I should add that Sen Reid is up for a tough reelection fight. Don't expect him to offer Nevada as a likely destination for anyone in GITMO.
There are 33 Senators up for re-election, too! So we can safely erase 33 states from the first list of "likely destinations".
VP Cheney pounded Pres BO very hard.
Finally, and I mean finally, some has forced Pres BO to explain details rather than engage in "hope and change" rhetoric.
It is refreshing to hear an honest debate about how successful the Bush-Cheney administration was about protecting the homeland after 9-11.
We have said it before and say it again: Everybody was scared after 9-11 and fully expected the homeland to be hit again.
Furthermore, no one, including the most irrational anti-Bushie counting votes in Florida on 9-11, would have believed that we would go 7 years without another attack.
Why weren't we hit again?
Did the terrorists go back to teaching poetry or serenading their future wives?
The answer is no. We beat them back.
The Bush-Cheney administration reacted seriously to the threat. They treated it as a serious threat. They treated the terrorists as people committed and motivated to blowing up a US city.
Thankfully, Bush-Cheney were not very interested in international sensibilities, specially at the expense of American lives.
Regrettably, the Bush-Cheney administration did not fight back sufficiently against irresponsible demagogues who hate waterboarding but did not have the guts to say something when they were in the meeting.
Ditto Iraq. The Dems ran against Iraq but did not have the guts to cut the funding once they had their hands on the national checkbook.
Thank you VP Cheney. Thank you for punching back.
What about Pres BO's speech?
Here is the truth: Pres BO did not present a plan to close GITMO. The WSJ editorial is correct: Obama still hasn't said where the worst terrorists will go!
He did get into the "blame Bush" game that covers up the fact that he does not have a plan. Even The NY Times posted this: Obama Faces Pitfalls With ‘Surgical’ Tack on Detainees!
P.S. NRO is right with The Buck Stop Elsewhere:
"President Obama wants you to know that nothing is ever his fault."
I love this from Bill Katz' analysis of VP Cheney's speech:
"“It’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantánamo,” he said.
“But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security.”
Bill Kristol had another good post on the dueling speeches:
"I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way.
This sentence was revealing:
"On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004."
"Opposed the release"?
Doesn't he mean "decided not to permit the release"?
He's president.
He's not just a guy participating in a debate.
But he's more comfortable as a debater, not as someone who takes responsibility for decisions.
Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman.
He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices."
