Sad but true:

Members of Congress have demanded that President Obama present concrete plans for dealing with the over 200 dangerous detainees currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities before Congress funds its dismantling.

Obama responded to those demands yesterday with an extended speech in which he described in fine detail the complex structure of the sentences he will use, and the deep thought process he will employ, when dealing with Guantanamo and other national security issues.

My guess is that he'll be seen as something of a disaster on domestic policy, what with the massive spending and growth of the federal government. But on foreign policy? I believe he'll be vindicated.

In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.

We'll give it 20 years or so. Time will tell, but I think people will appreciate W's stalwart approach to foreign policy. My real fear is that Bush will look great in comparison to his successor, who will likely be as much of a disaster (or more) than Bush's predecessor on the international side...

Via NRO:

There’s just no comparison. Obama’s own running mate warned this week that Obama’s youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis “generated” precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on November 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he’s been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it, and — finally — deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

The likelihood is that people won't listen, but I can hope.

How is it that Bill Ayers can be considered "mainstream"? Only in Chicago:

Turn on the TV news when John McCain is picking up undecided voters by invoking Barack Obama's relationship with unrepentant American terrorist William Ayers and, invariably, some liberal talking head will sniff in disgust and say Ayers is no big deal where Obama comes from.

Unfortunately, that's true. Ayers is a terrorist. But this is Chicago.

Obama and Ayers are neighbors and they worked together on school issues with the same foundation. Obama's political coming-out party was held in Ayers' living room when Obama was running for his first political office.

And the boss of Chicago is Mayor Richard Daley. Mayor Shortshanks has thrown his protective embrace around both men. These are facts.

But the reason Ayers is not a big deal in Chicago has to do with the Chicago Way, and the left fork of that road that has been bought and paid for by the Daley machine, subsidized by taxpayers who foot the bill for public relations contracts from City Hall.

I suppose the body count is the main difference. And obviously there were ideological differences; McVeigh was interesting in revenge on a government that he felt had abandoned its original purpose and ideals; Ayers wanted to simply overthrow that same government and replace it with a completely different system. But both had ideologies that led them into violence, both committed acts of terror in service of their ideologies, and both are responsible for the deaths of innocents.

Only one of them got what he deserved after his crimes; McVeigh was, of course, executed. Ayers is a free man due to a mistake by law enforcement in the investigation of his case. And of course, because Ayers' crimes were conducted in the service of a leftist worldview, he is not only not ostracized, but rather welcomed into the polite intellectual circles of the left as something of a folk hero. He now spreads his vicious ideology as a Professor at the University of Illinois - Chicago.

And, apparently, mentors Democrat presidential candidates. What has happened to our society?

Charles Krauthammer absolutely nails it:

Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.

Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

The man has lousy judgement. No question about it:

BarackObama.com, the campaign’s official website, offers up a “fact check” that Obama was just eight years old when the Weathermen were active in 1969. The Obama campaign has tried to use the founding date of the Weathermen as a touchstone, claiming that the acts of the group were something that happened “40 years ago” when Obama was a child. Far closer to the truth is the December 6, 1990, sentencing date of Weathermen Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, when the last of the Weathermen were sentenced for their role in a string of bombings in the mid-1980s, including bombs that detonated at the National War College, the Washington Navy Yard Computing Center, the Washington Navy Yard Officers’ Club, New York City’s Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the Israeli Aircraft Industries Building, New York City’s South African Consulate, and the United States Capitol Building.

about damn time. Obama's biggest problem is his ideology. Time to start pointing out where it comes from:

The Republican campaign, falling behind Obama in polls, plans to make attacks on Obama's character a centerpiece of presidential candidate John McCain's message with a month remaining before Election Day.

Palin told a group of donors at a private airport, "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

Who gives a crap what the media says about this line of attack. It's the truth. Hit Obama hard; he deserves it.

Again, screw Bill Ayers. And again.

Sad and disturbing, and well worth heeding:

Golda Meir once said that the Middle East would have peace when Israel’s enemies learned to love their children more than they loved death. Masab plainly tells the Israelis that not only has that time not yet come, but that the death-worship has gained steam. The same warning applies to all forms of radical Islam. There simply is no room to negotiate with people in love with death.