Yesterday State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley referred to Gitmo terrorists as “refugees.” During the daily State Department briefing, the Assistant Secretary of State unveiled the new terminology (Video here at 24:10 minutes):
REPORTER QUESTION: Talk to us a little bit about response and talks and any commitments that you may have gotten from our European and other friends in the international community about taking in Guantanamo detainees as the camp in Guantanamo is expected to close at some point in the near future. Have you gotten any commitments from our European friends and anybody else?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHILIP J. CROWLEY: Ambassador Dan Fried continues his efforts to resettle, you know, Guantanamo refugees to various places around the world.
Resettling refugees. Like we resettled the Vietnamese boat people fleeing oppression? Like the Irish emigrating to escape the potato famine? Sure: to Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the terrorists imprisoned at Gitmo are “refugees” to be “resettled.”
A refugee is a person seeking protection from religious persecution or political oppression or seeking safe haven during a war. The Obama administration denies we are even at war. Could they possibly consider these terrorists as victims seeking safety?
The terrorists housed at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are the worst of the worst of those who murder people under the guise of their religious views. They plot and plan to blow up men, women and children as they innocently go about their daily lives. Some of those poor, unfortunates at Gitmo are responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans on September 11th.
Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Gitmo refugee. Could anything be more absurd? (Yet putting KSM into a civilian court system that has completely different standards of rules of evidence than, say, a wartime military tribunal, and you could be dealing with a “not guilty” verdict through disqualified evidence.)
A dear friend once passed along very sage advice about playing with verbal fire. He told me if you ever speak before the public, never say anything in private that you might regret saying if it were to slip out in public. Because it will come out of your mouth at the most inopportune moment — like repeating a humorous nickname that you heard someone use. Former Texas Congressman Dick Armey learned that unfortunate lesson several years ago in a nickname gaffe about Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
When something as substantial as “Gitmo refugee” rolls so easily off of a spokesman’s tongue, you can lay odds that it’s been said before — and often.
Hoekstra Seeks White House Intent on Gitmo
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee is calling on the White House to confirm or deny press reports stating they’ve abandoned their plans to transfer some Guantanamo Bay terrorists to the prison facility in Standish, Michigan.
“I am seeking formal notification of the Obama administration’s plans for Guantanamo inmates, but preliminary indications at this time are that Standish is off the table,” Hoekstra said. “The administration has been anything but transparent and has refused to answer even basic questions about its Guantanamo intentions, but I will continue to seek answers and press them to keep Gitmo open. The detention facility there was built specifically for housing terrorist detainees, and there is no compelling reason or problem that will be solved by bringing them anywhere in the United States, whether to Michigan or Kansas or any other state.”
“President Obama made a mistake by rushing a decision on Gitmo and setting an arbitrary closure date when he didn’t have a plan,” Hoekstra added. “The bipartisan opposition to the president’s plan to close Guantanamo Bay shows that this is not an issue to be solved politically. The real solution to the president’s dilemma is to keep the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay open.”
Rasmussen: Support for Health Care Reform Hits New Low
As the Senate Finance Committee resumes their markup a mere outline of their latest effort for a government takeover of health care, public support continues to plummet despite or perhaps in response to the Obama media blitz that seemingly has no end.
Only 41 percent of voters favor the Democrat plan, two points lower that its lowest historical level just a week ago. A full 56 percent of voters are opposed to the plan proposed by Obama and Congressional Democrats.
A mere 33 percent of seniors support the plan while a whopping 59 percent of seniors oppose. A measly 16 percent of those over 65 years of age strongly favor the legislation while 35 percent are strongly opposed. That’s cutting directly into a Democrat base constituency that turns out to vote in substantial numbers.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30 percent of voters strongly approve of Obama’s job performance while 39 percent strongly disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index of -9.
Obama’s overall dismal numbers show that 49 percent of voters at least somewhat approve of his job performance while 51 percent disapprove.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter