Democrats demand Bush close Gitmo

It’s interesting. Democrats are big spenders on everything but national security, decade after decade, during peace or during war. Propose cutting almost any government program at any time and Democrats will scream and caterwaul until you’ve gone deaf. But they consistently lead the charge in cutting funding to DoD during peacetime and now, trying to cut funding for the war and Camp Delta at Gitmo.

House Democrats want to cut President Bush’s budget for Guantanamo Bay prison in half, beating the administration to the punch in shutting down the facility for terror detainees.

The White House says Bush has already decided to close the U.S. prison in Cuba and transfer more than 370 terrorism suspects elsewhere, possibly including the maximum-security military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

There’s actually some dispute over that, with the AP apparently erroneously reporting last week that the White House was set to close Gitmo. So this story retrenches that bad one and ups the ante. But no matter; the AP still hasn’t corrected its Hurriya reporting of last year. Why would it bother to correct a story from last week?

And no matter #2, Bush has been saying he’d like to close Gitmo for years. And he’s tried to get other countries to take their miscreants back so we don’t have to house them and so we can avoid potentially bad scenes with Korans in medium proximity to toilets that Newsweek can turn into another chance for Islamic Rage Boy to hit the streets. But the other countries won’t take their bad boys back, and when we release them they have the bad habit of turning up back on the battlefield fighting our troops again, so we’re kind of stuck with them. They weren’t read their Miranda rights when our troops picked them up in Afghanistan, Miranda not being applicable to the average Pakistani jihadi picked up firing an AK-47 at Rangers on the outskirts of Herat, but that gives the ACLU an opening to grab the terrorists a Get Out Of Jail Free Card the moment the DoD moves them onto US soil at places like Leavenworth.

It’s a total no-win situation all the way around, compounded by the SCOTUS decision to hear of the terrorists’ plight.

Behind all of this, we’re at war, and the cousins of the thugs that the Democrats want moved out of Cuba are at this minute being sought for placing a couple of car bombs on the streets of London. Only dumb luck saved hundreds and maybe thousands of lives today. The timing of the failed attack makes me wonder if al Qaeda isn’t going to become a kind of Islamic welcome wagon for US and British leaders upon assuming office. There was the first WTC bombing in 1993, a few weeks into Clinton’s first term. There was 9-11, a few months into Bush’s first term. Now there’s the flop on 6-29, inside 48 hours of Gordon Brown’s run as British PM. Get a new leader, get a new attack on your soil.

Yes yes, this is all a bumper sticker. We know, John. Go back to brushing your hair and letting your wife fight your battles for you. The grownups are talking right now.

If I’m right about the timing, 2009 is probably the next time we can look forward to a bona fide and spectacular al Qaeda attack attempt on American soil. Whatever they’re cooking up, it’s in the planning stages right now, in New York or the DC suburbs or wherever they believe they can operate without detection and will have access to their supplies and targets. Until they move or are busted, we can look forward to more idiotic posturing from Democrats who are at the same time promising to blow billions on new government programs for all kinds of things, while de-funding the war in Iraq and cutting the funds to house some very bad men at Gitmo. We can look forward to more context-free reports of carnage from all over the world, and we get to enjoy the downright delicious prospect of even Republicans deserting the war effort.

Their priorities tell us that virtually no Democrat and fewer Republicans are serious about the threat that those men at Gitmo and their mates in London pose.