Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Monday, July 10, 2006
After Gitmo
A quick glance at this post raises an interesting question:
The Bush administration is for the first time debating the very real possibility that Guantanamo be shut down entirely. It is the first prolonged and serious debate and review of the issue, according to people who are in the know.
Closing Gitmo is good policy. It would signal to the world a willingness to compromise. It would restore a bit of American prestige. It would mark a return to the rule of a law and a commitment to basic human rights.
But it's terrible politics, innit? Who on the left will be satisfied by closing Guantanamo now? Who on the right -- after defending the need for the base and its legality for four years -- will forgive the President for pulling the rug out from under them? At best, I see the right critiquing the President for giving in to the left wing hate-America-firsters and urging the President to stand firm. Especially if the President argues that he's been trying to shut down Guantanamo for months, but has been hampered by logistical concerns.
