Apparently, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina can't walk and chew gum at the same time legislatively speaking. On Saturday, Senator Graham said that he would withdraw from the bipartisan effort to move a energy bill forward because of concerns that the Democrats would try to push forward with a debate on immigration reform, rather than the energy bill.

The story in the New York Times:

Mr. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in a sharply worded letter on Saturday that he would no longer participate in negotiations on the energy bill, throwing its already cloudy prospects deeper into doubt. He had been working for months with Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, on the a legislation, which they were scheduled to announce with considerable fanfare on Monday morning. That announcement has been indefinitely postponed.

In his letter to his two colleagues, Mr. Graham said that he was troubled by reports that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the White House were planning to take up an immigration measure before the energy bill. Mr. Graham has worked with Democrats in the past on immigration matters and was expected to be an important bridge to Republicans on that issue, as well as on energy.

Mr. Graham said that any Senate debate on the highly charged subject of illegal immigration would make it impossible to deal with the difficult issues involved in national energy and global warming policy.

He said in his letter that energy must come first and that Democrats appeared to be rushing to take up immigration because of rising anti-immigrant sentiment, including a harsh new measure signed into law in Arizona on Friday.

“Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy,” Mr. Graham said. “I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amounts of time, energy and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress.”

I have to admit that I fail to understand Senator Graham's argument on this. Instead of throwing what amounts to a temper tantrum, Senator Graham would serve the nation well if he continued to show the leadership he has shown in trying to forge a consensus on a pressing issue of global importance. This bill is important not just because our economy must reoriented its energy production away from fossil fuels but in fact life as we know it on the planet depends on curbing our carbon footprint. While I share Senator Graham's view that this bill is priority one that shouldn't preclude the Senate from moving forward on multiple legislative priorities. If we can only tackle one issue at a time, our government is indeed dysfunctional.

On CBS's Face the Nation,Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina hinted at a deal in which he would help the White House convince his fellow Republicans to support closing the US detention facility at the Guantánamo Naval Base in Cuba if President Obama reverses course and commits to trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other 9/11 co-conspirators in military tribunals.

The background from Fox News:

The South Carolina Republican is considered to be a key player in the administration's strategy to close the detainee camp at Guantanamo. He supports shuttering the facility but opposes trying the alleged architects of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in civilian court.

He acknowledged Sunday that he's willing to play ball with the White House on Guantanamo, provided it gives him what he wants on the terror trials.

"I don't believe Khalid Sheikh Mohammed robbed a liquor store. He's the mastermind of 9/11. ... If he's not an enemy combatant, who would be?" Graham told CBS' "Face the Nation."

He suggested that using the tribunals for such high-profile terror suspects would go a long way toward easing opposition from the right to closing Guantanamo and sending its detainees to U.S. soil.

"I can't do it by myself. But I think if we could get Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators of 9/11 back in the military commission, it would go down well with the public," Graham said.

Congress has barred the transfer of prisoners who don't have a path to trial -- those who appear to be detained indefinitely -- and refused to give the president the money for a facility to house them on American soil. Meeting resistance, the Obama administration blew by its self-imposed deadline to have the Guantanamo prison closed by January.

A senior administration official told Fox News the decision on the trials, while "weeks away," is linked to a "basket of other issues" including obtaining congressional funding for a prison to house Guantanamo detainees in Thomson, Ill., and for other terror trials in federal civilian courts.

On Sunday, the American Civil Liberties Union ran a full-page ad in The New York Times calling on the President not to back down from his Administration’s decision to prosecute the 9/11 suspects in Federal court. The ad comes in response to news reports that the Obama Administration is on the verge of reversing Attorney General Eric Holder's decision late last year to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four others in Federal court in New York City.

The ACLU ad features a picture of President Obama morphing into a picture of former President Bush with the copy asking "Change or more of the same?"

There's more...

The Associated Press is reporting that advisers to the President-elect are saying that "one of his first duties in office will be to order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay." While it is reassuring that the President-elect is moving forward to quickly close this blight on the American conscience, he would do well to simply return it as soon as possible to its rightful owners, the Republic of Cuba. It's simply time to unwind an empire the United States should have never been acquired in the first place. Moreover, the lease of Guantánamo Bay is likely illegal under international law or at the very least the US has breached the terms of the lease thus invalidating the lease.

In 1903, shortly after Cuba achieved independence from Spain with American intervention, Theodore Roosevelt signed the deal with the new and American approved government of Cuba to lease 45 square miles at the mouth of Guantánamo Bay for 2,000 gold coins a year -- now valued at slightly more than $4,000 annually. In 1934, the United States and Cuba renegotiated the Guantánamo Bay lease, agreeing that the land would revert to Cuban control only if abandoned or by mutual consent. The U.S. government continues to pay the lease every year, but the Cuban government refuses to cash the cheques. As recently as February of last year Cuba demanded the return of the base. The US simply ignores Cuba's demands.

There's more...