Liberals and Terrorists Fume Over Gitmo
by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
30 June 2005
"The principle reason Americans should be angry about Gitmo is that it's not bad enough."
One simple, do-it-yourself method of examining American politics is determining what, at any given moment, liberals are screeching about. This works mainly because, as opposed to solution-minded conservatives, liberals are always screeching about something. As of this writing -- and this may change very rapidly, I realize -- they're worried about the treatment of terrorists in Cuba.
They're not worried about the Communists in Cuba, mind you; terrorists who favor collectivism have never really concerned liberals. Amnesty International may call Gitmo a "gulag," but, historically, liberals haven't been able to find much to say when it comes to actual gulags like those employed by the Soviet Union. Though I am by no means an expert on Soviet prison life, I'm pretty sure Russians forced to peel potatoes in Siberia didn't often feast on lemon chicken.
In fact, I'm not even sure law-abiding citizens of Moscow got to feast on lemon chicken. Maybe they did, but only if, by virtue of luck and perseverance, they stood in the correct line for a sufficient period of time. I don't think there were very many babushkas living as well as most of the terrorists currently being "tortured" at Guantanamo Bay.
What sounds better: living at Gitmo under the supervision of U.S. troops, or living in Ukraine under the supervision of large automatic rifles?
Dissidents in the U.S.S.R. ate shoes and talked about bad soil. Terrorists who seek to murder Americans are forced to listen to loud music. (If loud music is so unsettling, why are concert tickets for the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, and U2 selling like lemon chicken in Moscow?)
We've even got liberals mad at us for referring to Gitmo as -- wait for it -- "Gitmo." Letter-writer Lincoln Cushing of Berkeley, California is "disappointed to see [the San Francisco Chronicle] lower itself to the level of the Bush administration by using the word 'Gitmo' in an editorial...."
"'Gitmo,'" Cushing indignantly writes, "is military slang for the U.S. naval base in Cuba's Guantanamo Bay, which in turn is an Americanized, accent-less version of the correct Spanish location name….It is an ugly and offensive word, and its use only reinforces our national arrogance."
This Letter to the Editor appeared the same day that another brilliant thinker, Rick Healey, spent several dozen words criticizing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom I believe was once a movie star, for having too many jackets. "His clothing must be killing him, not to mention the closet-remodeling cost."
This is what happens when you let liberals talk about foreign policy.
The principle reason Americans should be angry about Gitmo is that it's not bad enough. I'm not sure I want terrorists in Cuba eating better than kids in Cuba. On the contrary, I think most Americans would agree that imprisoned terrorists should lead lives of a somewhat higher stress level than Martha Stewart living under house-arrest. There's a lot to be said for bread and water.
And what's all this about "closing" Gitmo? Merely closing one naval base would not mean an end to the War on Terror, nor would it mean an end to the jailing of terrorists. Shutting down Guantanamo Bay would only create another facility, which would be built and run very similarly to Gitmo. We know this because, unlike Social Security, Gitmo works. It needs no reform.
My one concession to liberals currently rooting for terrorists is that President Bush should address what it is, exactly, we're doing at Guantanamo. He doesn't need to be defensive, but it would be nice if he would speak up once in a while.
Congressional Democrats are right when they say that this week's speech was "more of the same." Most of us may like "the same," but more chitchat about the wonders of democracy is exactly what we don't need.
We need concrete facts. I want to hear a list of all the amenities terrorists are afforded at Gitmo, perhaps in addition to a list of all the amenities afforded to, say, American POWs.
Liberals could discuss that for awhile -- maybe over a nice lemon chicken.
Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee. |
