Have you ever read something so outrageous that you have to re-read it two or three times to make sure you got it right? Or heard something so implausible you’d never believe it if you hadn’t used the TiVo to replay it, just for confirmation? Think OJ, dedicating his life to finding the real killer.
Well, I’ll put the following Chris Dodd statements, as reported by the Connecticut Post, up against anything you came up with.
“Today, the United States has taken a first step down the long road toward restoring our moral authority, while ensuring our security,” Dodd said. [snip]
“Under the Bush administration, Guantánamo and the CIA’s secret prisons became an international embarrassment — a symbol of abuse and the breakdown of law, which is why I have spoken so often about our moral responsibility to close them.”
Go ahead, read it again. I’ll wait.
That’s right. A lecture from Chris Dodd about moral authority and moral responsibility.
This is the guy who complains about TARP transparency while refusing to fulfill his promise to disclose the records of his own shady mortgage deal.
This is the guy who consistently blames Republicans for the current economic crisis, when anyone paying attention knows the lion’s share of the blame belongs on Dodd and the Democrats who pushed the CRA and sub-prime loans on the very lenders Dodd was allegedly overseeing from his perch on the Senate Banking Committee, which he now “leads.”
This is the guy who argued against Republican efforts to increase regulation and oversight of GSEs while topping the list of campaign donation recipients from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As unbelievable as it is that Dodd would publicly provide instruction on moral authority, he manages to follow it up with something that left me nearly as incredulous:
“With President Obama’s signatures, we will be more effective in our efforts to prevent, detain, and prosecute those who would harm us. In addition, today’s orders have reasserted our nation’s commitment and adherence to the rule of law.”
Unfortunately for him, The New York Times of all places had an article today that directly refutes the ridiculous claim that closing Gitmo aids the prevention, detention or prosecution of a group of men whose wildest dreams are to quite literally blow themselves to hell while standing next to your wife and kids.
The emergence of a former Guantanamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.
The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.
There are arguments that have been made that keeping Guantanamo open damages our international credibility, or violates constitutional protections, or is “inhumane.” I think all of those arguments are weak and refutable, most without too much intellectual sweat. But I have not heard a coherent argument that moving these evil people to Jack Murtha’s congressional district will make us safer.
These people will keep blowing themselves up and beheading hostages until we are exterminated. They are not looking for small concessions from Americans; they are looking for the destruction of our way of life. They are less likely to make progress if they are wearing an orange jumpsuit in a cage on an island outside of our country.
So, Senator Dodd, if you want to argue we should close Guantanamo, go ahead. But for the sake of whatever is left of your dignity, leave moral authority out of the conversation and acknowledge that you are exchanging the safety of Americans for the rights you imagine the terrorists are owed.
Cross-posted at The Artful Doddger.