More Commentary on Obama vs. Cheney

Good Stuff -- but Obama doesn't come off too well

Obama's National Security Speech [Andy McCarthy]

It's been a busy day, and I hope to have more to say about Vice President Cheney's terrific speech at AEI, as well as President Obama's not terrific speech at the National Archives. For now, I share with you my quick appraisal of the president's remarks, which was just posted by the New York Times in its occasional "Room for Debate" series:

President Obama’s speech is the September 10th mindset trying to come to grips with September 11th reality. It is excruciating to watch as the brute facts of life under a jihadist threat, which the president is now accountable for confronting, compel him forever to climb out of holes dug by his high-minded campaign rhetoric — the reversals on military detention, commission trials, prisoner-abuse photos, and the like.

The need to castigate his predecessor, even as he substantially adopts the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policy, is especially unbecoming in a president who purports to transcend our ideological divisions.

This was perhaps best exemplified by the president’s attack on the very military commission system he has just revived. The dig that the system only succeeded in convicting three terrorists in seven years conveniently omits the fact that the delay was largely attributed to legal challenges advanced by lawyers who now work in his own administration.

Those challenges, despite consuming years of litigation, failed to derail the commission system, which Congress simply re-authorized, substantially unchanged, after a thin Supreme Court majority erroneously struck it down in the 2006 Hamdan case. The commissions, moreover, are now being delayed several more months simply so Mr. Obama can make some cosmetic tweaks that work no real change in the commission process but will enable him to claim that they are somehow a departure from Bush commissions.

It is also not true, no matter how many times Mr. Obama and his supporters repeat it, that Guantanamo Bay and enhanced interrogation (or “torture” as they call it) are primary drivers of terrorist recruitment. The principal exacerbating factor in recruitment is successful terrorist attacks. That is what convinces the undecided to join jihadist movements, and that is what the Bush administration’s approach prevented. And if the president truly insists on “transparency,” he should stop suppressing memoranda that detail the effectiveness of the CIA interrogation program. Given his decision to reveal CIA tactics, is it too much to ask that the American people be informed about what intelligence the program yielded?


Another Take on the Obama/Cheney Speeches [Pete Hegseth]


I watched the “dueling speeches” this morning, and finally had a chance to jot down some hasty thoughts.

First, while President Obama proclaimed that he had no interest in re-litigating the problems of the past eight years, that is almost entirely what he did. In fact, as usual, it was difficult to differentiate this presidential address from a candidate Obama stump speech. Nearly every statement he made regarding terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, interrogations, etc. was (and is) consumed by a desire to stand on the rooftop and shout “I’m not George W. Bush!” Obama seems obsessed with refuting the Bush administration and I think this fact prohibits him from making sound decisions regarding the threats we face.

Second, Obama went to great pains to emphasize that Gitmo has created more terrorists than it has detained, has weakened American security, and the interrogation methods use there, and elsewhere, undermined our fight. This entire argument is premised on the belief that indefinite detention for unlawful combatants who ignore the rules of war — and alleged systematic mistreatment of said militants — provides overwhelming propaganda to our enemies and undermines our values (not to mention distressing the latte crowd across the pond).

Laying aside the debate over what is and what isn’t “torture,” it’s hard to argue with 8+ years of safety since 9/11. Yet, somehow, the interrogations we used to get valuable intelligence have "undermined" our safety. President Obama should tell that to the special operators I served with overseas — and who are still serving — who killed and captured truckloads of so-called jihadists on the battlefield with the intelligence from American interrogations. Or tell that to the American’s who were saved through intelligence we gathered that prevented attacks on our homeland.

Finally, my ears perked up when I heard the president tell Congress, “I’m not the only one who swore an oath to defend the Constitution” — implying that Congress should see him as the gold standard in defending our constitutional values. It’s true that all three branches of government have a responsibility to defend the Constitution, but there are millions more Americans — with more important jobs than the Beltway baby-kissers — who swore to defend the Constitution as well. American warriors on the battlefield put partisan allegiance aside and excute their given mission with professionalism and courage.

President Obama should think a bit more about how the actions he takes will have an affect on these “oath-takers.” When it came to the release of photos showing mistreatment, Obama made the right choice and kept them sealed (for now) in order to prevent more violence against our troops. He needs to take the same into account as he decides whether to ship dangerous terrorists out of Gitmo and provide them ever-more legal protections. Actions which could, theoretically, set dangerous terrorists free to fight another day.

The president’s juggling-act stands in stark contrast to former Vice President Cheney’s grown-up speech at AEI. After hearing President Obama literally call the Bush approach “a misguided experiment” and “a mess,” Cheney calmly dispelled the caricature of the big bad Bush sdministration.

His defense of doing what it takes — within the law and under the Constitution — struck me as the kind of gutsy, straightforward, and yet sophisticated approach our country needs from the White House. Cheney underscored the continued threat we face, and the need to support our war-fighters — and intelligence operatives — as they do the dirty work of defending the Constitution. He also emphasized that a) they must have all the tools they need (within the law); b) we can’t afford to start releasing terrorists, thereby putting our troops in more danger; and c) who cares what Europe thinks, American security is at stake here.

My guess is that most American’s will be drawn to President Obama’s souring rhetoric on the topic; but I think that if just the text of the speech was read to your average American without telling them who said it, most would side with the voice of leader, not a politician seeking to placate competing constituencies.



Stray Thought [Jay Nordlinger]

There are, of course, 10,000 things to say about President Obama’s national-security speech today, and I said just a few below. Once you start, it’s kind of hard to stop — sort of like eating potato chips. But let me offer just one more point — a somewhat offbeat one.

Obama said, “The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents.”

I don’t remember a president’s talking this way: about the party affiliations of presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices. I don’t recall a president’s describing a Court that way. Been following politics for a while. And I’ve never heard an important presidential national-security speech that sounded so much like a campaign speech — even in the midst of an actual campaign.

The longer you look at or ponder the speech, the less merely gassy and more offensive it appears — at least to me.

You want a contrast with Cheney’s? Cheney devoted the end of his speech to hymning the CIA interrogators who used the controversial techniques. He said,

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well.

Obama cited these very interrogations as an abomination, proof that we had lost our way, our moral bearings — had been untrue to ourselves.

Yes, these two speeches were very sharply contrasting — dueling, in that sense (even though Obama covered some of his Bush adoptions in rhetorical fog).

Hey, didn’t I say I had just one more point?

P.S. Obama said that the interrogations made us less safe — much less safe. Cheney said the opposite: that they had made the country much more safe. Big, big difference.