Charles Krauthammer

I don't normally read this guy, but the headline (Gitmo Grovel: Enough Already) was just offensive enough to compel me to look. Based on this article, he seems to be an apologist for this administration. Nothing more than an apologist.

Here are some of the lowlights:

Moreover, shutting down Guantanamo will solve nothing. We will capture more terrorists, and we will have to interrogate them, if not at Guantanamo then somewhere else. There will then be reports from that somewhere else that will precisely mirror the charges coming out of Guantanamo. What will we do then? Keep shutting down one detention center after another?

Any mention of the shiny new legal definition, or non-definition, of these detainees? How about the lack of rights that are afforded to these prisoners? Ah, no.

Two of the documented offenses involved "female interrogators who, on their own initiative, touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner." Not exactly the gulag.

Nicely done, sir. Make an offense seem kinda fun, and then make a snide comment based on that downplay. "Why wouldn't these fellows like a nice lap dance, hmmm? Hmmm?" I think what actually happened is the women smeared the men with menstrual blood, or what they said was menstrual blood. That definitely would not get a dollar from me down at the strip club.

Even greater hypocrisy is to be found here at home. Civil libertarians, who have been dogged in making sure that FBI-collected Guantanamo allegations are released to the world, seem exquisitely sensitive to mistreatment of the Koran. A rather selective scrupulousness. When an American puts a crucifix in a jar of urine and places it in a museum, civil libertarians rise immediately to defend it as free speech. And when someone makes a painting of the Virgin Mary, smears it with elephant dung and adorns it with porn, not only is that free speech, it is art -- deserving of taxpayer funding and an ACLU brief supporting the Brooklyn Museum when the mayor freezes its taxpayer subsidy.

This here shows how seriously we should take this column. He brings up the topic of Guantanamo, and could address the monumental issues of a quasi-legal detention center, the morality of how we are treating the prisoners, what that treatment means to the reputation of the US, what that treatment means to our souls, and whether or not we are holding prisoners who would actually harm us or just some freaking sheepherders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But instead, he makes a muddled, bogus point about...liberals. I guess. Pathetic.