It's not that often a Washington commentator gets to talk politics and revolution in Iran on television with a famous movie mogul. I was on Hardball with Mike Medavoy, who helped make the Silence of the Lambs, Apocalypse Now, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Network, Annie Hall, and many other movies and who recently wrote a book on how Hollywood can help promote abroad the positive aspects of American culture. We didn't get to discuss films. But I pointed out that John McCain could not now get away with joking about bombing Iran and poked Dick Cheney for being one of the demagogic politicians misinforming the American public about what will happen to Gitmore detainees once that detention camp is closed.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

Sometimes you just can't use your ammo.

I was a panelist on the McLaughlin Group this past weekend. One of the topics was Gitmo and the Obama administration's move to release some of the detainees (such as the Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs) or to transfer others to the United States for further detention and, in some cases, trial. As I did my research for this segment--yes, I do prepare--I came across a craven editorial that had recently appeared in The Daily News. The New York paper's editorialists were whining about the administration sending Ahmed Ghailani, a Gitmo prisoner accused of participating in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, to New York for trial in federal court:

Compare the way Washington has approached New York with its wooing of Palau, a tiny Pacific island state that has magnanimously agreed to resettle 13 Chinese Muslims, called Uighurs, who were picked up in Afghanistan and later found not to be enemy combatants.

Palau is in line for $200 million in U.S. aid - more than $15 million per detainee - although all parties insist there is no connection between the funds and plans for the Uighurs.

The question that must be asked is: Where's ours?

Where's ours? Were they kidding? Ghailani is accused of participating in a murderous plot that blew up US property and killed 224 people. Patriotic Americans ought to want this guy brought to justice and, if found guilty, locked away for life--just like four of his compatriots who are already imprisoned at the supermax facility in Florence, Colorado. But The Daily News' editorialists were suggesting that Ghailani ought to be tried in Manhattan only if New York City receives a payoff from the feds. (By the way, the detainees who may end up in Palau were found not to be enemy combatants after spending years at Gitmo. Comparing them to Ghailani is silly.)

This was another version of the demagogic argument that GOPers and some Dems have been making against the Obama policy of shutting down Gitmo. They've been screaming about bringing these terrorists--they never say "suspected terrorists"--to the United States, as if these detainees are superhuman evildoers who will escape custody and engineer the destruction of your neighborhood.

As I've noted elsewhere, a number of terrorists (some affiliated with al Qaeda) have been successfully tried and imprisoned in the United States. And several have been convicted in federal court in New York City. By sending Ghailani to Manhattan for trial, the Obama administration was just doing what's been done by past administrations.

So why go on about this vis-à-vis the McLaughlin Group? One of my fellow shouting heads on the show was going to be Mort Zuckerman, the owner of The Daily News. I prepared to challenge him about this editorial during the Gitmo segment. I was ready to go: "Mort, do you think that New Yorkers should be demanding a bribe in order for the feds to apply harsh US justice to terrorists who kill?" But when that part of the show arrived during the taping...the opportunity never came. The conversation simply did not go in a direction that provided me an opening. Oh well. Maybe another time.

I'm still looking for signs that President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court will split the right. Earlier, I reported that conservative strategist Grover Norquist was happy with Obama's choice because it has united conservatives in opposition. Longtime rightwing poohbah Richard Viguerie has said the same thing, and he's been calling for an anti-Sotomayor crusade. But so far Senate Republicans and Michael Steele, chair of the GOP, have refrained from beating any anti-Sotomayor drums. And that means Norquist, Viguerie and the conservatives could end up being disappointed if Senate GOPers decide not to go after the first Latina nominated to the highest court.

In an email, I asked Norquist if he thought the Senate Republicans share his enthusiasm for opposing her. His response surprised me a little. He wrote:

In criticizing Barack Obama's national security speech, my fellow CQPolitics.com blogger Bill Pascoe argues that the president has lost the Gitmo debate. He writes:

Obama was explaining, in a defensive posture, how it was that he found himself whipsawed between, on the one hand, a MoveOn.org Left that wanted Gitmo burned to the ground the moment he took his hand off the Bible, and, on the other, a Congress that wanted no part of explaining to its constituents why their local jail might be fortified to hold Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

I don't deny that Obama has had a difficult week. But that's largely because GOPers and Dick Cheney were being successful demagogues and fear-mongerers. When they whip up the anxieties of constituents about bringing KSM and other bad guys into the United States, they are being disingenuous.

Day One was a pretty good day.

First off, President Barack Obama kept the nation safe from terrorist attack. And he also started un-Bushing the nation. He did the latter by issuing a series of executive orders and memos. One mandated that the military commissions under way at Guantanamo Bay be halted for 120 days. Another reshaped government policy so that it will be harder for ex-President George W. Bush (and other former residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) to block the release of their administration's records.

A third dealt with an issue near and dear to my heart: the Freedom of Information Act. I've been using this good-government law for years to pry information out of the federal government, and over the past two decades it has become emasculated. Some agencies have taken up to almost ten years to respond to FOIA requests I've submitted. (Foggy Bottom, I'm talking about you!) That can make FOIA useless--and damn irritating--for journalists and authors. As a symbol of open government, FOIA has become a tattered, worn-out flag.

Today, Obama tried to restore some of its lost luster. In a memo he sent to the heads of federal agencies and executive departments, he declared:

AP reported on Monday that President-elect Barack Obama, after moving into the White House next week, will issue an executive order to begin the process that would lead to the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. With that in the news, I was asked to appear on Hardball to debate conservative talk-show host Michael Smerconish, who supports the use of waterboarding. Here's the clip:

At least Smerconish, a lawyer, agreed with one basic point: the US government, despite what the Bush-Cheney administration has contended, has no right to hold anyone--not even enemy combatants--indefinitely. Perhaps Obama is right: conservatives and liberals--that is, those of us who don't take our constitutional advice from Dick Cheney's office--can find some common ground.