hasn't yet affected him politically. That won't happen until early next year. That's when he will either force terrorists on towns and cities that don't want them or he will go back on his publicized promise.



Either way, proclaiming that he would close GITMO in a year with no plan to close it showed not merely arrogance but fatal hubris. It's exactly that sort of a public promise that comes back to haunt presidents. Yet, the president made it confidently in only his second day on the job.



When the stimulus was being debated, President Obama famously, in an exchange with Eric Cantor, proclaimed "I won so I trump you on that". The stimulus passed with only three Republicans voting for it in either chamber. By doing so, he took total ownership of all its effects. Had President Obama tried to incorporate some Republican ideas he would have split the Republicans. He would have gotten about half the Republican chamber to sign on. By doing so, they would have shared in its effects. Now, he owns its effects. As such between the ballooning deficit, the growing unemployment, and the stagnating economy, the President alone is being held responsible. Had he tried to include Republicans their ideas would have been included and they would have shared responsibility for its effects. That he didn't is another sign of both political hubris and naivete.



The president also totally misread the political landscape. The president was elected on a moderated message. His most famous line was "I do what works". He was supposed to be post partisan, post racial, and pragmatic. Yet, he's governed as a liberal if not far left. Did he really think his mandate was to move the country this far left? Did he not understand the theme of his message? The president furiously denied the National Journal's poll that rated him the most liberal Senator in 2007. He fought hard to present an image of moderation. Yet, his entire agenda has been liberal to far left. How did he think this was going to work? That's both full of hubris and naivete.



Then, there's the price tag on all of this. Brit Hume made an excellent point about this. By passing the massive stimulus, he made it harder to pass any other big spending item. He moved forward with a $787 billion stimulus even though he had a trillion dollar health care bill and a three and a half trillion dollar budget he still wanted to pass. Did he really think that he could pass all this spending all at once?



Because the stimulus was so expensive, the president made a promise not to allow health care reform to add to the deficit. As such, in order to sell health care reform he must raise taxes on someone. A marginal tax increase on soda, cigarettes, or beer won't be enough. He'll have to raise some one's margins on their tax rate. That's rarely popular and just as rarely that becomes law. Walter Mondale ran on a platform of raising taxes. He lost 49 of 50 states. Did President Obama really think he'd be different? Such an assertion is both full of hubris and naivete.



Then, he let the Congress write the details of the bill. He merely set out broad parameters. Congressional leaders are entirely made up of far left liberals. So, what kind of a bill did he think would come out? Did he really think the public at large would like a bill framed by the likes of Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, and Ed Markey? Does the president really not realize that despite his election the country is still center right not far left? So, when far left folks are the major players in crafting legislation is he really surprised the country is rejecting the legislation?



Did he really not understand the make up of the legislature? Between the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the liberals, and the Blue Dogs, the Democrats are a very loose combination of parts. Trying to craft legislation that will appease enough of them to get a majority. Yet, despite this fact, the president not only made health care reform, the most complicated piece of legislation in decades, his first major priority, but he had the liberal wing write it. Did he really think that the moderate Blue Dogs would just roll over when presented with a big government takeover of the health care system? The legislative mess we are seeing now is entirely due to the complete lack of planning done in March, April and May. Where were the Blue Dogs in negotiations when this bill was just being crafted? Because they weren't included in that, they public opposed it when it was released. Was the president really surprised by how this played? If he was, it's another sign of both fatal hubris and naivete.



Going forward, the president will either learn his lesson or continue to exhibit both hubris and naivete. It's very simple. His liberal agenda is done, it's over. It has no chance of passing and if it does it will be roundly rejected by the public.

The president has a chance to right the ship. It should be clear to him that his liberal agenda isn't going to work. He can allign himself with the Blue Dogs and the Republicans and pass energy reform, health care reform, and education reform with that alliance. It won't look anything like what he wants currently, but if he's truly for "what works" then he has a path to get things done. If not, he will continue to exhibity fatal hubris and naivete that will ultimately doom his presidency.

From GITMO to Afghanistan

Fox News has this report.

A former Guantanamo Bay inmate is leading the fight against U.S. Marines in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, a senior U.S. defense official confirmed to FOX News on Tuesday.

Mullah Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, surrendered in Mazar-e-Sharif in Northern Afghanistan in 2001, and was transferred to Gitmo in 2006. He was released in late 2007 to Afghan custody.

Now as the United States is pushing ahead with the massive Operation Khanjar in the southern province of Afghanistan, Zakir is coordinating the Taliban fighters. Some 4,000 U.S. Marines and hundreds of Afghan forces have faced some resistance as they sweep across the province, reclaiming control of districts where Zakir and his comrades were running a shadow government.

Lost in the debate over what to do with those in GITMO is a debate we should be having. That debate is how to make sure that this scene doesn't get repeated any longer. It's unacceptable and frankly self destructive for a country to capture their enemies on the battlefield and then let those enemies go any significant numbers so that they can take up arms again during war.

While President Bush was often criticized for his heavy handed treatment of those in GITMO, he wasn't criticized nearly enough for the large numbers of those he released from GITMO only to have many of those folks take up arms again once released.

Far more of an issue for me than just how many rights those in GITMO is the issue of just how many former residents take up arms against our troops. These stories receive far too little attention. There is far too few criticism of the phenomenon that is again playing out in Afghanistan. It's been nearly eight years since we started the GWOT and yet we still don't seem to learn our lesson. Once we capture the enemy, we must do everything we can to keep them captured for the duration of the war.

Far more than the debate over their rights, the really important debate is how we make sure the scene currently playing out in Afghanistan is the last of its kind.

The Obama Administration's Secret Weapon...Magic

That's what I was thinking about when I was reading this column by Obama supporter, Michael Crowley. Crowley lays out a very strong case for why things are in trouble. Then, he says not to worry. Only, the way in which Obama will succeed seems something akin to magic. First, Crowley lays out why Obama maybe on the brink of serious problems.

So it was an ominous sign for Barack Obama last week when he appeared in the White House for a press conference that was his most uncomfortable to date. Reporters who had thus far treated him with deference and even admiration treated him with something close to disrespect. Obama, as the New York Times put it, "has rarely experienced as combative and contentious an hour on live television as he did on Tuesday afternoon". Had his response to Iran, one asked, been "timid and weak"? Another tweaked the president's "Spock-like language" about healthcare reform. One even grilled an increasingly irritated president about his furtive smoking habits. The treatment left Obama a bit testy. "I got it," he groused. "You're pitching, I'm catching."

Indeed he has been catching - catching flak, that is, from critics on left and right and over both his foreign and domestic agendas. As he approaches the six-month mark of his presidency, his job has become less glamorous and more gruelling. Allies in Congress are restive and for the first time, the whiff of failures and defeats is in the air. Thus the new tone from the White House press corps, which, like animals in the wild, preys on the weak. But don't be fooled by this dark patch. Obama's long-term prospects remain bright.

Crowley, then makes an even starker point.

The only thing that makes his congressional Democratic allies more nervous than supporting sweeping and expensive healthcare reform is the grand climate-change plan, passed by the House on Friday.

So, let's see if I have this straight. The press corp is becoming more combative. His allies are getting more nervous. There's more and more talk of failure. Furthermore, the center piece of his entire domestic agenda lies in bills that make his own allies nervous to pass. Now, there's a recipe for success if I've ever seen one.



So, how does Crowley believe that all will go well? Magic, that's how.

Congress is beginning to craft a healthcare plan with Obama's guidance and the early going hasn't been pretty. Proposals have carried eye-popping price tags ($1.6 trillion, according to one preliminary estimate by a Senate finance committee), while covering a disappointingly small number of Americans. Nor have the Democrats quite settled on how they will pay for a massive expansion of care. Last week, a prominent House Democrat pronounced that "healthcare reform is on life support".

Don't be surprised if Obama resuscitates it. Although many Democrats are nervous about his plan's cost,

As for climate chage, again, Obama will magically create a winner here.

However urgent it may be to fight global warming, public support for environmentalism drops dramatically in times of economic distress. But look for Obama to settle for a modest plan - a symbolic victory - rather than accept a stark political defeat.

Crowley makes a few good points. That is that we still have 16 months until the election. That gives the economy plenty of time to recover. Furthermore, more people than not still blame Bush for our troubles. Finally, we should see stimulus money spent faster going forward.



All of that maybe true, but Crowley continues to ignore reality. First, unemployment is headed to ten percent. Once it crosses over, September or October, then, it will officially be Obama's economy. Second, unemployment will likely reach 11% at least before it tops out. Furthermore, it's a laggin indicator. That means it will continue to rise long after the economy has begun to recover. So, even if jobs begin to come back this time next year, we'll be looking at double digit unemployment numbers come November 2010. Try explaining a three percent increase in unemployment after you've run up the deficit by nearly two trillion dollars.



Speaking of the deficit, Crowley seems to think that massive health care reform can pass even if it adds to the deficit even more. That's pure fantasy. First, the only way for health care reform to pass is if the so called reconciliation rule is used. That can only happen if health care reform stays revenue neutral. Furthermore, Crowley appears totally tone deaf to what Americans are concerned about. The deficit is quickly becoming the biggest fear of Americans of the Obama administration. Crowley seems to think that we can add to it with a massive new health care policy with no political fallout.



On foreign policy, Crowley is equally naive.



Then there are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus far, Obama has been in crisis-management mode, trying to keep the government in Islamabad from falling apart and firing his top general in Afghanistan for poor management of the war effort there. But conditions may soon improve in both countries; the Pakistani military is finally cracking down on Islamic radicals. Meanwhile, Obama has ordered 21,000 more American troops to Afghanistan. But many analysts think that, much like the Iraq surge, the fight against the Taliban is eminently winnable if there are enough troops and the right counterinsurgency strategy is adopted.


The Pakistanis have supposedly been cracking down on militias many, many times in the last five years. None of them have amounted to much of anything. Yet, now, it's the real deal if you believe Crowley. Furthermore, we're going to turn a dire situation in Afghanistan into a winner through some cryptic counter insurgency strategy that many unnamed "experts" claim is available.



What's missing from Crowley's analysis is any mention of GITMO. That situation is such a mess that Crowley doesn't even pretend Obama will fix it.

Obviously, no one knows what will happen in the future. It's possible that this time next year there will be peace and prosperity everywhere. If it's so, Obama will get credit. However, if that were to happen, it will happen with a plan by the Obama administration that even his supporters don't know about.

Obama's GITMO Policy Gets More Complicated

On Friday evening, we received this from the administration.

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

Now, try and put all of this into perspective. President Obama signed an executive order in his second day on the job committing to closing GITMO within a year. He did this because GITMO was, in his view, a total rejection of our values and morals. Yet, now, he's on the verge of, by executive fiat, holding some folks indefinitely, without charge or trial. Now, how does that square with his view that GITMO was an aberration to everything we believe.

Let's set some more context. Some folks that were in GITMO are now enjoying the beaches of Bermuda. Soon, they will open up a restaurant. Other folks in GITMO will stay incarcerated indefinitely with no charge or trial.

Whatever you think of Bush's policy, he, more often than not, made decisions based on the safety and protection of the citizenry. With Obama, there's really no underlying thread to his GITMO policy. If this is all about due process and giving our enemies constitutional rights, how does that square with keeping some indefinitely with no charges? If this is about protecting the citizenry, why are some terrorists free in Bermuda?

Obama's Agenda On the Ropes...Or From Messiah to Hack By January

To be fair, I predicted Obama would be viewed as a hack within a 100 days once. So, maybe, I am not the best person to predict this. That said, in front of our eyes, President Obama's entire agenda is nearing disintegration. A couple days back, negotiations between top Democrats broke down over cap and trade. The situation was characterized as going back to the drawing board.

Cap and trade always had a dubious chance of passing. It's not something that just about any Republican would ever support. It would also not enjoy support of any legislator in any state or district that relied on any form of energy that would be adversely affected by its imposition. As such coal states, agriculture states, and any state that relies on oil, would be furtive ground for opposition to the legislation. So far, it passed through the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House.

The legislation has stalled because Collin Peterson, head of the Agriculture Committee, has demanded input and threatened to withhold votes without it. So far, those negotiations have stalled. Those negotiations are a microcosm of a much bigger problem for the legislation. Because energy affects everyone, everyone wants input. By the time every one gets their input in, you either have a bill no one will support or one that does nothing. That's what is happening now to cap and trade. To pass serious energy reform, you need a good piece of legislation. That way no matter the push back from special interests, the public pressure will override. That simply isn't cap and trade. This is a hokey idea that replaces market forces with government imposition. As such, public support will never be enough to overcome special interest push back.

As for health care, what the media once characterized as a near done deal is now being characterized as in big trouble. Health care reform faces an even bigger problem. It's a total lemon. The problem isn't that they can't figure out how to pay for it. The problem is that the bill is being sold as reducing costs and yet it costs at least a trillion dollars and more over the next ten years. Just the other day the White House was touting an agreement by the drug companies to reduce costs by $80 billion over the next ten years. Therein lies the problem. If you are going to pay for health care reform $80 billion at a time, you aren't going to get there. There's only two ways to pay for this, major cuts in services or major increases in taxes. That those are the two big problems is the inherent proof that this is a lemon.

Then, there's Obama's regulatory reform. It only took a day for this to get attacked by both sides. Robert Menendez joined several Republicans in questioning the wisdom of putting more power into the hands of the Federal Reserve. This legislation would give the Federal Reserve the role of being a super regulator on any company judged too big to fail. Given that the Fed already controls the world's money supply, this is a perfectly reasonable concern (that the fed would have too much power that is). His Consumer Financial Protection Agency has been met with resistence from the banking industry.

Taking a populist tone in his Saturday address, President Barack Obama framed the debate over his proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency as a showdown between special interests and average Americans.

“And while I’m not spoiling for a fight, I’m ready for one,” Obama said in the radio and Internet speech.

His proposal this week to create an agency that protects consumers from risky financial products has become the chief target of the banking industry, which stands to lose profits and fears it would create conflicting regulations.

President Obama is shrewd in turning this into special interests versus the public, though it's unlikely to work. He tried a similar tactic when he orchestrated the bankruptcy of Chrysler and the public still turned against it.

The problem here is different though. Here, most of the average voters simply don't understand the nuance in any of this legislation. No one really understands, or unfortunately, cares about what the Fed does. As such, they don't really think about whether the fed has too much power. The same is true of regulatory reform. President Obama can claim that this will protect the public but the public doesn't really know or care.

Yet, those affected by the legislation really do care. The banking industry has very powerful lobbying interests. They have a very big horse in the race. The rest of the public doesn't. So, you can expect them to put serious pressure on whereas the other side won't be represented with the same vigor.

The president faces a much simpler problem. He's trying to jam all of this through by the end of the year. On one level, it all makes sense. He's very powerful. He feels he has a mandate for radical change. He needs to strike while the iron, his immense popularity, is hot. Then, he and the Democrats can spend all of 2010 touting all the reform they passed. On the other hand, this is the naive beliefs of an inexperienced president. There's no way that anyone of these three pieces would pass in one year. Now, he wants all three to pass all at once. The Congress simply doesn't work that way, and frankly, nor should it. The mere White Paper for financial reform is nearly 80 pages. The bill will likely be over a thousand pages. Does this sound like something that should be rammed through Congress?

So, in fact, we are on the brink of witnessing the disintegration of the whole entire domestic agenda of the president. He's dropped the mother load of reform on Congress and most likely, he's going to walk away with nothing. By next year, instead of touting health care, energy, and financial reform, he'll tout a massive budget deficit, continued recession, and whatever it is he'll have done with GITMO. At that point, it will be safe to call him a hack.

Obama's GITMO Disaster: From Theory to Reality

Earlier in the week, I applauded the president's move in transferring some of the Uighers to Palau. I referred to the move as "shrewd". Well, it might appear that I was patting the president on the back a little bit too early. It appears that the transfer is being met overwhelmingly negatively in the country.

Palau President Johnson Toribiong explained his decision to grant the Uighurs entry as traditional hospitality, but public opinion has appeared overwhelmingly negative. Some complained Friday that the government failed to consult the people.

“I totally disagree” with allowing the Uighurs onto Palau, Natalia Baulis, a 30-year-old mother of two, told The Associated Press by telephone.

“It’s good to be humanitarian and all, but still these people … to me are scary,” she said. …

The newspaper quoted islander Debedebk Mongami as saying, “I’m also afraid this news is going to scare the tourists who plan to come to Palau.”

Meanwhile in Bermuda, where four other Uighers were transferred, that transfer will likely cause its leader their job.

The United Bermuda Party today moved for a motion of no confidence against the Government led by Premier Ewart Brown.

Opposition leader Kim Swan proposed the motion in the House of Assembly this morning.He said it was necessary as the Island is “increasingly subject to the politics of one man rule”.

Said Mr. Swan: “Why have we moved a motion of no confidence? The public affairs of Bermuda are increasingly subject to the politics of one man rule under the Premier, Dr. Ewart Brown. We consider this unhealthy and not in Bermuda’s best interest.

So, the transfer of the seventeen most mild prisoners at GITMO has turned into two separate international incidents. One government is about to fall, and I wouldn't put the reelection prospects of the leader of Palau as too great.

As a result of the blow up of these two transfers, we can all safely say that no more prisoners will be released anywhere unless they are incarcerated. So, if the president is going to move them anywhere, it will have to have a prison waiting for them.

This should put some context on the ludicrous assertion that some of the folks there are innocent and victims. It appears that characterization is only made as long as they don't wind up in anyone's backyard.

Worse yet for the Obama administration is that the detainees I have been talking about are the mild ones of the overall population of GITMO. If two international incidents are caused by the Uighers, how many incidents will be caused once we get to the really bad guys.