Guantanamo Reality

News reports indicate that Barack Obama plans to announce an executive order to close the Guantanamo detention facility, but that it may take up to a year to implement.

While this is seemingly a break with Bush administration policy, there is less to it than it appears.

The number of detainees has decreased significantly in recent years from over 700 to 250 as some are released or returned for detention in their home countries. The Bush administration has been stymied in releasing more detainees, since many countries, despite their public criticism of Guantanamo, refuse to take back their citizens.

In other words, the Bush administration is doing quietly what Barack Obama will loudly proclaim.

I have a feeling some of Obama's "change" will look like a break with the past, but in reality, be of little or no substantive difference.

A Two State Solution?

The phrase "a two state solution" has been used for years in discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to mean the creation of two states: an Israel that would be recognized and accepted as a legitimate nation by its Arab neighbors, and a state for the Palestinians.

Tragically, the Palestinians haven't seen it this way. While many believe that the terror is a reaction to Israel's control of the West Bank / Gaza and is meant just to gain Palestinian statehood, it is important to realize that:

• The PLO was founded in 1964, before Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, for the purpose of establishing a Palestinian Arab state in Israel

• The PLO before, and Hamas today, have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. Words matter, and all their actions suggest that they mean what they say.

• The Palestinian leadership has preferred to let large numbers of Palestinians suffer in "temporary" refugee camps for 60 years after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, rather than let them resettle permanently. Why? Because this allows them to demand the "right of return", whereby the "refugees" can return to Israel. It is a stunningly brutal policy (aided and abetted by the UN and West who help keep the refugee camps running), reflecting the character of the Palestinian leadership - if they can do that to their own people, why shouldn't we take them at their word and believe they wish to destroy Israel?

If the Palestinians had pursued a path of peaceful protest, they would have long ago achieved an independent nation. They would have gained enormous creditability in Israel and around the world, demonstrating they can live in peace with Israel and adding to the pressure on Israel to recognize Palestinian statehood. This was the path so successfully pursued by Martin Luther King, Jr. in the cause of black civil rights.

With Hamas in charge in Gaza, the Palestinians elected a group committed to Israel's destruction, who wantonly violates the Geneva Conventions by fighting among civilians and by using schools, hospitals, and mosques as places from which to launch military attacks - for the purpose of generating civilian deaths in a propaganda battle with Israel.

So in light of this bleak history and terror, here is another version of the two-state solution.

Before Israel gained control of the West Bank and Gaza in its 1967 war with the Arabs, the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza part of Egypt. Both those nations have peace treaties with Israel. For years, people have pressured Israel to return to is pre-1967 borders - with the implication that the Palestinians would then have their nation in West Bank and Gaza.

But another interpretation of a return to the pre-1967 borders is for the West Bank to return to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt.

Israel would then be at peace with its neighbors, and Palestinians would be governed by Arabs.

Sounds like a just outcome to me.

Ballooning Auto Bailout

The initial $17.4 billion cost of the auto bailout will merely be a down payment. Witness that less than two weeks after its introduction, the government is providing an additional $6 billion to GMAC and GM to help stimulate auto lending. And unless the Obama administration is tough with the UAW and requires auto workers to receive market wages and benefits, we should expect the bailout costs to balloon and never be fully repaid.

Chrysler reported that its sales for December plunged 53%, much more than the other auto makers. Although it is very difficult and inappropriate for the government to be in the business of picking winners and losers (then again, it is inappropriate to bailing out these companies to begin with), the government can limit auto company losses by pulling the plug on Chrysler and letting it fail.

There is vast excess capacity in the auto industry, which means factories need to close to return the industry to financial health. And since Chrylser continues to demonstrate, as it has for decades, that it is the weakest of the major auto makers, its demise would bolster GM and Ford and give them a better chance of succeeding.

Guantanamo Inmates Have More Rights than Governors?

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has not been indicted (the prosecutor has asked for a three month extension to try to secure the necessary evidence for an indictment), yet alone convicted of a crime, but he is judged sufficiently guilty by Democrats that he shouldn't exercise his legal right to appoint a successor to Barack Obama's Senate seat.

For a party that has taken great offense to the detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, this is remarkable behavior by Democrats. After all, U.S. citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

There is one principle that explains this seemingly contradictory behavior: political expediency. Guantanamo has been a useful rallying cry to denounce President Bush and Republicans, and the Democrats fear ongoing negative publicity from having a U.S. Senator appointed by Blagojevich.

This is not exactly a Profile in Courage.*

* John Kennedy published a book in 1955 titled Profiles in Courage, which presented the stories of eight U.S. Senators who demonstrated a willingness to stand up to their party or public opinion and suffered politically for it.

The Worst Senate Democrat?

Senate Democrats are treating Roland Burris, the choice of Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, as not just the worst prospective Senator but so bad that his taking the office is beyond the pale.

But is he?

Sure, it is offensive that the auctioneer-in-chief of Illinois gets to pick anyone for the Senate seat he attempted to sell. But Illinois Democrats, who control the state legislature, could have avoided this problem by passing a law requiring a special election, rather than appointment by the governor, for open Senate seats.

Immediately after the Blagojevich scandal hit, that's what Illinois Democrats suggested they would do. But when they started worrying that a Republican might win the special election, they decided it was better to risk Blagojevich making a Democratic appointment than risk a Republican victory.

Burris is an ex-state attorney general, so while not the strongest candidate, he is certainly a politician of some accomplishment.

What really upsets Obama and Washington Democrats is not that Burris is unqualified to be Senator, but that if Burris becomes a Senator, the Blagojevich scandal won't be far from public view.

In reality, Burris would not be worst current or prospective Senate Democrat. Several can vie for that title:

• Al Franken: he is currently leading by 49 votes in his battle with Norm Coleman for the Senate seat from Minnesota, and is truly a joke (no pun intended) for a candidate. It is astounding that Minnesota Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate than Franken, but they didn't - and now he is likely to enter the Senate.

• Caroline Kennedy: in a state laden with Democrats, New York may end up with the newest member of the Kennedy clan to enter government. She has never held elected office, nor has articulated her views for public inspection until some recent efforts to do so - which included uttering "you know" 142 times in an interview.

• Robert Byrd: Byrd has been a Senator from West Virginia for 50 years, so his problems aren't new, but it is a biggie: he was a member of the KKK until at least the age of 29 or 30.

• Chris Dodd: aside from being a defender of Hugo Chavez, the would-be dictator of Venezuela, Dodd received low-interest rate mortgages from Countrywide Financial - and sat in judgment on the industry as a member, and now Chairman, of the Senate Banking committee.

Do you think Senate Democrats will go after any of these for their failings, as they have Burris for Blagojevich's faults? Don't hold your breath.

Anti-American Bias Runs Deep

International journalists voted Jamaica's Usain Bolt athlete of the year, defeating Michael Phelps in the vote. While Bolt is an extraordinary athlete, setting world records with each of his three gold medals, Phelps won an unprecedented eight gold medals.

The vote only makes sense if there is a bias against America, extending to its individual athletes, in the world at large.

Although the article doesn't mention when the vote occurred, since the story was just published you would think the vote took place recently - after the election of Barack Obama as President.

In its own small way, this may be an indicator that America's "image" in the world, so precious to many on the left, will not be magically transformed with our new administration.

Blagojevich's Interesting Choice

While Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) has infuriated Senate Democrats and Barack Obama with his appointment of Roland Burris to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat, he has chosen a man with no self-esteem issues:  Burris has already built his own tomb, with plenty of room to add new personal accomplishments as can be seen here.

Illinois politics, and politicians, are certainly interesting.