The Republicans at this point are like the faded film star in "Sunset Boulevard" -- living on memories of days gone by... nostalgia... and no small amount of delusion. Now we have something called -- and no, this is not an "Onion" article -- the Keep Terrorists out of America Act. The act -- Republican-sponsored, of course -- is designed for, apparently, no other purpose than to keep the Guantanamo Bay prison open for business -- yeah, you know, that place that had a whole lot to do with why the Republicans got crushed in the 2008 election. Now, Obama's point man on this issue is Attorney General Eric Holder, who "sought to reassure senators that the United States won't release anyone it considers a terrorist" -- to which my response would be, would Holder recognize a terrorist if the guy bit him in the ass? And for that matter, would anyone in the Obama administration recognize _anybody_ who is a threat to the country, or to American citizens... given that the history of so many people who are "friends of Barack" includes youthful dalliances with what, at that time, was considered terrorism? It's as Heidi Fleiss had been put in charge of the vice squad.
Now, having said all this, I have to also point out that the "War on Terror" is, by and large, a hoax... and that anyone who uses the term "Islamofacism" is a fool. (If you want to see _real_ fascism in action, don't go to the mountains of Afganistan -- take a look at Obama's bailout and economic stimulus plans.) So what we really have here is a contest among the clueless -- among (1) one group that has fallen, hook line and sinker, for the "War on Terror" hoax, and (2) another group that has not demonstrated any signs of patriotism or of valuing American interests within living memory. That the fate of this country is regularly turned over to one or the other of these gangs is at once infamous and absurd.
Of course, there is a grass-roots level at which the "Keep Terrorists out of America Act" almost makes sense. Let's say we close the prison at Guantanamo. But! We can't simply give all the inmates a plane ticket back to Afghanistan, or wherever. So they will have to be incarcerated elsewhere -- which means (if you're the typical hysterical Congressman) right down the road from your house in Butt Butt, Alabama... and next thing you know your daughter Lula Mae is going to encounter some swarthy, rag-headed desperado, out on a weekend pass, down at the local 7-11. Horrors! Of course, they don't have any problem promoting their flea-bitten burg as a prime location for a new prison, which will hold mostly non-violent drug offenders. And what are we talking about, after all? A total -- a TOTAL, mind you -- of 241 inmates. Pittsburgh has more people than that in jail for "making terroristic threats" -- but they are just locals who got drunk and started mouthing off, so I guess it's not the same thing.
And here's Mitch McConnell: "... Americans like the fact that we haven't been attacked at home since 9/11." True enough, but does anyone ever stop to wonder why? One possibility: As far as the "terrorists" are concerned, 9-11 was "mission accomplished" -- it got us pouring resources into two Third-World pestholes and our actions there have alienated us from the entire Arab/Muslim world. Another possibility -- 9-11 wasn't a "terrorist" attack at all. Why should they repeat something that they never did in the first place? But this is not the time to wade into that bottomless pit. Suffice it to say that the Republicans are enamored of the illusion that everything Bush & Co. did was good and proper, and that it "worked"... and the Democrats aren't all that certain that the "terrorists" aren't on firmer moral ground than the U.S. So it really is a tale told by two idiots -- and whether Guantanamo closes or stays open is not going to change that.