Cheney shows the way

"The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful and the right thing to do." And they "prevented the violent deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

Having defended every decision he took, Cheney then counterattacked. He charged The New York Times with virtual treason in exposing the program to intercept calls from al-Qaida and mocked its Pulitzer Prize. He accused liberals and Speaker Pelosi of "feigned outrage" and "phony moralizing," asserting they were fully briefed on "the program and the methods." He charged Obama with endangering national security by "triangulating," adopting a policy designed less to secure America than to unite and appease his political coalition.

"There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance."

Cheney comes to this quarrel armed with credibility, certitude, consistency and conviction born of eight years of success. Listening to Obama's disquisition, one gets the sense his homeland security policy is the collective view of the editorial board of the Harvard Law Review, with a sign-off by the local chapter of the ACLU.

That Cheney is winning seems undeniable.

Not only has his approval rating risen to 37 percent, probably higher on national security, Obama's coalition is cracking apart.

Speaker Pelosi's credibility has been shredded over what she knew and when she knew it regarding waterboarding. Her comrades are all howling that the CIA lied, but no one wants an investigation.

The left wing of the party believes Obama double-crossed them when he refused to release the photos of abused prisoners, kept the military tribunals and sent 22,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

And Harry Reid and a Democratic Senate voted 90 to 6 to humiliate Obama by denying him the funds needed to close Guantanamo until he comes up with a plan to hold the 240 hard-core inmates somewhere other than in the United States.

Again, Cheney is winning because he has been there and his position is reality-based. For, while the use of harsh interrogation techniques is a legal question, it also presents a moral dilemma. A moral case can be made that, given the murderers we confronted, the prospect of more U.S. dead, the non-lethality of the techniques and the value of the intelligence acquired, it was the right thing to do.

And the Democrats are losing because, with few exceptions, they have been neither consistent nor honest.

Their key leaders were read in on the interrogation techniques. Few protested. They went along when America seemed in imminent peril. Recall: Democratic Sens. Dodd, Daschle, Edwards, Kerry, Reid and Clinton all voted to authorize war in Iraq.

But, by the time the primaries of 2008 came around, they had all moved -- some 180 degrees -- to get right with the Democratic base. And this is Obama's problem.

He ran to the left of Hillary and pledged to close Guantanamo, as the prison camp had come to be twinned, though unfairly, in the liberal mind and Muslim world with the sadistic abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Obama never thought through what he would do with the hard-core al-Qaida housed in Guantanamo.

This is a recurring problem of liberals. They are forever into posturing, assuming heroic moral stands, but rarely consider the consequences in the real world. It was brave to denounce the Shah, Anastasio Somoza and Ian Smith. But when they fell, we got the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Sandinistas and "Comrade Bob" Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

In his speeches, Obama is all abstractions. While listeners may say he speaks beautifully, 24 hours later, who remembers what he said? Cheney deals with the concrete. We remember that scene in the White House bunker, with that plane headed for the Capitol, and we remember Khalid Sheikh Mohammad saying he will talk after he gets to New York and sees his lawyer.

The Republican Party needs to get off the psychiatrist's couch, and stand up and fight for what it believes. You don't need a moderate with a pretty face to deliver a moderate message. The former vice president with the crocodile grin has just shown the way. _______________________________

So, enough Republican naval-gazing already... let the battle begin. We know who we are, and what we stand for... regardless of attempts on the left to divide and create dissarray in the GOP.

Bedrock Reaganite principles of strong defense and minimized government will provide the ideal antidote for voters looking for a way out of Obama-Land in 2010-2012... all we have to do is resist the most outrageous of Obama's proposals, stand up for our beliefs, and most importantly not provide him any political cover for the consequences of his spending and limp defense posture... time is on our side.

As Bobby Jindal has said regarding Republican setbacks at the polls in 2006 and 2008:

"People need to look at the history of Ronald Reagan when he lost his first attempt at the Presidency (in 1976). He didn’t go back and say, ‘Let’s water down the conservatism. Let’s dilute what we’re saying. He made it even stronger.... he made it EVEN sharper. There’s a lesson there for potential candidates"

"We need to be principled in our conservatism. We need to be unabashed, unafraid. We won’t always be popular with editorial writers and a lot of the members of the national media... and that’s OK. At the end of the day, it’s more important that we stick to our principles."

It's time to call a lie a lie, a fraud a fraud, and Obama's catastrophic errors for just what they are- and bring the battle to the DNC, MSM, and Team Obama- NOW.

First we need to remove traitors amongst our rank, who’s feeding intel to enemy and demoralize the troops

More Buchanans, less Cornyns.

We were attacked after 9-11, but only once. Remember the Anthrax Mess that threatened to bring down the US Mail? I still think it was Terrorists and not home grown.

Cheney is a true warrior. God bless him. Too bad the administration couldn’t have done in 8 years what Cheney has managed to do in a few short weeks. Shame on them. Good for Cheney.

I do not like Pat Buchanan and I never have. However, I owe him at least an apology and for sure a hat tip. THAT was very well written article and spot on.

Obama and the dems are going to find out, they should have allowed that Lion, Cheney, to sleep. He is wide awake, in the fight and extremely focussed on his prey. If they continue to force him, he will completely devour them, leaving no remains.

Those dumb a$$ libs should learn not to keep screwing with battle hardened— meat eating— predators.

“Shame on them.”

Tell me, do you go through life saying things like, “Gee lady, you sure don’t sweat much for such a fat girl”, and walk away thinking that you just gave her a compliment?

The Republican Party needs to get off the psychiatrist's couch, and stand up and fight for what it believes. You don't need a moderate with a pretty face to deliver a moderate message. The former vice president with the crocodile grin has just shown the way.

Damn straight.

The ground on which Cheney has chosen to stand is the most defensible the Republicans have: homeland security. In seven-and-a-half years after 9-11, not one terrorist attack struck our country.

I respect Mr. Cheney's intellect and like him as a person but this statement is indefensible. It has been appearing now for months and I cringe every time I hear it. I'm waiting for some smart @$$ed liberal to come along and say "You are committing the fallacy of the negative premise! Your argument is a non-sequitur."

I say this because you are and it is. In formal logic (and any other kind for that matter) it is impossible to prove a negative premise. It's rather like saying that snapping one's fingers keeps the tigers at bay.

It may seem like a quibble but it is a serious flaw and the result is that no amount of argument will prove the case one way or the other.

In the future it would be much better to phrase our syllogisms in the positive with documented and demonstrable facts. On that basis you can construct an irrefutable argument with an inescapable conclusion.

Regards,
GtG