Cheney vs. Obama on National Security ... Cheney by TKO

Of course, Cheney's speech was scheduled weeks ago, but given that they happened on the same day, the press made it out as mano v. mano.

Serious commenters cannot help but conclude that Cheney presents a cogent, thoughtful, experienced and well reasoned view; and Obama, well the same obfuscatory babble cloaked in the veneer of trying to sound forceful. In other words, NO CONTEST.

Obama's Speech: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGE0NDdkNTllNmJhZjdhMGYwNjg4ZDVjYjY5NDRiNGI=

Cheney's Speech: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/text_of_cheneys_aei_speech.asp#more

Cheney vs. Obama: A mismatch
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/cheney_vs_obama_a_mismatch.asp


Cheney vs. Obama [Mitt Romney]

Two speeches, two very different men. Former Vice President Cheney seeks no political future. He speaks from the vantage of one who witnessed the killing of our fellow citizens, who deliberated and defined the strategy that would successfully prevent further murders of our fellow Americans.

His address today was direct, well-reasoned, and convincing.

President Obama, on the other hand, continues to speak as a politician. Contrary to the advice I and others gave him, he has placed two of his top political consultants in the West Wing, looking to them to opine on matters of national security. Barack Obama is having a hard time going from politician to president. His speech and his policies have one foot in campaign mode and another in presidential mode. He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries.

It is laughable to suggest that Guantanamo is a meaningful aid in terrorist recruiting. Before Guantanamo came the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing at Riyadh, the attacks on Khobar, the bombing of our embassies, the Cole. There will always be rallying cries for recruitment whether it is the existence of Israel or the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Appeasement has not ever, does not now, and will never satisfy a foe who looks to destroy freedom and rule the world.

Vice President Cheney has been the target of every media, from mainstream to comic. But he spoke today as before without regard to the politics but with abiding respect for the truth. Barack Obama is still hanging on to the campaign trail. He said that the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep at night is keeping America safe. That's a big difference with Vice President Cheney—when it came to protecting Americans, he never went to sleep.

Cheney: Adult [Peter Kirsanow]



A serious, important speech.

Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.

It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.

Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure.

A Few Criticisms . . . [Jay Nordlinger]

. . . of Obama’s national-security speech. Just a few, for now.

1. Obama said the following about what he called America’s “brutal methods” of interrogation: “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured.”

In my view, the first part of that statement is arguable — “They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle.” But the second part is flat-out false. Qaedists determine how they treat Americans by how Americans treat Qaeda detainees? Ridiculous. There is no reciprocity in the Qaeda playbook or mindset. They simply chainsaw away.

I regard this as an embarrassingly naive comment from the president of the United States. I wonder who fed him the notion — or whether he made it up himself or what.

I remember a tour I had of a detainee camp in Iraq last fall. We give them all sorts of classes: Islamic studies, nutrition, art, blah, blah, blah. There is a class on sewing, too. The instructor showed us “the graduation piece” the detainees make: a stuffed camel. I found myself thinking, somewhat bitterly: Gee, what’s the graduation piece for Americans in a Qaeda camp — if there were such camps, which, to my knowledge, there are not?

2. This is just a general comment: I think Obama found himself in a real jam about Guantanamo. He and the rest of the Left had made a bogey of it. They talk about how Gitmo became a symbol for our enemies, or potential enemies, abroad. I think it became more of a symbol for them — for our Left. Well, Obama wins the election, and he finds that Guantanamo does the job. He finds that other options are lousy. But he is stuck with his original language and assertions.

What to do? You can’t admit error; you can’t cut the Bush administration any slack. So you cover Guantanamo with a fog of words. You just brazen it out, rhetorically, trusting in a cooperative press, and in favorable world opinion. I think that is what Obama has done in this speech.

3. At a certain juncture, Obama said, “I want to be honest: . . .” That is slightly dangerous for a speechmaker: It implies that other parts of the speech — not so much.

4. Twice, Obama spoke of the “mess” at Gitmo, no doubt thinking it would be politically useful. But, when his attorney general went there, he found it a well-run, admirable prison. Which it is, by every conscientious account. So . . .?

5. Obama spoke of “those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building” (the National Archives). Names, please? And does it become presidents to construct strawmen in this way?

I remember something charming that William Safire put in his memoir of the first Nixon administration — a very charming book. He said that, now and then, he felt someone should propose the easy way. Because the president was always saying, “Some have counseled that we take the easy way. But I . . .”

6. Obama named Zaccarias Moussaoui “the 20th 9/11 hijacker.” So it wasn’t Rush Limbaugh? Wasn’t the president chortling about that, a couple of weeks ago? All class, all class.


re: The Two Speeches [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

An e-mail:

The speeches are characteristic of the two men. The one appropriate to a campaign, the other to the business of government.


Obama vs. Cheney [Dana Perino]



The media seem so desperate for a fight that they’ve failed in almost every case to point out that Vice President Cheney’s AEI speech was scheduled weeks ago. I’m not suggesting the White House needs to check all of the think tanks in town before scheduling a speech, but this notion that the vice president was trying to set up a fight with President Obama on this exact day is nonsense. But it sells papers . . . well, they can hope it sells papers.

The president says that we lost our way in the war on terror. I disagree. We didn’t lose our way — we set up a structure to win.

I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney.

I also saw that the White House floated the idea of defending preemption today. Pause a moment to think about that. But I’m sure the New York Times editorial board will praise it as a tough decision by a fantastic commander-in-chief.

Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion.

Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work.


Closing Gitmo [Michael Rubin]


More live-blogging: Obama argues that Gitmo serves as a rallying point for jihadists and al-Qaeda terrorists and that this makes the United States less safe.

Question: How does the president address the fact that al-Qaeda struck and struck persistently before Gitmo?

This suggests that the problem, again, is ideology — and specifically al-Qaeda's ideology — rather than Gitmo. We will be less secure unless we focus on the ideological problem rather than blaming ourselves.


05/21 10:47 AMShare



First Reaction to Obama Speech [Michael Rubin]



A bit of live-blogging. It’s one thing to speak of an extremist ideology, but refusal to name that ideology belies the seriousness with which we should face the threat. And it’s one thing to praise the re-energization of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, but this too has become a mockery, as North Korea and Iran show every single day.

The basic issue which Obama is dancing around is whether terrorism is a police issue or a military issue. The difference is stark: If a police issue, in reality, we deal with the threat after the "crime" has occurred. If a military issue, we address preemptively.

The moral contrast argument is a diversion. We are a nation of laws, a nation of law for U.S. citizens and those on U.S. soil. Trying to apply U.S. law or even international law to those to whom they were never meant to apply undercuts security and undercuts the status of law. Ted Lapkin explains well, here. What Obama in effect does is take away any incentive for terrorists to adhere to rule of law.

To me, Obama is unserious if he believes his own drivel:

"our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions"



There's much much more ... this is just a sampling.

Read the speeches at least.