The Problem(s) by the Bay(s)

Interestingly enough, there are two problems for the Democrat Party in two different Bay areas. One of the problems is on the left coast and her name is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives. The other problem is in Cuba - it's the Gitmo dilemma.

A few days ago, Speaker Pelosi accused the CIA of misleading Congress. She claimed that she did not know that the United States was using the enhanced interrogation technique called waterboarding. Leon Panetta, the current director of the CIA who was appointed by Barack Obama, recently released a memo to the Agency explaining that notes from a 2002 briefing, where Speaker Pelosi was present, clearly indicate the the Speaker had full knowledge of the United States' use of waterboarding on War on Terror Detainees. Bottom line, Speaker Pelosi said that the CIA misled her by not explaining that waterboarding was being used and Mr. Panetta's recent memo implies that Pelosi's claims are false.

Once Speaker Pelosi realized that saying the CIA misled to her might not be a good political move, she immediately tried to diffuse the situation by saying that the Bush Administration was the real reason she was misled. It seems that now Speaker Pelosi can even blame the Bush Administration for her own stupidity.

Speaker Pelosi is currently a liability to the Democrat Party. The Kingpin on Capitol Hill is in political trouble.

Her lies are evidence that she is an unprincipled politician that moves with the popular sentiment. When briefed in 2002 that waterboarding was being used (if, in fact, the CIA notes are correct and she was briefed), she did not object and so we are to assume that she did not find the act objectionable. Now, in 2009, she considers waterboarding to be tortore and morally objectionable. Which is it?

It is apparent that Speaker Pelosi does not have a guiding set of principles, but simply a desire maintain power by shifting with the political breeze.

Closing Guantanamo Bay is becoming an issue that may hurt Democrats, especially the Obama Administration, if they are not careful. The debate over closing the facility could become the wedge issue that Republicans need to make gains in the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans potentially have majority support from the American people on their position that the detention center should not be closed, if that means terrorists being released or imprisioned in the United States.

President Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo Bay. He signed an executive order soon after his inauguration to close the facility to make good on his campaign promise. Unfortunately, President Obama does not seem to have a plan for what to do with the 240 or so terrorists locked up at Gitmo. He has only a few options; the terrorists can either be released into the United States, imprisoned in the United States, released in a foreign country or imprisoned in a foreign country.

The problem is, foreign nations are not very receptive to the idea of providing a home for the terrorists. Who could blame them? Why would any nation, other than a terrorist haven that would release the inmates to fight American soldiers, agree to take an inmate from us that we have decided is too dangerous to have in our own country? Also, Americans are rightly opposed to having the inmates released or imprisoned on home soil. So what is President Obama to do? He will either have to convince another nation to take our prisoners, relocate them to the United States and risk a popular backlash from the American people, providing the GOP with a political booster shot, or leave them in Gitmo, breaking his own campaign promise and thereby alienating his political left flank and breaking his campaign promise.

I am anxiously waiting to see what course of action is taken by the President. He can either do the right thing for our national security interest and leave the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay or he can cave to pressure from the left and make a politically risky move that endangers our national security. The fact that we are even in this mess, and that the debate is a legitimate one in liberal circles, is proof to me that Democrats are, in fact, weak on national security.

National Security has long been a Republican issue and Americans, in general, seem to trust the GOP more than the Democrats when it comes to being tough in the War on Terror. The electorate may not yet be ready in 2010 to trust Republicans on the economy, but they just might be willing to vote Republican because of foreign policy concerns. After all, there is no denying that the Bush Administration, however maligned, did keep the country safe for the entirity of its time in office post-9/11.