Jim Geraghty and Patrick Ruffini have a great take on the Guantanamo narrative. Patrick writes on who it favors:

Camp X-Ray is about detaining terrorists who want to kill Americans — the al Qaeda kind of terrorists, the September 11th kind of terrorists, the comrades of Atta. Some on the left would like to dismantle Camp X-Ray over some perceived injustices. The injustices? Placing the Koran on top of a television set. (Pity the poor little terrorists.) And what do they propose we do with the friends of Atta? They won't say. Have we forgotten that we are at war with these people? ...

We shouldn't be afraid of making the argument, even when it sounds rough, even when it sounds impolitic, in ways that connect directly to the security of you and your family. That's how you approach debates like Guantanamo and Bolton. The moment you get bogged down in arcane procedural minutae (Is it or is it not a filibuster?) you make it something less than what it is: a referendum on strength or weakness in the war on terror.

With rare exception, Democrats have taken the position of weakness. Oh sure, they can call it what they want: conciliation, negotiation, nuance, understanding, but their basic position is something the public pretty plainly understands and clearly rejected in the elections of 2002 and 2004. As such, we don't need to win the argument all over again when trying to mobilize people over al Qaeda detainees and Bolton: just connect these issues to the narrative of strength and weakness people already feel in their gut.

Incidentally, Ruffini sums up where all this began perfectly:

It's the revenge of Newsweek: from phony story to manufactured crisis, all in less than a few weeks.

Update: Betsy Newmark has some thoughts and additional links.