Hemm, that has got to be the most Churchillian line I have seen in, like, forever. Beautiful. Your entire comment, as well.

Wouldn't it make sense to resolve the status issue and try the detainees first, before moving the venue where they're held? The latter is just a politically correct ploy anyway- what difference does it make if we hold people indefinitely in Cuba or do the same thing on US soil?

Your premise demonstrates my point. Your fear mongering assumes that 1. terrorists are loyal to individuals in their cabal, 2. terrorists have unfettered freedom within the US regardless of all our security organizations, and 3. terrorists are super villains who can defeat any security plan.

Your paranoid scenarios serve them very well. I hope the political points you believe you make are worth inflating the fear rhetoric that terrorists want you to spout. You've got them right where they want you.

As plausible as the silly premise of 24. I think the plot lines from 'The Simpsons' is more plausible.

When a murdering gang member in the U.S. is convicted and sent to a maximum security prison, he is basically on his own. His old gang would love to help him break out, but they aren’t anxious to give up their lives in the process.

Prison guards in the U.S. leave work each day and go home to their families. How hard would it be for a determined group of extremists to find out which guards are on duty between the terrorist prisoner and freedom, kidnap the families of the guards and before sawing off the heads of the children, forcing the guards to release the terrorists?

Seems like a fairly plausible scenario.

It’s easy to rant and rave about making an empty gesture like closing Gitmo without actually thinking though the problems that would cause, but like everything with liberals, it’s the sentiment that counts, not the results.

To win a war on terror, one must accept that sooner or later a small number of suicidal fanatics may(will) suceed in killing people or destroying something. Vigillence not withstanding, wars have casualties on both sides. You don't win that war by disdaining your own nation's principles in a misguided attempt to avoid casualties. You win by going about your daily lives defying the fear engendered by the other side.

If right and left use the terrorist's fear mongering for political maneuvering, you succumb to your enemy's only weapon. The battle is in our minds, not within the machinations of the enemy. It's like Pogo said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

I like that about GG, too.

“Rather than scoff at the inane fear-mongering or point out simple facts to reveal its idiocy, Democratic “leaders” such as Harry Reid echo the right-wing fears in order to prove how Serious and Tough they are”

We essentially have the dumb leading the dumber. That's just great for the country isn't it?

Oh. Wait. Of course it isn't.

It wasn't a LEFT-leaning bi-partisan vote, so it doesn't count, I guess.

And if you truly believe that your fabled Defenders of the Righteous Principles of the Left are so completely feckless, what does that say about those leaders YOU chose to vote in to represent your interests, and your ability to choose leaders?

You seem to be accusing yourself of incompetency.