Three-Card Barry

So the Obama administration is going to close Guantanamo Bay...and move detainees inside the U.S., to a maximum-security converted prison in Illinois? And the justification appears to be that it will

"[help] our troops by removing a deadly recruiting tool from the hands of al-Qaeda..."

First of all, that's like saying you switched from a red Hummer to a blue one to cut down on carbon emissions. The animosity of al-Qaeda isn't tied to the place, Numbnuts. It's not like the jihadists are sitting around, saying "Damn that balmy weather in Gitmo! If only we could force the Americans to move our brothers to a place where the winter winds will chill them to the bone!" Their hatred goes much deeper, and playing a glorified shell game with the detainees is not going to change that. All Obama, et. al have done is surround them with civilians. It's a good thing terrorists don't ever try to maximize collateral damage by attacking civil...oh, wait. That's right...THAT'S ALL THEY DO!!! All the talk about "maximum security" is bullshit. No one is afraid of them escaping. What we should be afraid of is that a giant bullseye has just been painted on an entire community.

And let's not pretend that this is anything other than political posturing, anyway. This just allows President Obama to claim he fulfilled at least one of his promises: that of closing Gitmo. When, in fact, he's done nothing but make the situation many times worse.

UPDATE: Ugh! Just saw a reporter, when talking about the detainees, use the phrase "looking for a new home." What the fuck are they? Orphans? Puppies?

New Summer Fashion: Pants On Fire

So...Nancy Pelosi first said that she didn't know nothin' bout no waterboarding:

When Pelosi first addressed the question in late April, she said only that those present at her 2002 briefing were not told that the practice had been employed.

"We were not — I repeat, were not — told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," she said at the time.

Then, when the records and recollections of others seemed to contradict her, she "clarified" her statement:

Later, her spokesman elaborated, saying Pelosi had been told the methods were legal but that they had not yet been used.

Now, it's that mean 'ol CIA that is at fault:

On Thursday, Pelosi accused the CIA of having lied during that session by explicitly telling her that waterboarding was not used.

So you see...it's not her fault. Apparently, either the CIA lied by omission ("We were not told..."), or by comission ("explicitly telling her...")

And yet...

But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.

"No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job — the Congress part," Pelosi said.

So...if she didn't know anything about waterboarding, then why would she be trying to "change the policy"? After all, doesn't one have to know about a policy in order for one to set about changing it? If she is telling the truth about the CIA explicitly telling her waterboarding was not used, then just what policy was she trying to change?

I Guess It Depends On What Your Meaning Of The Word "Is" Is...

A politician named Clinton playing semantic games--now there's something you don't see every eight years.

Here's the headline for Hillary's speech to Iraq:

Clinton to Iraqis: US not going to abandon you

Unless by "abandon" you mean "take all of our soldiers and weapons and protection out of your country." In that case, yes, we are going to abandon you.

And let's not overlook this gem:

"We are very committed, but the nature of our commitment may look somewhat different because we are going to be withdrawing our combat troops over the next couple of years," Clinton said.

I'd love to see someone try that one in other aspects of life...

"Honey, I'm totally committed to you and the kids, but I'm taking my stuff and leaving and you won't see me again."

"Boss, I am completely committed to this job, but the nature of that commitment is going to look somewhat different because I'm clearing out my desk and not coming back."

And one last whopper:

On her first trip to Iraq as America's top diplomat, Clinton said the country has made great strides despite a recent surge in violence. High-profile attacks this past week primarily targeted Shiite worshippers. More than 150 people, many of them Iranian pilgrims, have died.

Ahead of her arrival, Clinton said the attacks are a sign that extremists are afraid the Iraqi government is succeeding.

"I think that these suicide bombings ... are unfortunately, in a tragic way, a signal that the rejectionists fear that Iraq is going in the right direction," Clinton told reporters aboard her plane.

Note that its a recent surge in violence. Maybe, just maybe, rather than being a sign the Iraqi government is succeeding, it's a sign that those responsible are ramping up in anticipation of our leaving. You know, that maybe they're invigorated by the thought of the U.S. going home.

At Least He's Getting Older

So the question arises: just how old is the Somali pirate? Here's an idea--cut the bastard in half and count the rings. Fifteen, sixteen, twenty-five...here's what's important--he was old enough to hold an AK-47 to a man's head and stood ready to pull the trigger. That's how old he is.

Apparently he cried in court. I wonder how much he would have cried had he succeeded in his plans and made off with the ransom? I wonder if he would have been even slightly nagged by a guilty conscience had his hostage...sorry, his victim, been killed?

I have no sympathy. None.

Just Frightening...

I know the Ayers-Obama connection has been done to death. I'm not going to try to top what's already out there, but I will link to this post from Deroy Murdock that puts a lot of information about Ayers (and his Obama connection) together in one place. I have to admit--I already thought that Ayers was a dangerous individual, but after reading this, I realize that I had no idea just how dangerous. You really have to read this.

Here's a sample about Ayers:

In 1970, Ayers encapsulated the Weathermen’s worldview: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”

And another about his wife and fellow Weatherman (Weatherperson?) Bernardine Dohrn:

She later said this about the Charles Manson family’s August 9, 1969, murders of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and her friends in her Beverly Hills home: “Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!”

I think Murdock also brings up an important point--while everyone is focusing on how Obabma could accept support from Ayers and Dohrn, we ought to also be asking just what it was about Obama that made Ayers and Dohrn decide he was the candidate they wanted to launch. What was it they saw in him?

UPDATE: You might want to read the reprinted article that originally carried the quotes above.