It was an unusual showdown pitting present and former leaders, live on national television, with President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney dueling in back-to-back speeches Thursday over how to best protect the nation against terrorism.
Obama pressed his case for closing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and for discarding interrogation techniques he described as brutal, while Cheney warned that doing so would endanger the country.
But beyond the discord over those issues, the clash represented the latest round in a larger and fast-changing fight for the public’s confidence on national security.
Americans for decades have seen the Republican Party as more trustworthy when it comes to waging war and keeping the country safe. But after sweeping the GOP into the minority in 2008, Obama is trying to forge a doctrine that would upend that view and cement his credentials — and those of his party — as a defender of the country’s security, even as he takes a more moderate course on civil liberties.
Are we in a war or is this a law enforcement matter? Does a combatant gain additional protections by operating out of uniform and in violation of the rules of war expected between uniformed combatants of waring states? This is an entry level question that need to be resolved. The treatment of such persons is a separate question.
Is the need to close U.S. the prison at Guantanamo Bay more symbolic than logistical? Does anyone think there won’t be possible future needs for this facility? The photographs of President Obama and V.P. Cheney are an interesting contrast. I realize Cheney is not as photogenic as Obama but I don’t think the L.A. Times did Cheney any favors either.
here’s some good analysis from Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review:
“President Obama and former Vice President Cheney weren’t so much a study in contrast today as a portrait of harmony. Both men agree that the Bush administration’s anti-terrorist policies were largely correct. Cheney signaled his acceptance of this view by vigorously defending those policies. Obama signaled it by largely adopting those same policies and emitting a fog of words to cover up the fact.”
I have been surprised and pleased that Obama has ratified the greatest part of the Bush administration anti-terror initiatives. I understand that he has to try to appease his base supporters, and some of his speech is aimed at doing that. #3’s “fog of words” is an apt description. On all issues what counts is what Obama does, not what he says.
I saw most of both speeches; I found Cheney clear, concise, and correct. They did what they had to do in the face of a new understanding of the threat, and they did it effectively.
Chris, if so, then it puts Obama in a very unfavorable position. He demogogued the issue for partisan political advantage. The same for Pelosi and many Democrats who supoorted the war only so far as it was popular or it gave them political advantage. They turned against it for the same reason.
[blockquote]Are we in a war or is this a law enforcement matter?[/blockquote]
Yup to both. The movement throughout history to make rules on warfare accelerated in the 20th century. At this time we (Western Civilization) find ourselves asking soldiers to be police officers. Our adversaries don’t bother. As with many good intentions, I don’t believe the consequences have been well thought out.
One interesting point:
Obama was offering a rebuttal to Cheney’s announced speech topic, going on the defensive.
Why do I say this? Because Cheney had announced several weeks ago that he was going to present a speech defending the Bush Administration’s policies. Obama only decided a few days ago that he would speak ON THE SAME DAY on the topic. So Cheney graciously delayed his speech to allow Obama time to finish before he (C.) started.
Obama was trying a preemptive strike but came off whiny with all his personal anecdotes instead of substantive information and offered no plan, just criticism. Plus his choice of the National Archives gave him an echoing, difficult to understand, acoustic forum.
On my grading scale, Cheney comes off as the winner, Obama as the whiner.
Jim Elliott
Florida
[blockquote] Cheney relished his role as a defender of the George W. Bush era. But with an approval rating that is barely more than half Obama’s …[/blockquote]
[blockquote] But Cheney, who gained equal-time treatment through national cable TV outlets … [/blockquote]
I think there is something revealing within these two sentence fragments. The reason Cheney had only half the approval rating is because the mainstream media chose to portray him as evil or extreme. They then admit that he is getting some of his message out. How? Not from the mainstream media, but from such insignificant sources of “cable TV outlets†like Fox News. Maybe if the mainstream media wasn’t so partisan, VP Cheney would not have had his message filtered and thus have obtained more credibility with the populous.
Re-word it:
Cheney’s approval rating is more than half that of Obama’s (and higher than at any time during the Bush administration!).