But notice his rather blank pause on O'Reilly when Bill asks whether the former Navy Rear Admiral believes in military tribunals:
KSM to Manhattan? Upholds our values no matter what media grandstanding occurs. Hasan investigated by Congress? Let's not have any political grandstanding. It would be nice to hear him explain how our values are upheld by allowing Cole bomber Nashiri to get a tribunal while Walid bin Attash, who also participated in the planning of the Cole, should come to New York. Of course KSM planned the Pentagon attack, which would seem a military target.
A partisan might deduce that evidence against Nashiri will be limited to the years before Bush arrived and therefore not something Holder would want splashed all over the news. But they wouldn't dare politicize war on contingency trials, would they?
Ironically, Bill Clinton and some of his buddies campaigned hard for Sestak's 2006 victory against Curt Weldon, who was poking around in some rather sensitive (and some say absurd) areas before his political demise. A notable name in the Sestak corner was Sandy Berger. Not to say this is an outright defense of Weldon--that jury is still out. Just sayin'.
By the way, Sestak is one of few Democrats to ever hold that House seat, which might make some wonder how blue dog he might be on health care. In the bigtime affirmative column. Wait, wait, he's running for US Senate now against Specter. No need to grandstand to a bunch of teabaggers to get reelected anymore.