Good decisions are a lot like scientific proof--people will independently arrive at the same conclusion under the same circumstances time after time.

I've been reading George W. Bush's presidential autobiography, and came to the heart of the book--the three decisions he made immediately in the wake of the destruction of 9/11. I was struck on how, in spite of philosophical and political reasons to arrive at different conclusions, the Obama administration has essentially reaffirmed the essential correctness of those choices. Where they have not, consequences have done it for them.

The decision to treat captured terrorists as prisoners of war rather than criminals is a fresh reminder of the reasons why Bush opened 'Club Med' for our guests from Al Qaeda.

When Richard Reid was arrested, he was swiftly places into the criminal justice system, which entitled him to the same constitutional protections as a common criminal. But the shoe bomber was not a burglar or a bank robber; he was a foot soldier in Al Qaeda's war against America. He had emailed his mother two days before his attempted attack:

"What I am doing is part of the ongoing war between Islam and unbelief."

By giving this terrorist the right to remain silent, we deprived ourselves of the opportunity to collect vital intelligence on his plan and his handlers.

Reid's case made clear we needed a new policy for dealing with captured terrorists. In this new kind of war, there is no more valuable source of intelligence on potential attacks than the terrorists themselves. Amid the steady stream of threats after 9/11, I grappled with three of the most critical decisions I would make in the war on terror: where to hold captured enemy fighters, how to determine their legal status and insure they eventually faced justice, and how to learn what they knew about future attacks so we could protect the American people. (Decisions Points, George W. Bush)

Guantanamo is still open and will be for the foreseeable future. Civilian trials are over except for the rhetorical spin to cover the administration's incompetence. What of 'enhanced interrogation' techniques?

I believe that an administration that is willing to subject its citizens to government sanctioned sexual molestation, doesn't really have a problem with water-boarding.

As is so often the case when we have a Democrat regime, the media simply goes silent of topics of fierce moral urgency. Homeless people disappear from the nightly news, protests suddenly aren't interesting and water-boarded guests at Guantanamo simply aren't news.