Leftist Groups and Media Blast Keep America Safe Over Al-Qaeda 7

The "attack ad" by Keep America Safe, view it here, should not be the main issue covered by the main stream media, or as some pundits call it, the lame stream media. The al-Qaeda 7 label may be worthy of debate, but the bigger picture may be lost in such narrow focus.

One of the issues is transparency; transparency from an administration that was propelled to power by boasts of transparency, change and hope. Adults and many political junkies have a thick skin when politicians renege on their bids and promises; but what about national security?

A deeper issue or more appropriate debate is the fact that the Obama administration appointed DOJ lawyers that have worked on, advocated for, and supported the enemy. A gentle reminder to the casual observer is that America is still at war.

Many Obama supporters are quick to point out that the Bush administration hired three lawyers of the same background.

Was it not the Obama administration that promised change? Was it not a mandate to abandon Bush's policies? Why then, when it comes to compromised national security and fiscal irresponsibility, are such failed policies embraced and continued?

The totality of Obama's policy decisions ranging from his appointments of radical czars to DOJ lawyers that advocated for al-Qaeda and the Taliban begs the question: Why?

To ignore such matters is to our peril, "A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."- Bertrand de Jouvenel.

Reasonable folks agree that captured enemy combatants should be treated humanely and afforded counsel. Those policies predate the Obama administration and elevates America from the enemy and rogue nations.

When leftist organizations such as the ACLU and the media claim Conservatives are divided over the Keep America Safe ad, it is a distraction. Those weak on national security issues would prefer to avoid that debate.

Lawyers that work in a firm that have done work for GITMO detainees or other high profile suspects should not in of itself be reason for exclusion to the DOJ.

How about activist lawyers that go out of their way to defend the enemy as a matter of ideology as opposed to professional obligation?

What about conflict of interests and attorney client privilege, will we have prior defenders of the enemy now prosecuting the enemy, what will the American Bar Association say about that?

During a time of war, do we have a sitting president that is stacking our government with sympathizers?

To claim the 'al-Qaeda 7' are sympathizers to the enemy without merit may very well be unfair. Why then would our government withhold their identities?

Just to name a few, what are the sentiments of the following?

Robert Bauer, WH Chief Counsel; Tony West, DOJ; Neal Katyal, DOJ; Jennifer Daskal, DOJ.

It is one thing to oppose policy; after all dissent is the hallmark of Freedom. It may be a far different matter to oppose your nation on behalf of al-Qaeda terrorists.

Americans should turn the pages for themselves and decide.

After all, shouldn't it be about keeping America safe?Follow up content to: The al-Qaeda 7 DOJ lawyers identifiedMore Reading: Meet the DOJ lawyers who defended terrorist detainees.More about Obama's lawyer, Robert Bauer.Sources: Embedded in content