A WHOLE NEW GAME

Mitt Romney's pick for VP has energized the conservative movement.  Paul Ryan not only brings the tea party firmly onto the ticket (uh-oh, the NYTimes figured it out!), he also brings a level of leadership and (desperately needed) mathematical competency that has been sorely lacking over the past few years.  This is a whole new game now.  The cheap thuggery of the Obama campaign isn't going to stand up well in comparison with the cheerful warrior-wonk Romney has recruited to carry his standard and rally the troops.

The whole thing rather has the feel of a schoolyard bully scene at the end of a movie.  The bullies have surrounded the prissy little rich kid and are taunting and maybe even pushing him around a little as the rest of the schoolchildren look away and pretend it isn't really happening.  But then, out of nowhere, in comes this (dreamy?) blue-eyed former prom king, who steps out in front of the bullies' victim and stands his ground with a polite smile on his boyish face, a steel-trap mind and rock-hard abs hidden under his buttoned-up button down shirt.  Suddenly, the tenor of the moment changes, the prissy boy grows a spine, the bully boys back up a step and try to laugh off this new threat while the kids on the playground gather in and start chanting "Fight! Fight! Fight" in eager anticipation of the butt-whooping to come. 

SWEET VICTORY!!! Updated

Osama bin Laden is dead.  God bless America and our fantastic fighting men and women!  According to reports, a Navy SEAL team got him (GO NAVY!!), one of his sons, and Osama's youngest wife who, in the tradition of cowardly terrorists everywhere, was used as a human shield.   

Interestingly, bin Laden was found at a massive fortress deep in Pakistan.  Apparently, he was in a million dollar complex complete with 18 foot tall, barbed-wire topped walls in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  If the Pakistani government didn't know he was there, I'll eat my hat, since Abbottabad is an affluent suburb about 35 miles outside of Pakistan's capitol of Islamabad.  On top of that, the compound was a few hundred yards from a Pakistani military training center.  Go figure.  Some of the questions we will be demanding answers to in the coming days will certainly include a few on who in the Pakistani government knew what and when. 

There were parties going on last night in front of the White House, in Times Square, and at the campuses of both West Point and Annapolis.  One would imagine the Annapolis celebration will be going on for quite a while - the Navy certainly has a prize scalp to bolster morale and they will surely be revelling in it.

Reports are still conflicting, but what seems to be coming clear is that this victory is going to bring up some hard truths that some on the left might not like.  Most importantly, much of the intelligence that got us this victory started out, four years ago, as information received from Gitmo detainees at the hands of interrogators.  It will be interesting to see how that narrative develops in the coming weeks.  Hopefully those practices will be seen as the necessary evil that they are now that they have been instrumental in bringing Public Enemy #1 to justice. 

This victory has many fathers - most notably the CIA and SEAL Team Six, who developed the intel and kept their eyes on the prize.  The lion's share of credit goes to them, along with the thanks of a grateful nation.  Credit should also be given to both the Obama administration for making the call to go into Pakistan (quite a risky call, to be sure - kudos, Mr. President) and the Bush administration for extracting the initial information four years ago that put us on the path to Abbottabad in the first place.

The joyous crowds filling the streets of NYC and Washington DC last night were just the beginning.  As people wake up to the news today, there are sure to be many more celebrations across the country.  This event has come at a time when we desperately needed unity.  The divisiveness of the political scene and the economic fears gripping the nation will be put aside, at least for today, so that we can celebrate this major victory and remember that we're all in it together.  This surge of pride in America is a welcome thing, and something that hopefully will not fade away any time soon.

In five months, we will be observing the 10th anniversary of September 11th.  While the observances will be solemn, they will have a new undercurrent this year.  We the people have gotten a certain measure of closure with the death of bin Laden.  Will it take away the pain inflicted on 9/11?  No, but it sure does go far towards banishing that helpless feeling many Americans have felt for the past nine years.  Perhaps now the real healing can begin.

This isn't the end of this conflict by any means, but this is a watershed moment for sure.  There will be much to discuss in the coming weeks as more information comes out.  There will surely be controversy over bin Laden's burial at sea - a necessary thing, in my opinion, which will keep his tomb from becoming a pilgrimage site for future jihadis - and the role Pakistani officials may have played in keeping his whereabouts secret, but for now, let's just savor the flavor of sweet, sweet victory.  Democrats, independents and republicans will put aside their differences today and celebrate this great triumph against an evil man.

God bless America!

UPDATE:  HotAir has a great roundup of last night's celebrations.

UPDATE II:  Initial reports had a police station near the OBL compound; turns out it is the Pakistani version of West Point instead.  I've changed it in the post.

UPDATE III:  Questions already arising from the burial at sea, as expected.  Imams are claiming it wasn't a sufficient burial, others are saying the body should have been brought back here.  Why?  To display it like a trophy - perhaps mount his head on a spike atop the ever-growing Freedom Tower?  Burial at sea ensures no shrine to the martyr's tomb.  As it is, one will most likely crop up in Abbottabad.  They should release the pictures, though, for sure - gore and all.  The wound can be blurred to make it more palatable.    DNA tests might prove there's a 99.9% chance it's him, but I, for one, want to see him with my own eyes.  And from the spontaneous outbursts of joyful patriotism breaking out all over the country, I don't think I'm alone.

TEN YEARS, ZERO JUSTICE

Today is the tenth anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole.  Seventeen brave sailors died that day, and thirty-nine more were wounded.  Less than a year later, September 11th would overshadow all previous attacks, making them seem insignificant by comparison.  Many people see that as the beginning of the war on terror - a carefully planned act of war on innocent civilians.  Many people became aware for the first time that there were factions who hated us and wanted to kill as many of us as possible. 

In reality, the 1990's were full of terrorist attacks, many of which were shrugged off by the Clinton administration.  Because they occurred in foreign lands, and the primary victims were military personnel, the American people shrugged them off, too.  But it was a planned campaign, an incessant poking of the bear that would escalate with each lack of response.

Which brings us to the USS Cole bombing.  It's hard to forget the images of the crippled ship coming home; the  huge 60' by 40' hole torn into her side was a disturbing reminder that even we, the strongest country in the world, could be brought low.   The response to this deadly attack on our brave men and women in uniform?  Nothing so far. Ten years, and nothing has been done to bring the mastermind of the bombing, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, to justice. 

Clinton vowed retribution:

“You will not find a safe harbor,” he proclaimed. “We will find you and justice will prevail.”

Eh, not so much. But what else was he supposed to say less than a month out from a major election cycle?  The words and actions of politicians seldome sync. Nashiri is the only person we are holding for the Cole bombing (some planners eventually gave their sick and twisted all for Allah on 9/11), but the attack was credited to Osama Bin Laden (who actually read poetry about the bombing) and al Qaeda a mere two weeks after the event.

The Cole bombing was central to the intel about potential future strikes by al Qaeda - intel that was shrugged off by the incoming Bush administration.  Less than a year later, that intel would prove true and everyone's attention would be focused on al Qaeda as they tried to come to grips with the events of 9/11.  At least the Bush administration managed to capture Nashiri and place him in Gitmo in 2006, but nothing has been done since.

In early February of 2009, President Obama actually withdrew charges against Nashiri.  The reason for the withdrawal was so the DoJ could reveiw handling of high value prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees.  The DoJ recently filed a motion saying there were no immediate plans to file new charges - a motion that was met with dismay and disbelief by the victims and families.

And so another year has passed without justice for the Cole victims and survivors.  That makes three presidents now who have dropped the ball. 

This unwillingness to prosecute war criminals made the enemy think we were weak.  Each incident was an escalation.  When even the Cole didn't register, the plans for 9/11, which was already deep in the planning and preparation stages, went into high gear.  They thought they could attack with impunity and expect little response - and why would they not?

Would retaliation for the Cole attack have averted 9/11?  Who knows?  On the one hand, al Qaeda might have been disrupted and funding siezed, which could have stopped the attacks.  On the other, strikes on al Qaeda might have been a catalyst in and of itself, triggering the attacks anyway.  Either way, the perpetrators of the attack on the USS Cole remain unpunished, and wondering what might have been takes time away from dealing with what really has occurred.  Which leaves unanswered the burning question of the day -

When will there be justice for the Cole?

PAIN, COMPASSION AND POLITICS

September 11th is particularly pognant this year.  It is a difficult day for many americans anyway; a day to remember and, even nine years later, to grieve.  It is a day that we, the citizens of the most powerful country on earth, are confronted by our vulnerability.  Nine years and one day ago, the US was on top of the world.  We were the gentle giant, leading the world with our innovation and thriving economy.  It seemed inconceivable that just 24 hours later, we would be brought to our knees in shared grief, anger and disbelief.  The horror of it all is still a raw, gaping wound on the psyche of the country as a whole. 

This year, 9/11 will be more emotional for many because of the proposed mosque scheduled to be built two blocks away in a building that was partially destroyed on 9/11 when it was hit with the landing gear of one of the planes.  This project is an affront to all who lost loved ones that horrific day.  For those who say "It's not the "Ground Zero Mosque" - it's two whole blocks away!"  the response is simple - it was destroyed by the same forces that destroyed the Twin Towers.  It is Ground Zero.  Adding insult to injury, the mosque has been fast tracked, even though a Greek Orthodox church, which was destroyed on September 11, 2001 when one of the towers fell on it, has yet to receive approval to rebuild.

This past week has been a three-ring circus of outrages, from the unyielding determination of the mosque builders to the lunatic in Florida who has threatened to burn a Qu'ran today to the burning of american flags in protest of the qu'ran burning.  The nearly 70% of americans who oppose the mosque have been called "islamophobes", racists, zionists, and a plethora of other insults in an attempt to shut them up.  They have even been threatened, if you consider a warning of a potential explosion of rage in the muslim world if the mosque isn't built exactly where Imam Rauf wants it built as a threat.  His assertion that "the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse" is laughable, at best.  The "warning" he issued is quite indicative of exactly which radicals will take over the discourse, and from where the violence will come.   Michelle Malkin has an interesting rundown of some other incidents that have caused "explosions of anger" in the muslim world.  This threat is nothing new.  It is endlessly fascinating that, with all the rhetoric over the years that attempts to paint "radical christians" and right wing extremist opposition as somehow worse than jihadis, there has been no talk of the potential risk of a terrorist attack on the mosque.

Quite frankly, the constant threats have become tiresome, as is the perpetual kowtowing to these extremists. No, they don't represent a majority of muslims, but they certainly seem to be the only voice we hear on the subject.  There should be no support whatsoever for the burning of the qu'ran, and the pastor who threatened it dropped the level of the debate to somewhere in the septic tank range.  However, his attempt to equate the atrocity of burning the qu'ran with the atrocity of building an islamic center and mosque on the site of a devastating, deadly attack made in the name of islam has some merit.  Both acts are an affront to all that is civil and respectful.  The fact is, both acts are legal under our constitution, and both acts are morally objectionable.  In the case of the pastor, he stepped back from the edge.  In the case of the imam, he is refusing to budge from his position.

If the aim of this "cultural center" was really to build bridges between the muslim world and americans, Rauf is definitely going about this the wrong way.  Part of building a bridge is to meet halfway.  Demanding the submission of the american people to his will is most certainly not what most people would consider compromise.  That President Obama is backing Rauf and his demands is not surprising either.  After all, this is the man whose idea of compromise is for his opposition to shut up and support his agenda or be demonized. 

Staking out a position on the legality of the situation but refusing to comment on the morality of it speaks volumes about Obama's inability to properly unite and lead this country.  He may be charismatic, but he lacks empathy and he seems to lack the understanding that he is not just the commander in chief, but our moral leader as well.  That he does not understand the pain the mosque is inflicting on his people is indicative of his problems in the polls of late.  Because the wound is still raw, we need a leader who understands our pain.  Sometimes, a president is like a mother - required to reassure, comfort and defend her children even when she doesn't understand the full extent of their pain.  The fact that they are in pain is enough for her to act on their behalf.  Instead, Obama comes off as some sort of frustrated step-father, who cannot understand why the child can't move on and has no interest in building a bond by attempting to empathize.  It seems that all he sees are petulant children making his life difficult with their ridiculous demands for solace, understanding and protection from that which hurts them.  For all of George W. Bush's faults (and there were many) he got this concept, and his approval ratings in the aftermath of 9/11 illustrate that quite clearly.

It is ironic in the extreme that the so-called party of compassion is so very uncompassionate when it comes to this grievous wound to our country.  This year, when the hallowed ground of Ground Zero has become a political football for islamic radicals and the progressives who cater to them, our national loss is all the more poignant. 

 Cross Posted at Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots

ON THE MOSQUE

The situation imvolving the proposed mosque at Ground Zero is untenable.  That it has managed to get as far as it has is hard to comprehend.  Ground Zero is sacred ground, hallowed by the deaths of thousands of people of all nationalities, who were killed in the name of radical islam.  There is no other way to spin that fact - 9/11 was perpetrated by islamic extremists.  Now members of that same religion are insisting on building a 'cultural center' within the blast radius of the cataclysm perpetrated by followers of their faith.

The proposed mosque is nothing less than an affront to American sensibilities.  At one of the meetings held over Cordoba House, one gentleman equated the proposition to building a tribute to the Japanese over Pearl Harbor.  Well put, sir.  Both sites are sacred without being religious, and this seems to be something people like Mayor Bloomberg and Mark Levine just don't understand.  

Therein lies the problem in the American supporters of the mosque.  They buy the line about how harmless the mosque is - do they think those in opposition expect them to build gun turrets and missile launchers instead of a pool?  For those of a more religious bent - of which the people building the mosque are - there is a far deeper meaning to the chosen site.  This building was damaged by landing gear from one of the planes on 9/11.  It was in the circle of destruction.  Ground Zero isn't just where the footprints of the twin towers sat, it's the radius showered by debris.  There should be no mosque, temple or church built in those parameters.  The religion of the site is the site.

The perpetrators of 9/11 were religious, the same religion as the proposed mosque. Throughout history, religious wars were capped off with the building of the conqueror's place of worship over the ruins of the defeated, such as the Hindu temple of Ayodhya.  This tactic is to signal supremacy and subjugation, much as the romans chopped down the sacred oak groves in their attempt to conquer the celts. 

The supporters are trying to take the religion out of this story, emphasizing the "cultural center" and downplaying the mosque as just a small part of a larger, benign thing.  But for people waging a religious war - and make no mistake, this is all about religion - this sends a very clear signal.  It wouldn't be surprising if the proposed memorial to 9/11 is planned to be a plaque set into the floor -  the shoe throwing incident of 2008 illustrated their fixation with disrespecting people using footwear.  It would be par for the course, really.  After all, the dedication ceremony for the center is slated for September 11, 2011.  Just a coincidence, surely.

Supporters cannot understand why so many people are so vehement about this mosque. It's not that they want to build a mosque - it's that they want to build it there.  With all of the liberal talk about consideration for the feelings of others, there is little concern for the families of the victims, nor for the nation as a whole.  9/11 is a scar on the psyche of the country and this mosque not only rips that scar open, it pours salt in the wound.   The web site for the Cordoba Initiative states that their mission is to "Improve Muslim-West Relations".  Really?  How, exactly, is forcing the construction of this center, in the face of overwhelming opposition from the american people improving relations?  Calling the opposition bigots isn't exactly a way to win them over, either.  They have a right to express their pain and opposition, and considering they are in the majority, if improving relations was really the goal, their wishes would be heeded.  Ever since 9/11, we americans have been lectured on tolerance and understanding towards those of the muslim faith  And yet, when we demand a little of the same involving a project the imams in charge must have known would have been met with opposition, we are called bigots and intolerant.

This is an affront to our nation.  It is wildly unpopular, deeply painful, and, unsurprisingly, our president just gave the okay on it, stating the government cannot infringe on their right to practice religion.  We do not want to take away their ability to practice their religion, we just want them to do it a respectful distance from the site of an act of war perpetrated in the name of their religion.  That's not too much to ask, and if the imam was so interested in outreach, moving the mosque would be a no-brainer. 

It's time for the concerned citizens of New York to file an eminent domain suit.  Gov. Paterson offered state lands as compensation to persuade them to move a few blocks further away from Ground Zero in order to strike a compromise - a compromise many in the opposition would have been content with.  The offer was refused out of hand.  Eminent domain strips property owners of their rights in favor of the common good, after reasonable compensation has been offered and rejected.  In the case of this mosque, invoking eminent domain is for the good not just of the community, but the country at large. Frankly, there should be a ban on building any and all new religious sites within at least a five block radius of Ground Zero, no matter the denomination.  For any religion, it would be an attempt to lay claim to the site, and it cannot be claimed by one because it belongs to us all.

Are there legal grounds to block the building?  Unfortunately, no, not really - Obama is technically correct.  But there are moral grounds, and isn't that what social justice is all about?  The morality of the law and it's application?  Compassion for the suffering?  What is eminent domain but taking something from someone to give to another based on the good of the community?  As the CNN poll shows so plainly, a vast majority of people are against this building.  Large swathes of the public will suffer emotional harm with it's creation.  If taking private homes and making them into shopping centers is considered in the interests of the public, certainly stopping the construction of such an emotionally devastating structure as a muslim mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero is, too.

Besides, there's a certain poetry about using social justice to attempt to block the building of the mosque, isn't there?

A LITTLE SALVE FOR THE SOUL

I highly recommend an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal for your consumption.  Dorothy Rabinowitz has written an insightful piece on the victimization of muslims in this country.   The journey begins with Tom Hanks, and ends with a New York cabbie: 

It can't have come as a surprise that one of the now entrenched myths about America—namely, its ongoing victimization of Muslims—should have been voiced again by a leading citizen of our myth-producing capital, Hollywood. The citizen was Tom Hanks, and the occasion his March interview in Time Magazine in which he declared that our battle with Japan in World War II was one of "racism and terror." And that, he noted, should remind us of our current wars.

I have tried to remain mum on Hanks because I really like his work, but good gravy, what an asinine, deep-in-the-bubble, Hollywood lefty remark is that!?  It truly makes me wish he'd never said it, because it's just so ridiculously out-of-touch that I'm afraid I won't be able to see one of his movies without thinking of it.  What is really frightening is that he is becoming considered the "historian-in-chief" of the nation.  Considering many of these historical events are no longer taught  (or taught incorrectly) in our schools, that means the man who thinks race was the main driver for WWII is the most influential "expert" many sectors of our society, not to mention the rest of the world, will have contact with.  Frightening thought.

Mr. Hanks is representative of a narrative that is taking hold in this country, and Ms. Rabinowitz dissects the psychology of it beautifully.  She discusses the three page spread (6 on the internet) the Washington Post did on a muslim soldier who, according to the article, "battles on friendly ground".   Whomever is intimidating Spec. Zachari Klawonn is obviously in need of intervention, but considering the base this happened on, there is a degree of understanding as to why counselling might have been required anyway:

The latest reflection of this trend, grown steadily since the attacks of Sept. 11, came with a three-page spread in the Washington Post on March 24 about the tribulations of a Muslim soldier who reported being subjected to slurs, various other insults, and also a threatening note. His commander suggested he might do well to move to housing off base. The base in question was Fort Hood, where, last November, army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow American soldiers.

The question Ms. Rabinowitz poses is, just how common is this anti-muslim narrative, and how pervasive has it become?   She makes a compelling argument:

The pain of these confrontations was undoubtedly great, as such treatment always is. Ask the members of religious and racial minorities who served, say, in World War II, when it wasn't unusual to hear slurs like "kike" and such hurled at them. Ask black Americans who had the incomparably worse experience of serving in a racially segregated military, where they were relegated to the worst duties. Not to mention being made witness—in parts of the country—to the sight of German POWs held in the U.S. eating in restaurants barred to black Americans in uniform, and otherwise being accorded respect that those Americans could not hope to receive.
Still, there were no instances of those enduring this treatment undertaking mass murder of other American servicemen. There was rage, and there were some riots, but no cases of U.S. soldiers enlisting in the service of the enemy as Maj. Hasan had. (Hasan, it was explained after he had cut down those unarmed servicemen and women packed into that room in Ft. Hood, had suffered prejudice-related pressures as a Muslim in the armed services.)

She mentions the usual suspects that perpetuate the myth by only highlighting the rare instances of bad behavior, and the press, naturally, figures centrally.  This dovetails beautifully into a recent article from Lane Wallace of The Atlantic.   In her piece titled "The Bias of Veteran Reporters" she discussed the tendencies of veteran reporters to make assumptions and only ask questions angled to prove that assumption.  She also mentions their 33% accuracy rating.   Rabinowitz's article is like an expanded example that proves Ms. Wallace's hypothesis. 
 
But Rabinowitz doesn't just prove the point, she uplifts it.  Just when the ire starts to boil at the broad-brush accusations, she quenches it will a much needed reassurance.  It is a reminder that those stories, although unacceptable and upsetting, are the exception, not the norm.  Yes, there are those out there who push things too far, but Ms Rabinowitz reminds us of our national character; what it truly means to be an American and why so many seek our shores.
 
That is where we meet a nameless, faceless New York cabbie.   His simple words of empathy and gratitude are touching.  In speaking of 9/11 and the aftermath, the former resident of Pakistan recounts a meeting with his judeo-christian neighbors after the attacks that brought home to him just what kind of country he has chosen to raise his children in:
 

"...Do you know," he said, in a voice suddenly sharp, "what would have happened if Americans had done this kind of attack in my country? Every American—every Christian, every non-Muslim—would have been slaughtered, blood would have run in the streets. I know the kind of country this is. Thanks be to God I can give this to my children."

 
Amen.
 
I urge you to read the whole article.  I left out a pertinent fact about the cabbie's story - something that would never make a three-page spread in the mainstream media.  It just doesn't follow their narrative.  Check it out.  In these rancorous times, it's nice to hear, for a change, that we are not necessarily as evil as we are portrayed.
 
 

WITNESS TO A MUGGING

Adding a newly dramatic meaning to the phrase "Don't get your panties in a twist", a (thankfully) inept Nigerian man unsuccessfully tried to ignite his Al Qaeda issued underwear bomb on Northwest Flight 253. 

Heroic passenger Jasper Schuringa subdued the flaming jihadi and removed the burning device, saving over 200 of his fellow passenger's lives.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came out quickly with a statement that the 'system worked'.  The uproar over this statement, after all of the missed opportunities to stop this terrorist - from visa issues to passport problems to airport security to his own father warning US officials of his son's radical jihadism - caused Napolitano to come out on the Today show this morning and claim all of those crazy right-wingers were taking her remarks "out of context".  She claimed that her 'system worked' comment was in regards to after the fact response, NOT security measures to stop the incident in the first place. 

I'm sure the passengers of Flight 253, as well as every person boarding a flight since the incident, will rest easy knowing that if they had been blown out of the sky, the FAA would have been prompt in notifying other flights and government agencies that a terror attack had taken place.  After all, the response is FAR more important than thwarting the incident in the first place, right? 

Once again, Napolitano (and, by extension, the Obama Administration) made an ass of herself with her half-cocked response before all of the information is in.  She also insisted this was a 'lone wolf', isolated incident.  Too bad Al Qaeda didn't get the memo.  Neither, apparently, have these people.

At what point is the administration going to finally realize that there really is a war on terror, and we are fixed squarely in the sights of radical islamic jihadis who will continue to attack us in any way possible?  Was this the mugging by reality that they so desperately needed to wake them up?  It certainly has illustrated, among other things, that the people appointed by President Obama are woefully inexperienced and poorly chosen for their positions.

Mutallab may not have succeeded in blowing that plane out of the sky (thank God), but he did succeed in scaring the crap out of all of us.  And that's the whole point of 'terrorism', isn't it?

Prolonged periods of fear and stress often lead to things like Stockholm Syndrome and appeasement to make the pressure ease.  Seems like our liberal brethren in high office have already succumbed....

We were not attacked in 2001 because of the most heinous Bush-monster, and the attacks didn't stop because al Qaeda lost interest after 9/11.  They attacked us before Bush took office and after he left office.  They have been unsuccessful so far because of diligence on behalf of law enforcement and private citizens.  This incident is proof positive that the ball has been dropped.  There is no one person to blame, it is a systemic failure, but the constant down playing of the terrorist threat by Ms. Napolitano and the administration in general has to have played a significant part in the relaxation of security across the board.  Why be vigilant when you are constantly being assured that there is no such thing as a war on terror or radical islamists or terror attacks?

The administration is in denial about the Ft. Hood killer being a jihadi, but this shot across the bow is so blatant that even they can't ignore it or spin it away.

Yes, Janet, there really are terrorists.  It's okay to believe; don't let the other kids tell you differently.

Being mugged by reality really sucks, I know, but it's time to take the lesson you've been handed and actually learn from it before lives are lost.

THE VOICE OF REASON FROM...LINDSEY GRAHAM?

Let me be frank - I'm not a huge fan of Lindsey Graham. I think he is one of those wishy-washy RINO types that have helped the liberals with their progressive agenda.

But every now and then, he surprises me.

Eric Holder looked like a deer in headlights, could not defend his decision to try KSM 6 blocks from the scene of his act of war, and did nothing to convince Americans that criminal trials are the way to go.

It is becoming more and more apparent that this whole exercise is a back-door route to trying the Bush administration and the CIA for war crimes. This isn't about proving KSM's guilt. That was done when he confessed. Because of that confession, there shouldn't even be a trial. And yet, there is.

Holder and Obama are quite convinced he will be found guilty. I'm no lawyer, but isn't that predetermining the outcome, much like a kangaroo court? And why, exactly, do you need to find him guilty? He already admitted he is! Yes, Mr. Holder, the evidence against KSM is overwhelming - he entered a guilty plea. But, then again, this is the guy who allowed a guilty verdict against New Black Panther Party voter intimidators to be thrown out with no explaination whatsoever, so nothing his department has done so far has made much sense.

Criminal courts have way too many loopholes to let off the criminal - such as officials assuring the public of not just a guilty verdict, but a death penalty guilty verdict before the trial even begins. Apparently Obama and Holder have forgotten that whole 'presumption of innocence' thing - or maybe they think it is actually 'presumption of guilt'. Is that part of the 'change' we were sold during the election last year?

Sen. Graham is absolutely right - this is BAD history that Holder and Obama are making. In their asinine quest to 'showcase' the American court system, they are showing the world that America is okay with kangaroo show trials. That is NOT the American way. This scenario smacks more of Chavez's socialist Venezuela than the United States.

They are also making NYC a target again, and costing the city, which is already deep in the red, an estimated $75 million in added security costs. The trauma the people of New York suffered will be revisited for as long as this trial lasts - which may be years, if some analysts are right. That trauma will be amplified by the anxiety of a potential al-Quaeda strike.

Even if al-Quaeda doesn't strike, our criminal trial process will put information at KSM's (and, by extension al-Quaeda) fingertips that a terrorist of his caliber simply shouldn't have.

Put simply, Obama is allowing Holder to compromise our security to go on a Bush administration/CIA witch hunt.

This is an absolute travesty and must be stopped. Kudos to Sen. Graham for recognizing that and calling it what it is.