Gitmo

I think it means, "get mo' terrorist!"

Dick Morris has a good review this week on the political issues surrounding the prison-base at Guantanamo Naval Base.

I really enjoyed amnesty international's claims that America is the caretaker of the new gulags -- a nice comparison to the Soviet version. The problem is, out of some 70,000 prisoners processed at Guantanamo Bay only about 100 have died and only 5 warranting any investigation. We have about 24,999,995 to go to if we want to catch up with the soviets.... We've also spent over $2 million trying to get the proper, religious, foods to the prisoners there, and by and large have treated these people with far more humanity than they would ever think of offering an American (the comparison can hardly be made). The gulags were a place where people were interned for being late for work or having a minor accident on the road. Once there, they were literally worked to death and once they died they were left to rot where they fell, trampled under foot until they became, literally, "camp dust." This became an expression of threat in the former U.S.S.R. itself, a sort of, "take him for a ride" amongst gangsters. Humans in these camps were treated worse than animals, and many there longed to be the dogs guarding them who received proper care. This comparison by amnesty international is ludicrous and they should be ashamed. It rivals (I want to say eclipses, but I'm not sure) Michael Moore's confession that there is no terrorist threat against America -- said in the wake of 911.... In the mean time, when these same people have had the opportunity to capture our soldiers, they kill them, mutilate them and hang them from bridges. They go on to kidnap any European, or Caucasian, they can find and treat them the same. They saw (not cut) their heads off, make videos of these grizzly acts, and load them on the Internet flaunting their butchery. What does amnesty international, or Michael Moore, have to say about that?

"Liberty or death," but that never meant laying down arms and allowing the enemy to conquer. Just whose liberty are AI and Michael Moore concerned about? Sure, giving your enemy the liberty to attack you is, indeed, liberty -- in bizarro world! Tyrants, tyranny and terrorists must be met head-on and fought. Neville Chamberlain took the long, passive road of peace with Hitler, and Hitler used every gift, token and boon to advance his empire until it was obvious that all passivity had accomplished for England was to put them horribly behind the 8-ball in an all-out war with a determined and evil enemy.

I'm all for liberty, freedom and rights. God bless all who stand-up for such. But anymore that seems to mean everyone's rights but Americans to defend their country. Rights, it seems, begin outside the borders of the United States, those same borders all other foreigners are trying their best to cross. There seems to be two popular desires with non-Americans when it comes to their thoughts on our country (and, indeed with some Americans too): to come into our country and live off the blessings or destroy it. The rest want either to eliminate laws that protect our tax money and entitlements or to eliminate our ability to defend our statehood.

How can we make sense to such critics? If 911 can't convince you then what on earth can?...