Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.

But six in 10 people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday say that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks should be tried in the United States, as the administration plans to do, rather than at a U.S. facility in another country.

The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court. Six in 10 people questioned say Mohammed should be tried stateside, with 37 percent calling for the trial to take place at a U.S. facility in another country.

“The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular – even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S.”

Not sure what Holland’s point is here. Of course he would get a fair trial, but the majority of respondents, in a CNN poll for gods sake, understand that giving this scumbag a civilian trial is ludicrous:

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

~~~

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the “blind Sheikh”), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

It’s crazy. Simply crazy.

Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the “crime scene” under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby “witnesses”? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.

And the other poll is about ObamaCare. Notice how the AP tries to hide some inconvenient numbers with a article entitled “AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill”

…what the Associated Press does not even mention in their story is probably the most relevant part:

In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reform plans being discussed in Congress? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE Is that strongly support/oppose or somewhat support/oppose?

To no surprise that’s opposed by 43-41%. Eleven percent neither support or oppose and 4% “don’t know.”

Also conveniently left out of their story is the response to whether people should be penalized if they do not buy the government-run health care: Sixty-four percent oppose. Why do you suppose that was left out?

Also left out was of the respondents, 37% are unemployed or retired. No wonder they want someone to pick up the tab.

Forty-two percent think they economy will get worse if this scam is shoved down our throats, while 28% think it will improve. Again, this is left out of the story.

Also, over the past five years, 86% of respondents said the care they received from physician or hospital was excellent or good, only 2% said it was poor. This was left out of the AP story. So why do we have to blow up the entire system?

That’s a couple different polls on the two hot button issues of the day which Obama and company should take heed….but won’t. Now granted, the opinions of a thousand people cannot tell us accurately the sentiments of the entire country but when two liberal rags take a poll and the numbers go against the liberal position….the liberals should take notice.

Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

Is this really a good idea? Is it all about keeping a political campaign promise?

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama’s plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

“For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law,” Holder told a news conference at the Justice Department. “Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call.”

The plan that Holder outlined Friday is a major legal and political test of Obama’s overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama’s agenda.

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona called bringing Mohammed to New York “an unnecessary risk” that could result in the disclosure of classified information. Kyl maintained the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called “blind sheik” who was tried for a plot against some two-dozen New York City landmarks, caused “valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods” to be revealed to the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism.

“By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system a system respected around the world,” Leahy said.

The decision outraged family members of some Sept. 11 victims.

“We have a president who doesn’t know we’re at war,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles Burlingame, was pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon. She said she was sickened by “the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their attorneys,” if the trial winds up focusing on allegations that the suspects were tortured after their capture.

“I don’t think these people should get the benefit of being subjected to our system of jurisprudence,” said Bruce De Cell, whose son-in-law, Mark Petrocelli, was killed at the World Trade Center. “They are terrorists. I don’t think they should be tried in a civilian court.”

The New York case may force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counterterrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method _ waterboarding, or simulated drowning _ was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

Louvon Harris (L) stands with Betty Byrd Boatner (2nd R), both sisters of James Byrd, Jr., as Boatner embraces Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew Shepard during a White House ceremony following the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Shepard was murdered in Wyoming in 1988 because he was gay. Byrd, an African American man, was dragged behind a pickup truck to his death in Texas the same year.
Saul Loeb-AFP/Getty Images

Matthew Shepard’s death was a tragedy. But I think it’s a shameful political hoax to make him the poster boy for the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

President Obama signed this into law Wednesday:

This year, with enlarged majorities in Congress, Democrats attached the hate crimes law to a $681 billion defense spending bill this month over GOP objections. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the approach put “radical social policy” on the “back of our soldiers.”

The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin. Under the law, judges can impose harsher penalties on crimes that are motivated by such animus, and the Justice Department can help local police departments investigate alleged hate crimes.

I truly do not understand the redundancy of hate crime laws- especially at the federal level. Why punish the thoughts behind crimes rather than just the action of the crime itself?

But, it’s one of those things that make liberals feel good about themselves; that they are fighting the good fight. President Obama’s remarks:

Now, speaking of that, there is one more long-awaited change contained within this legislation that I’ll be talking about a little more later today. After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we’ve passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are. (Applause.)

I promised Judy Shepard, when she saw me in the Oval Office, that this day would come, and I’m glad that she and her husband Dennis could join us for this event. I’m also honored to have the family of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought so hard for this legislation. And Vicki and Patrick, Kara, everybody who’s here, I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help this day — make this day possible. So — and thank you for joining us here today. (Applause.)

So, with that, I’m going to sign this piece of legislation. Thank you all for doing a great job. All right.

I guess the Nobel Peace Laureate has now officially accomplished something this year. Still amounts to a big nothing for me, though. I mean….criminalizing what’s already been criminalized? C’mon….get real.

Incidentally, also attached to the bill was a revival of military trials for Guantanamo detainees, expanding their legal rights, but not to the extent that the ACLU would have liked.

Was the theme to “Sesame Street” really played to torture prisoners held at Guantanamo and other detention camps? What about Don McLean’s “American Pie”? Or the Meow Mix jingle? Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.”?

A high-profile coalition of artists — including the members of Pearl Jam, R.E.M. and the Roots — demanded Thursday that the government release the names of all the songs that were blasted since 2002 at prisoners for hours, even days, on end, to try to coerce cooperation or as a method of punishment.

Dozens of musicians endorsed a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the National Security Archive, a Washington-based independent research institute, seeking the declassification of all records related to the use of music in interrogation practices. The artists also launched a formal protest of the use of music in conjunction with torture.

“I think every musician should be involved,” said Rosanne Cash in a telephone interview Wednesday. “It seems so obvious. Music should never be used as torture.” The singer-songwriter (and daughter of Johnny Cash) said she reacted with “absolute disgust” when she heard of the practice. “It’s beyond the pale. It’s hard to even think about.”

Other musicians, including Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails and Tom Morello, formerly of the band Rage Against the Machine, also expressed outrage.

“The fact that music I helped create was used in crimes against humanity sickens me,” Morello said in a statement. “We need to end torture and close Guantanamo now.”

I agree Morello’s music is sickening. But do these moralizers understand what real torture is? And that Guantanamo today is the world’s most humane detention facility, thanks in no small part to their efforts in making it the most heavily scrutinized?

Admittedly, in its early days, Guantanamo had its share of problems. But that doesn’t hold true, today; nor has it been the case for quite some time, thanks to media sensationalism and world opinion outrage that did shed some light on some problems; and put the facility under a microscope.

Cusick, the NYU music professor, has interviewed a number of former detainees about their experiences and says the music they most often described hearing was heavy metal, rap and country. Specific songs mentioned include Queen’s “We Are the Champions” and “March of the Pigs” by industrial rockers Nine Inch Nails.

Another former prisoner, Binyam Mohamed, told Human Rights Watch that he had been forced to listen to the rapper Eminem’s song “The Real Slim Shady” for 20 days.

Joining in the call for the release of information were dozens of musicians, including David Byrne, Billy Bragg, Steve Earle, Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt and T-Bone Burnett.

For now, the artists are trying to find out what songs were played. They say they will explore legal options once the songs are known. It is unclear what, if any, recourse they may have.

Copyright infringement?

U.S. President Barack Obama while signing executive orders about the closing of the military prison at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo, Cuba, in the Oval Office on second official day at White House in Washington, January 22, 2009.
REUTERS/Larry Downing

The White House is only now admitting to this?

With little hope for meeting President Obama’s deadline for closing the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, a new message is emerging from the administration: Disregard our timetable.

“We’re not focused on whether or not the deadline will or won’t be met on a particular day,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Maybe they shouldn’t have had the big photo-op EO signing, then.

Benchmarks…timetables…..broken campaign promises from the Pied Piper of Hope and Change….oh well.

Shutting the prison at Guantanamo Bay was a key Obama campaign promise.

“He’ll catch it from the liberal Left but not from anyone else,” said Susan MacManus, a political scientist at the University of South Florida. “I don’t think it hurts him too much, because the public wants to keep that prison open.”

Oh, he may be catching it from the looney left; but the right’s not going to let him off the hook either on this, just because he couldn’t check Guantanamo off from his agenda wish list. After all, his heart is still in the wrong place on this.

Another unresolved issue is how and where to prosecute those ready for trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union wants them tried in U.S. federal courts, and not in tribunals, which have different rules for testimony, evidence and appeals.

“With the closure of Guantanamo must also come the end of the policies that the prison has come to represent, such as indefinite detention without charge or trial,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “It would be unacceptable to close Guantanamo only to institute the same policies elsewhere.”

Guantanamo remains the least bad option.

Meanwhile, a Michigan town is lobbying to give Gitmo detainees a home; while the ones who are “the worst of the worst” return to the battlefield; and on occasion, return to a home of a more permanent nature.

Today, as reported by WaPo staffers, Anne E. Kornblut and Dafna Linzer, Obama’s WH is not only quietly backpeddling on his false “hopes”, but has already arranged for Craig’s payment for his scapegoat services – dangling a possible seat on the bench or a diplomatic position.

The POTUS, ever conscious of never wanting to be the focus of blame for failure, tapped Pete Rouse back in May as Craig’s replacement, and pulled in message strategist, Axlerod and deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer to craft the new talking points when the manure of broken promises hit the proverbial fan.

With four months left to meet its self-imposed deadline for closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Obama administration is working to recover from missteps that have put officials behind schedule and left them struggling to win the cooperation of Congress.

Even before the inauguration, President Obama’s top advisers settled on a course of action they were counseled against: announcing that they would close the facility within one year. Today, officials are acknowledging that they will be hard-pressed to meet that goal.

The White House has faltered in part because of the legal, political and diplomatic complexities involved in determining what to do with more than 200 terrorism suspects at the prison. But senior advisers privately acknowledge not devising a concrete plan for where to move the detainees and mishandling Congress.

To address these setbacks, the administration has shifted its leadership team on the issue. White House Counsel Gregory B. Craig, who initially guided the effort to close the prison and who was an advocate of setting the deadline, is no longer in charge of the project, two senior administration officials said this week.

Craig said Thursday that some of his early assumptions were based on miscalculations, in part because Bush administration officials and senior Republicans in Congress had spoken publicly about closing the facility. “I thought there was, in fact, and I may have been wrong, a broad consensus about the importance to our national security objectives to close Guantanamo and how keeping Guantanamo open actually did damage to our national security objectives,” he said.

In May, one of the senior officials said, Obama tapped Pete Rouse — a top adviser and former congressional aide who is not an expert on national security but is often called in to fix significant problems — to oversee the process. Senior adviser David Axelrod and deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer were brought in to craft a more effective message around detainee policy, the official said.

“It was never going to be easy, but we have worked through some of the early challenges and are on a strong course,” Pfeiffer said.

Obama’s failure cannot be cast upon the opposing party, powerless to do much damage in a supermajority Congress. In a double whammy of misguided delegation of duties, Craig dropped the Gitmo ball when he simply stopped showing up for briefings, and refocused his tasks on getting Sotomayor confirmed for the SCOTUS.

Although the move was approved by all of Obama’s senior advisers and, ultimately, the president himself, the deadline came at the suggestion of Craig, according to two senior government officials involved in the process. Craig declined to comment on internal discussions.

Craig oversaw the drafting of the executive order that set Jan. 22, 2010, as the date by which the prison must be closed.

“It seemed like a bold move at the time, to lay out a time frame that to us seemed sufficient to meet the goal,” one senior official said. “In retrospect, it invited a fight with the Hill and left us constantly looking at the clock.”

“The entire civil service counseled him not to set a deadline” to close Guantanamo, according to one senior government lawyer.

In those early months, Craig was unquestionably the central figure in the effort to shut Guantanamo Bay. In an interview with The Washington Post in February, he said he was managing the closure “on a day-to-day basis.”

Craig began reviewing the cases of each detainee at the facility, and was one of the first senior officials to travel to the prison, visiting on Feb. 18, ahead of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

But as time wore on, congressional staff members said, they stopped hearing from Craig. Although there were periodic briefings with members of the Justice Department’s task forces, there was no longer a point person from the White House who appeared to be shepherding the issue, according to one Republican aide. Craig became involved in other matters, such as vetting, ethics and the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

But Craig’s distraction with SCOTUS appointments was further thwarted by Obama’s own party for lack of a concrete plan for what to do with the detainees.

Additionally, the admin erroneously assumed they’d be walking into a carefully organized file system on each detainee… a pipedream at best since every attempt for military tribunals and/or trials was challenged by detainee lawyers and SCOTUS opinions for years. Any attempt at handling what the prior administration considered enemy combatants was quashed with multiple filings in sundry court systems. Forward movement was paralyzed with confusing jurisdiction, vague interpretations of Cuba as sovereign soil, and attorneys willing to muddy the waters in order to implement delay tactics.

As time dragged on, even public polls…. once providing a naive, fresh faced POTUS with accolades… turned against the Gitmo tide. The final nail in the coffin came from the President’s own party when the Dem controlled Congress in the normally embattled Senate voted 90-6 to block any further funding for closing the facilities in May…. compounding that with even more legislation to increase the bureaucratic red tape.

Republicans pounced on the closure, alleging that it would make the United States “less safe.” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Democrats would “under no circumstances” move forward without more specifics.

The following month, Congress passed an appropriations bill that required the administration to report its plans before moving any detainee out of Guantanamo Bay and prevented it from using available money to move detainees onto U.S. soil.

Six pending pieces of legislation would make it harder for Obama to close the prison and transfer detainees to the United States or foreign countries.

Craig… still flailing as a Gitmo lame duck… then tried to mend the situation by shipping off four of the detained Uighurs to Bermuda and their new restaurant. A move that enraged Britain, and caused int’l tension between China and the UK.

After the congressional setbacks, Craig orchestrated the release of four of the Uighurs, flying with them and a State Department official from Guantanamo Bay to Bermuda, a self-governing British territory whose international relations are administered by Britain.

The transfer produced a diplomatic rift. British and U.S. officials said the Obama administration gave Britain two hours’ notice that the Uighurs were being sent to Bermuda. “They essentially snuck them in, and we were furious,” said a senior British official.

The move also caused friction between Britain and China, which seeks the Uighurs for waging an insurgency against the Chinese government.

But the Obama admin is always beholding to those who willingly place their heads on the chopping block for the fearless leader. Rahm’bo is busy espousing accolades for Craig, saying he “…played a critical role in pursuing the president’s goal of ensuring that we protect our nation’s security interests in a manner that is consistent with our laws and our values.” Yet another unnamed WH minion went further… “Greg Craig is a hero. He took responsibility for this policy from the beginning, and he has guts and character. If we can’t get it done by the deadline, then at least we’ll have done as much as we can as smoothly as we could have.”

In an effort to pad failure, there’s another unlikely distraction emerging from the Gitmo ranks… Retiring Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert has now emerged to say he thought Gitmo was a mistake from the beginning.

In early 2002, then-Brig. Gen. Lehnert was commander of Joint Task Force 160, the unit given the job of quickly building prison cells at the U.S. base in Cuba for “enemy combatants” captured in Afghanistan. It was meant to be a short-lived job, and Lehnert left after 100 days.

“I came to the conclusion very soon that this probably wasn’t the right way to go,” Lehnert, 58, said during a media round table yesterday. “Probably before I left Guantanamo, I was of the opinion it needed to go away as soon as possible.”

Citing that the US needed to take the moral high road, Lehnert’s beefs were of detainee treatment and being held without trial. But it’s interesting that Lehnert made this decisions in 2002… years prior to any SCOTUS decision on habeas corpus, and before a single interrogation had taken place at the facility. A bit premature, one would think, to make an informed judgment on the wisdom of a holding tank for enemies captured in the battle zones. I, personally, would like to hear Lehnert’s opinions on Bagram… Obama’s current “Gitmo” on Afghan soil.

But there is a politically suspicious timing to Lehnert’s belated confessions. As even a defense attorney for one Canadian detainee at Guantanamo said, why now and not before?

“If he thought that at the time, why didn’t he do anything about it?” asked Colby Vokey, a former Marine defense attorney who served at Camp Pendleton before retiring last year.

Why indeed. Lehnert avers he made his opinions known… obviously very early in the game since he made his decision pre-interrogations, and pre-SCOTUS decisions, as I said… thru the proper chain of command. And why would that chain of command act to close Gitmo on this commander’s recommendation that early in the game? What has he done since that time?

But most importantly, Lehnert… not yet fully retired as of today… has decided to speak out, coincidently on the exact same day that the WaPo story hits about the WH quietly acknowledging their Gitmo failures. Wow…. how convenient is that?

Could it be that a Retiring-but-not-yet-retired Maj. Gen. is speaking out timely and early, hoping to be on a short list for an Obama appointment?

Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard’s “The Blog”, has added a few more of the admin’s desperate and vast fingerpointing to save face on it’s poor judgment call… ranging from accusations against those superminority in Congress, the Republicans, to the Republican Bush admin record keeping. A number of the same who, I would guess, are still present at the Pentagon even today.

However the yen stops at the Oval Office. There were meetings prior to the Inauguration, the status of the records and why the disarray were obvious. The difficulty of detainee trials and/or relocation was a long standing problem. None of this was stealth sabatoge on this admin. It was as plain as day long before Obama pulled a lever in a voting ballot to give himself the job of leader of the free world.

Gitmo is yet another example of a headstrong, naive community organizer who acts before he thinks, merely to elicit public adoration. As a mere Josephine Blow citizen, I find it embarrassing to see it takes a POTUS/CIC eight months to recognize what I saw as absolute folly at the very minute of the grandiose signing ceremony of the Gitmo EOs. Could our POTUS genuinely be this dense and entrenched in his own fantasyland?

Well… one consistency still remains. As his Presidential legacy “clearly” shows, it’s never his fault….

The Obama administration told a judge late Monday that it will continue to withhold information regarding past detainee policies for national security reasons, a decision assailed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been seeking Bush-era documents “including a presidential directive authorizing CIA ‘black sites,’” CIA inspector general records, Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel documents about the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

In the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York had ordered the Obama administration to either turn over various documents pertaining to detainee policies by August 31 or provide justification for withholding them.

Coming on the heels of Cheney’s FOX News Sunday interview, in which the former Vice President leveled criticism toward the current President that he is increasing America’s vulnerability to terrorism, is an interview by Jake Tapper with the president’s National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.). Jones claims that under the Obama Administration, we have been more successful in putting terrorists out of business and in improving international relations:

“This type of radical fundamentalism or terrorism is a threat not only to the United States but to the global community,” Jones said. “The world is coming together on this matter now that President Obama has taken the leadership on it and is approaching it in a slightly different way – actually a radically different way – to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies – both national and international.”

Jones said that “we are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large and the world is moving toward doing something about it.”

The former Marine General didn’t provide any specific numbers to back up his claim, but he said “there is an increasing trend and I think we seen that in different parts of the world over the last few months for sure.” He added that he was not “making a tally sheet saying we are killing more people, capturing more people than they did — that is not the issue.”

But the numbers are going up, he said. “The numbers of high value targets that we are successfully reaching out to or identifying through good intelligence” from both the CIA and intelligence agencies from US allies has made the difference, he said. “We have better human intelligence; we know where the terrorists are moving. Because of the dialogue and the tone of the dialogue between us and our friends and allies…the trend line against terrorism is positive, and that’s what we want. If we have a positive trend line we have a safer country.”

All this was going on under the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration is an inheritor of those successes, including cooperation amongst foreign nations in the GWoRIT.

Many of the tools and policies put in place in waging the Overseas Contingency Operations are Bush era creations, which President Obama has kept in place in his continuation of “Bush’s War(s)”.

Steve Schippert writes:

Someone is going to point to Pakistan to help him out here, where Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was finally introduced to the working end of a Hellfire missile.

That’s a load of garbage the instant anyone attempts to take that easy way out. The cooperation within Pakistan has got jack to do with President Obama’s suddenly deft foreign policy prowess nor his wild popularity with global media and resulting coverage – which is to be astutely distinguished from wild popularity among world leaders. Pakistan’s cooperation was being lined up mostly by the Taliban itself, which made its insurgency against the government of Pakistan so bold that the Pakistanis could push it off no longer. They simply had to deal, and have been for the better part of the year.

Predator drone attacks? Those began under President Bush and continue on under President Obama. Under Musharraf and during the Bush tenure, Pakistani authorities handed over to us, Abu Zubaydah and KSM. How have relations improved under Obama’s watch?

The GWoRIT has not been waged ONLY militarily and ONLY in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s been waged globally, with kills and captures of leaders and operatives happening all the time, in 102 different countries, in cooperation with our CIA and FBI and our military. This all happened under President Bush.

Cowboy diplomacy and “go-it-alone” unilateralism? “You’re either with us, or with the terrorists”? America’s standing harmed; we’re hated all over the world….spin and the stuff of talking point mantra myth-perceptions.

“There is no military solution.”

So sick of this strawman! When had the Bush Administration ever claimed its solution to fighting terrorism was strictly a military one? When was its approach to Iraq and Afghanistan ever strictly a military solution?!

Reaching out to the Muslim community? Not exclusively unique to President Obama.

Closing Gitmo? Really?!? Please wake me when it actually happens.

The War in Iraq? President Obama rode in on the coattails of the surge success he opposed and is merely surfing the waves of SOFA, signed under President Bush.

The War in Afghanistan? He’s acting more like Bush, than not.

NSA warrantless wiretaps much criticized under Bush continue under Obama (partial list of plots averted under Bush)….Rendition programs begun under Clinton, leaked under Bush (which did harm our relations by embarrassing allies implicated in cooperation with the Bush Administration on the GWoRIT- but that’s thanks to the NYTimes, USAToday, and WaPo. We just can’t be trusted with keeping secrets), continue under Obama….

It was on the 20th of August that Curt posted on the return of the Lockerbie convicted bomber to a hero’s welcome. As Obama was busy in the news, condemning Scotland, his admin was launching an assault on our own by releasing redacted details on our CIA’s EIT methods for AG Eric Holder to use as fodder for potential prosecution. But then, slipping under the radar of almost all but the former USS Cole Commander, was a quiet story speaking out about the return of AQ member Gitmo grad, Mohammed Jawad, to Afghanistan.

The three combined events do indeed document a “change” in tone by this administration when it comes to the “overseas operations contingencies”. But it also highlights our deteriorating relationships with, heretofore, close allies. The question now is whether that tone “change” is in the best interests of US national security.

Curt posted on the hero’s welcome (as linked above). And by the 25th, was pondering the Iran connection. Certainly it’s no surprise that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi proclaimed his innocence all along. If indeed he was a sacrificial lamb, offered up by Iran, there may be more to that angle of the story as time goes on. But al-Megrahi’s guilt or innocence is not the point of my particular examination of the Lockerbie events.

Rather, the Lockerbie bomber release is the quintessential example of our POTUS being ineffectual with our allies on a very important issue. Obama failed to persuade either UK’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, or even their Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, to appeal to the Scottish judicial system to hold a convicted terrorist.

Ken Blackwell is asking if the Obama admin actually green-lighted Meghri’s release in his op-ed appearing on the Fox News site. This becomes even more ironic when you consider that Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the ACLU ACRU … (American Civil Rights Union… excuse the original typo please)… a group that normally confines itself to American civil liberties and monitoring of judicial nominees, judges, and legal organizations – not international foreign relations.

We simply do not know of any subterfuge from this most “transparent” administration. (yes, Virginia… that was sarcasm…) What we do know is that on August 18th, Obama mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, was insisting that Obama believed he should remain to die in that Scottish jail. Joining that sentiment were the usual power houses… SOS Clinton, and more than a few Congressional Democrat powerhouse leaders. All to no avail.

Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for the US President, said: “It’s the policy of this administration that this individual should serve out his term where he’s serving it right now.”

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already called Scottish justice secretary Keny MacAskill to urge that Megrahi serve out his term in Scotland.

And seven US senators, including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, have written to MacAskill urging him to keep Megrahi, 57, behind bars.

The White House statement came hours after a court heard Megrahi may be close to death and wants to spend his last few hours with his family in Libya.

We also know that the hoopla that constituted al-Megrahi’s reception was condemned by the POTUS as “highly objectionable”. And, in an effort to make a bad situation more palatable, has insisted that Libya keep al-Megrahi under house arrest for his remaining days.

Needless to say, all Obama’s pleas, warnings, suggestions – whatever you may call his public “tut tut’s” – have fallen on deaf ears. No one… not the UK, nor Scotland, or even Libya gave Obama more than a second glance.

If, indeed, Obama did give a covert blessing to the release of al-Megrahi to either Scotland or the UK, he is taking a page from the playbook of Pakistan’s Musharraf… who constantly gave the silent nod for US bombings, while publicly condemning them to his enraged Pakistani countrymen.

Mr. Blackwell will ponder a long time as to Obama’s involvement in this event. Obama is unlikely to admit he supported it, despite his public condemnation, because he scores no humanity points with common citizens all over the world.

Then again … if genuine in his outrage… Obama now finds himself completely impotent of influence over what was a very strong US-UK relationship during the prior administrations of both countries. I can’t believe Obama’s poor choice of diplomatic gifts, cool snubbing, or the return of the Churchhill bust played into this complete disconnect between leaders of two of the strongest western civilization on an issue of this magnitude.

But I do know that while Obama publicly “condemns”, PM Gordon Brown and David Miliband remain strangely quiet. Both refuse to express any opinions on Scotland’s controversial decision, other than to say they (like Obama) deplored the Libyan hero’s welcome.

The Foreign Sec’y and PM are, of course, not granted any particular authority over the Scottish judicial system. England and Wales have one judicial system, the Scots another, and the Northern Irish a third. There is an exception. But that common law also happens to lie in common immigration and asylum laws, as well as special tribunals.

There is also the swirling stories in the UK press of Britain’s denial of rumours they struck a deal with Moammar Gadhafi, combined with the Scottish government’s refusal to provide details of the doctor’s expertise and qualifications on al-Megrahi’s medical condition, as demanded by UK’s Labour and Conservative pols.

All in all, this “compassionate” decision by the Scottish courts, the rumours of back room deals, sketchy medical details by potentially unqualified physicians, and the bigwigs’ silence sniffs of suspicion. If the Sec’y, the PM and Parliament wielded (or refused to wield) no political influence over Scotland, we can also say they demonstrated no interest to pursue common judicial systems that may possibly been used to keep al-Megrahi in jail either.

Either way, Obama has been left in the cold – alone in his insistence that al-Megrahi remain imprisoned. This leaves him standing alone on the foreign stage, unacknowledged by our western allies, and his opinions considered virtually irrelevant.

It’s entirely possible that the UK refused to hear Obama’s opinions on al-Megrahi’s release since his hypocrisy is simply overwhelming. Case in point…. on Monday, August 21st, Gitmo detainee, Mohammed Jawad, was returned to Kabul, Afghanistan… warmly welcomed by friends and families.

Out of the 229 Gitmo detainees, 26 have been released and returned to various locations, while five have remained – their detention upheld by federal judges.

Jawad was charged with the attempted murder of two US soldiers by a grenade. He confessed, but both a civilian and military judge decided the confession was coerced, and thereby could not be admissible as evidence.

According to the Summary of Evidence from the Defense Department**, six men recruited Jawad to clear Russian mines in Kabul, Afghanistan. “The detainee was affiliated with the Hazb-E-Islami organization,” the Pentagon report says. “The Hazb-E-Islami organization is a terrorist organization with long-established ties to [Osama] Bin Laden.”

[**Mata Musing: The linked summary contains profiles of 70+ detainees... Mohammed Jawad is on pg 52]

The Pentagon Summary of Evidence states that “The detainee attended training camp in late 2002 and received instruction on the AK-47, shoulder held rocket launchers, and grenades.”

It continues, “The detainee admits to telling terrorist organization associates that he would kill Northern Alliance and American forces,” and “The detainee was captured approximately 17 December 2002 in Kabul, Afghanistan while fleeing from the scene of a grenade attack targeting American soldiers.”

According to the Summary of Evidence, linked above in the blockquotes, Jawad is originally from Pakistan, and recruited while attending a local mosque. He attended a Jihad Madrassas, as well as a training camp in late 2002. How coincidental he was trained in rocket launchers and grenades, and also found fleeing the site of an attack of that nature.

Aside from the admissible status of his “confession” – supposedly coerced by some bizarre standards of what constitutes “torture” – this is clearly a man who’s history of associations on record dictate he should not be back on the streets of Kabul to take another aim at US or NATO soldiers. Nor should he be set free to resume his relationship with his Taliban Muslim comrades.

But there he is… released by US District Court Judge, Ellen Segal Huvelle, much to the pleasure of ACLU staff attorney Jonathon Hafetz. Why? Because “more evidence” was not presented within the designated time frame.

What is most interesting is just why the military and civilian judges decided that Jawad’s treatment was labeled “torture”. Most certainly, he was not one of those named as being waterboarded. Nor is his treatment outlined in the released Summary of Evidence. Was he the “victim” of cigar smoke? Diapers? Well, we just may find out.

What I predicted some time ago is happening today. Jawad – captured outside US soil, and never setting foot in the US – now having enjoyed jurisdiction by the US court system, is busy planning a lawsuit, alleging US soldiers made insults towards Islam and behaved in an “inhumane way.” One can only imagine where his proceeds may go… The US government, in their folly, may now unwittingly find themselves as direct Taliban terrorist sponsors.

It’s no surprise that, during the health care townhalls, Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard vacation, and the Lockerbie bomber’s release, this news should slip thru the cracks of a tunnel-visioned media’s coverage. In fact, the only voice raised in indignation came from former USS Cole Commander Kirk S. Lippold.

Though a federal court ordered the release, Lippold blames the Obama administration for not appealing the district court ruling. He argued politics were involved.

“If you want to close Guantanamo Bay and release as many people as possible, why would you want to present more evidence?” he said.

The bigger problem, he said, is the prevailing wisdom of combating terrorism under law enforcement rules.

“A federal judge views the world through the mind of what evidence standards are for a U.S. court of law,” Lippold said. “If we are going to impose that standard of evidence on our U.S. soldiers when they capture someone, we have lost the war.

“You can’t expect a private out there, just finishing a firefight, to lay down his weapon and pick up an evidence bag and ensure whatever evidence he gathered that the al Qaeda guy that just tried to capture or just tried to kill him is al Qaeda. To have that standard of evidence in order to detain battlefield terrorists is setting us up for failure.”

This is, in fact, the heart of Obama’s “non-policy” on Gitmo. He can quietly send home all but the most notorious that he cannot hide from the press, under the cover of more strict criminal court evidentiary criteria. Then simply blame the previous administration for holding “innocent men”. But are they so innocent?

This style of evasive governance by a POTUS has it’s repercussions. Obama’s credibility is eroded. He appears the foolish stooge on the world stage… morally insisting Scotland hold the Lockerbie bomber… when he allows the release of those known to have worked for, and been trained by the Taliban, and captured on the battlefield. If the standard is that there must substantial proof that Jawad, trained in RPGs, actually propelled the grenades himself, then even Lockerbie’s al-Megrahi’s evidence could be questioned… which was his six degrees of separation from a MST-13 timer.

All of which begs the question, just what will it take to convict an obvious enemy combatant using the US judicial system evidentiary criteria? And what demands does this make of our troops in the battlefield?

But Cmdr. Lippold has made an even more serious point… why would Obama – bent on keeping his promise to close Gitmo – make much of an effort to detain and prosecute detainees when it’s easier to just throw it all out, and send them back to the battlefield? Which brings me to my last event showing Obama’s foreign policy/jihad impotence…

It’s an odd (or not…) coincidence that the release of the CIA interrogation techniques to the public, plus the Obama admin announcement that the WH would be assuming top dog position on future interrogations with “interrogation czars”, occurred almost simultaneously to Jawad’s return to Afghanistan. The power shift in interrogations away from the CIA and to the WH was a coindence that did not go unnoticed by the former USS Cole commander.

After many Democrats and some Republican lawmakers called the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation techniques such as playing loud music and waterboarding “torture,” President Barack Obama reassigned interrogation responsibilities from the CIA to the National Security Council – which is run out of the White House, the Washington Post first reported.

“They are taking a page right out of the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam playbook, where it’s ‘let’s run things right out of the White House on a day-to-day basis, because we trust no one else in the government to be competent enough, talented enough or dedicated enough to be able to run a major war time effort,” former USS Cole Commander Kirk S. Lippold told CNSNews.com….

~~~

The release of Mohammed Jawad and his return to Afghanistan is the latest of dangerous decision by the Obama administration, argued Lippold, a senior military fellow at Military Families United, an advocacy group for military families. Obama has pledged to shut down the controversial prison by January 2010.

“Now we are in the awkward position of judges, lawyers and everyone else thinking they now have a piece of this legal pie with respect to detainees, when in fact the administration has no policy in place; they have no plan for how to deal with the detainees in Gunatanomo Bay,” Lippold said.

Some will say the Helgerson Report (see below docTOC) is another Obama/Axelrod “distraction” meant to pull the media focus away from the heat of the health care debate. I’m not convinced of that “too easy”, or obvious explanation. Granted, it does give the media the opportunity to spread the focus.

However this refusal of the Obama admin to continue to appeal the ACLU’s insistence to expose detailed interrogation techniques has too many down sides for Obama. It becomes yet another Obama “broken promise” – to not to look back, but ahead. It was a President-elect Obama who commented during his vast run of Sunday talking head shows.

While strongly condemning the practices during his campaign, Obama has publicly signaled a reluctance to launch a formal inquiry that could, in the view of some advisers, undermine the agency’s effectiveness at a time when it is helping wage two foreign wars. In a televised interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Obama said his “orientation’s going to be to move forward.”

“When it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past,” he said.

Another drawback to this “distraction” is it adds yet another pothole to the already rocky road Obama has traveled in his first months with the CIA. First with his baffling pick of a bureacratic political figure, Leon Panetta. Then further acerbated by his decision to release the OLC memos in spring. Taking the CIA morale and mistrust to a new low, Obama had promised *not* to prosecute CIA interrogators.

So much for promises.

Now we have to compound that broken promise of “no prosecution” with Obama’s seizure of CIA authority, and creation of his interrogation czars – aka the HIG, or the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group – based within the FBI offices. Word is that the bureaucratic paperpusher, Panetta, is stepping up to the plate big time for the CIA, and going toe to toe with the admin. Rumours abound that he’s threatened to quit, and the WH has another, no doubt more pliable guppy, lined up for the gig. Time will tell.

But none of this can bode well for a POTUS at odds with our intel agency. First Obama’s sold us all some bridges to get elected, and now he’s making sure he burns them – agency by agency.

We can certainly attempt to give the Obama admin the benefit of the doubt and say that they insist on interrogation oversight and control in order to prevent the release of those like Jawad. But sans any “crime scene” evidence (which would require soldiers on the battlefield acting as law enforcement crime investigators in addition to warriors), we still run into the same end game realities. Sans a “smoking gun”, any interrogator – whether CIA or Obama appointee – must deal with the realities of the level of evidence required by the federal courts.

This leaves us only to question the motivation and dedication of the interrogators themselves. Instead of CIA operatives, who’s devotion to country and the desire to keep this nation safe is well known, we’ll now have a group of hired Obama guns who may think more about their job security and their boss’s image than results. So I wouldn’t expect much effort extended beyond plying detainees with Mickey D happy meals to gain intel.

When you examine Obama’s deliberate slap at the CIA, the threat of prosecutions, the seizure of power… combined with a steady stream of Gitmo detainees quietly being put on jets out of the country with lawyers’ business cards tucked in their pockets … Obama is castrating our ability to wage war on “overseas operations contingencies” by gutting our intel, the morale of our operatives, and making sure the WH is constantly looking over the agency’s shoulder.

It’s small wonder that Ghadafi merely shrugged off any Obama criticism or warnings that a hero’s welcome for al-Megrahi was inappropriate. Even the Libyan leader can see there’s a paper tiger at the helm, with little desire to wage war on the global Islamic jihad movements.

Instead, our enemies know they will not be pressured if caught. In fact, a clever terrorist will exploit Obama’s system by getting nabbed merely to get processed thru the US court system, then filing for a cash settlement to add to their jihad coffers.

Our western allies don’t bat an eye at the POTUS utterings. And our CIA, no longer in charge of one of their prime directives – obtaining intelligence from detainees – are instead waiting for the doorbell to ring by the court summons servers.

All these actions send a very clear message to our western allies, as well as to our enemies. To return to a pre-911 mentality would be an improvement over this impotence our Commander in Chief demonstrates to the world today.

Sadly the last reason the WaPo gives is the one that is most likely to fall on the deaf ears of “open-minded” leftist liberal elites who are still shaking w 8yrs of Bush-hate.

Sixth, President Obama has decisively changed the policies that caused so much damage. He recognizes that it is vital to our security to have an effective intelligence community that is not distracted by looking backward and coping with congressional investigations and grand jury subpoenas.

Gimme a break. This is like expecting Obama supporters to really give up “the divisive politics of old”…oh wait, sorry…it’s Obama’s Admin doing that now isn’t it. Guess The Leader’s own Admin can’t follow his calls for unity any better than his faux followers can.

One has to wonder though, “what’s next?” Perhaps the DOJ will investigate the Bush Admin’s possible violations of FISA laws? Yeah, I know Obama’s doing it to, but….why not?

A few weeks later, when the distraction had faded and poll numbers were sagging again, the Obama Admin tried to suggest that “torture” had been going on without the informed consent of Congress. The problem there was that Congress HAD been informed, and CIA Director Leon Panetta was compelled to release documents showing that Congress had been informed. This put the Speaker of the House in an awkward position, and she handled it poorly.

She tried the torture-distraction-tactic as well by claiming that there were other CIA programs that were illegal, that she had no knowledge of, and that were criminal. Again, CIA Director Panetta was forced to reveal that no, the programs she referred to were not illegal. He tried to claim that it was just a miscommunication and misunderstanding on the Speaker’s part, but she had lost face, argued she understood perfectly, and Panetta had to fall on his sword by claiming he’d screwed up and falsely reported the existence of these illegal programs.

Well, it’s that time of year again. The President and the Democrats’ Congress have sagging approval ratings, SO!!!!!!! Let’s talk torture! Obama’s Department of Justice has re-reviewed some of the already investigated allegations of torture, and decided to re-open some of the cases that had been closed. Will the torture-distraction-tactic work again? Probably not.

There are multiple problems with investigating closed cases from a previous Administration, but the core problem is that there is no statute of limitations on how far back such allegations can be re-opened and re-investigated. Using the exact same argument that’s being used to re-open these allegations of “torture,” the DOJ may be required to pursue standing orders, techniques, and policies that pre-date the Bush Administration. Moreover, if they are re-opening past allegations of “torture”, then when the same or similar tactics and techniques are used today by the Obama Administration, then the DOJ is even more compelled than usual to investigate the Obama Administration OR face a Special Prosecutor. The latter is not likely if Democrats hold control of Congress, but that’s not likely either. If Republicans take even one House of Congress in 14 months, then they very well could have a case for impeachment on their hands-impeachment of President Obama on charges that he authorized the same or similar “torture” and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to other countries FOR torture as did his predecessors Bush and Clinton.

More specifically, if the Obama DOJ investigates the Bush Admin for conducting extraordinary renditions (sending prisoners to other countries so the other country can torture them on our behalf), then the Obama Admin will have to explain why IT TOO is even now conducting extraordinary renditions. It will have to explain why the CIA Director, Leon Panetta, claims to have personally arranged renditions himself when he was President Clinton’s Chief of Staff. President Clinton’s Counterterrorism Czar, Richard Clarke, will have to testify to the extraordinary renditions he admits he personally authorized.

Many on the left will find vigor and woohoo in the idea of possibly prosecuting anyone who had anything to do with the Bush Administration. This is ALWAYS an effective way for Team Obama and the Democrats’ Congresss to refire their base.
Good luck with that this time though. While falling poll numbers are partially the result of an increasingly apathetic and frustrated base, the real problem is the independent-minded swing voter who was promised good things in 2006, and again in 2008, and has yet to see any of the big promises fulfilled.

Besides, Bush and Cheney are surely protected, and just going after them or anyone in their administration open’s a Pandora’s Box of problems for Obama and the Democrats. It’s not like some Republican Congressman from Podunk, USA isn’t going to go on TV and immediately ask pundits, “Why just go after people who did this in the Bush Administration? Why not go after those in the Clinton and Obama Administrations who are doing it even today?”

This problem is made worse by the very real possibility that Republicans will take one or both Houses of Congress next year, and they will steer the investigations towards THEIR political ends rather than towards Obama’s.

Democrats’ face:
Losing Congress for the same reasons they took Congress in 2006
If they lose Congress, Obama becomes a lame duck and goodbye CHANGE

Say it with me,

President Biden, please raise your right and and repeat after me.
Do you solemnly swear…..

UPDATE:
Recall earlier that I said the DOJ would have to appoint a special prosecutor. They’re doing it. Now, if Repubs re-take at least one House of Congress, and this Special Prosecutor hasn’t made a case there can be almost NO DOUBT that Republicans will demand/force the investigation to re-examine Clinton and Obama records on rendition and torture (read the link, and see that some Repubs are already pointing the fingers at Dems as well).

This is a political doomsday bomb in the making if not quelled soon. Obama has GOT to stop letting Rahm Emanuel play politics w national security. It only re-ignites the DNC base for a few days, and each time this little game has been played by the Obama Admin, the Dems have been seriously wounded by the consequences.

President Obama on Monday extended by six months a task force charged with determining how terrorism suspects should be interrogated, held in custody or handed over to other countries, putting in jeopardy his promise to close the military detention facility at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by January.

The move came on the same day the president pushed back the release of a congressionally mandated report on the nation’s economic conditions, and the White House began to extend a self-imposed deadline for overhauling the nation’s health care system.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department’s chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past.

Johnson said such prisoners held without trial would receive “some form of periodic review” that could lead to their release.

As Dick Cheney said, Gitmo exists for a reason. That reason being the security of our country and the security of armed forces. The worst of the worst are housed there, and as Cheney stated in the above linked video, 12% of those released after careful review are back in the fight. Just look at the leader of the Taliban currently fighting our Marines….a Gitmo prisoner released in 2007:

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.

But now Obama and friends are in charge and their baseless attacks against Bush look foolish, and even worse…appear to have been done to gain power. Bush is evil, Bush is evil, Bush is evil……but now that Obama is the one doing it there is wisdom in the policies.

Hypocrites one and all.