Is Trying 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed The Dumbest Obama Idea Yet?
November 13, 2009 / 9:39 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierTrying the evil Sheikh in New York City under the American legal system is the dumbest idea ever in the history of dumb presidential legal ideas and that’s when compared to the biggest poop pile of dumb Obama ideas generally which are the worst in any American presidency ever.*
If you disagree, please share an example of a dumber Obama idea.
*I keep wondering if perhaps that I might be being hyperbolic here. Maybe I should rewrite that obnoxious run-on sentence and couch a little. Maybe I should say,”It seems most unwise to bring a mastermind terrorist to New York City, home of the injustice, try to seek a fair trial, give him the right to explore all evidence against him, fund his defense by the taxpayers, etc. Most, problematic, that.” But no. It’s just plain dumb. Or insane.
15 Responses to “Is Trying 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed The Dumbest Obama Idea Yet?”
November 13 2009 / 9:43 am
Reply
Running for President with about 2 months applicable experience? Announcing that they really didn’t need the TARP money, haven’t spent the last third, but want to keep some as a slush fund? Taking longer to commit to an Afghanistan plan than it took to conquer the Talib government to start with?
I mean, “dumbest Obama idea” is really a pretty difficult line to establish.
November 13 2009 / 9:52 am
Reply
LOL, Charles. You DO have a very good point. But this idea is staggering in its stupidity….if only for political reasons.
EVERYONE is going to hate this idea except for the radical leftists ACLU moron types.
November 13 2009 / 9:57 am
Reply
You look at the decision and say it’s dumb. Or insane.
I see three reasons for “bad” decisions: incompetence (inexperience), indifference, or intent.
When a president acts (or fails to act), I start with looking for intent before considering the other explanations. Suppose the action is deliberate. What, then, might he be trying to achieve?
November 13 2009 / 10:47 am
Reply
Insane? Gimme a break. We want at him. Unlike much of the rest of the country, apparently, New Yorkers do not live their lives in continual fear of some vague threat, though we are acutely aware of the risks of violence. (The disembodied voices on the subway will never let us forget it.) There is no better place to exact justice on such slime. To deny New Yorkers the right to bring these terrorists to justice would be an affront to justice. Extra security will indeed be needed . . . to secure Mohammad and his ilk FROM US. If the bed-wetters at Red State are scared, they can remain hidden safely under their beds. We’ll handle the terrorists.
November 13 2009 / 11:15 am
Reply
Dumb for justice sake; but it’s not about KSM, it’s about the CIA, and pandering to MoveOn.org and the anti-intelligence crowd.
November 13 2009 / 1:20 pm
Reply
Mary – because of some of the restrictions of introducing classified documents into civilian court trials, there is a very real possibility that he could be declared Not Guilty.
I don’t have fears of vague threats because I don’t live in a terrorist-supporting country, nor do I live close to one. Also, I don’t live in fear because terrorists are stupid. It took YEARS to plan the 9/11 operation, which any competent person could have pulled together in 6 months. However, the possibility of KSM being released is disturbing because of the validation it would give to the radicals in the Middle East and elsewhere.
November 13 2009 / 1:47 pm
Reply
Like I said, we’re not afraid to bring terrorists to justice in New York, unlike many other states that apparently FEAR hauling terrorists into prison – judging by the hysteria of their representatives at the very thought. We step up.
November 13 2009 / 1:48 pm
Reply
You flaming bunch of bed-wetting wusses ought to keep your knickers untwisted.
Try crying about the trial when and if something goes wrong.
You catch them alive, you bring them to trial, you do justice and you see to it that the world sees that justice is done to these scumbags.
You don’t keep them in a cage because you’re scared.
November 14 2009 / 7:43 am
Reply
See that’s the whole point Mary – WHY bring the POSSIBILITY of some of his buddies trying to make a martyr out of him and killing a bunch of other INNOCENT people in the process? (not to mention the classified information issue) Have you EVER known any legal process that hasn’t turned out DIFFERENT than what it was meant to be when it started? Not just a can of worms, but way to MANY cans of worms.
And for YOU fuster, I can already see your post if something goes wrong, BLAMING us for NOT seeing that something COULD go wrong before hand. And yes Fussy, you WOULD make that post.
November 14 2009 / 2:43 pm
Reply
I’ll repeat again: We’re not afraid of terrorists. If we have to open a few cans of worms while we’re opening a few cans of legal whoop-arse, then so be it. We’re not afraid of bureaucrats either. In the words of the former Commander-in-chief: Bring it on.
November 14 2009 / 6:18 pm
Reply
Dave, can your chickenspit defeatist blather. I want the guy tried, I want him tried right here, and if the government is so befuddled that it can’t make a case against him, I’m sure as hell not going to be blaming any silly sheepboy.
Now, stop your bleating and join me in waiting for a nice fair guilty verdict and a very pleasant aftermath.
November 14 2009 / 7:20 pm
Reply
That’s the thing you don’t understand Fussy (and of course resorting to name calling – classic!!!). And from everything I’ve read for the last year plus, you’re the only one who blathers here – until you keep getting proved wrong enough you don’t post anymore in a story, you move onto the next one.
He wasn’t ARRESTED in the US. He was captured with COMBAT activities in the WAR ON TERROR overseas. There is NO reason, NOR legal finding, for him (or any other FOREIGN caught terrorists) to be tried in a CRIMINAL court in ANY U.S. City, in fact ALL legal precedence (which you Libs LOOOOOOOVE to site) point to him getting a Military Tribunal. Try him right there in Guantanamo at a Military Tribunal. The entire NY fiasco is a FARCE to try and get EVERYONE related to the Bush Administration in jail.
November 14 2009 / 8:34 pm
Reply
Sorry, Davie, but he’s going to be tried in NY as part of the 9/11 WTC plot.
That very much is a crime and belongs in our court system, and,most particularly, in NYC.
3000 counts worth.
And maybe you might look again to see where he was captured. It wasn’t part of any combat, nor was he likely engaged in combat at any time prior to his capture.
(oh, about that get everyone in the Bush admin in jail,stuff? That’s more silliness. Not only won’t it be attempted, it can’t be done. The statute of limitations has pretty much run on anything except murder. You can ease back on that.)
November 15 2009 / 8:05 am
Reply
Thanks for saying that fuster, it just shows everyone all the more that you have NO IDEA about how things work in a WAR (no MATTER what country someone is “captured” in). Maybe you should go research some actual HISTORY, instead of relying on CNN, HuffyPuffyPost and all the other sycophants of the White House spouting word for word what they WANT you to think – rather than going and finding out for yourself.
And..hahahahhaha if you think Holder, et al. give a flying f*** about any “statute of limitation”, you don’t even listen to THEIR OWN WORDS about going after the CIA, FBI and EVERYTHING the Bush Administration did.
I’ll bet you still even think that all those Democrat health bills going through congress won’t force everyone onto the government plan either.
November 15 2009 / 1:46 pm
Reply
Dave, If I tell you to check your facts when you say that he was captured in combat activities, check your facts.
Unless you think that you can explain your imagined combat activity.
I did listen to a fair bit of talk about going after the CIA and others, and I’m happy to again assure you that you’re out to lunch on this. If you think that the executive branch decides to charge crimes despite being barred from so doing, do you also think that the judiciary will play along?
I can’t think that this administration is going to be allowed as much latitude as the last in loose interpretation of law.