Posted on 05/21/2009 5:27:46 PM PDT by lewisglad
Before weighing in on the split-screen showdown that occurred today in Washington, let me be clear about the views I have on the questions before us: I write as one who believes that waterboarding is counterproductive at best, and torture at worst.
I write as one who believes that torture rarely is justified. And I write as one who believes that the patient and ingratiating questioning of terrorists conducted by the FBI has done more to give the United States actionable intelligence than have the interrogation methods implemented by the CIA--methods that were used by people who meant well, but who did not get as much valuable intelligence as did their FBI counterparts.
It would be logical to assume, therefore, that I would be open to many of the arguments President Obama made concerning our anti-terror strategy, our system of prosecuting terrorist suspects, and our methods of interrogation. But I would be lying if I didn't say that I believe former Vice President Cheney had the better of the argument.
Judging forensics and rhetoric, it is clear that while President Obama came to make a speech, Vice President Cheney came to have a debate. The debater succeeded in making his points better than the speechmaker because while the President is justly celebrated for his vaunted eloquence, he phoned in his speech and thought that the use of pretty words alone would allow him to carry the day. Meanwhile, the Vice President--no one's idea of a charismatic rock star--was forced to make up for his lack of a silver tongue by tightly and carefully constructing reasoned arguments to support his position. It should come as no surprise that the Vice President was quite persuasive and a force to be reckoned with in the debate.
While the President's speech was the longer one, this length did not make it more thorough - in fact, there are so many holes in his remarks it is difficult to keep track of them all. He maintains that his decision to use military commissions is not a reversal of an earlier position because it is supposedly improves on the Bush Administration approach to the use of military commissions. By this, he means that the Obama Administration will supposedly give detainees greater access to quality representation, and will reform the rules against hearsay. But as the Wall Street Journal pointed out recently, under the Bush Administration, detainees already were the beneficiaries of pro bono legal representation from top-flight, white-shoe law firms.
Additionally, the hearsay rules were the same ones employed by the International Criminal Court, which liberals who support President Obama have repeatedly urged us to become subject to as a country. The President's protestations to the contrary, his decision to employ military commissions does constitute a reversal, one that belatedly acknowledges that the Bush Administration had some good ideas and good points to make about the use of such commissions.
The President tells us that decisions in the past were made out of "fear." This is a straw man argument, meant to denigrate the President's opponents without acknowledging that perhaps, just perhaps, they made their arguments in good faith. But even if we put that objection aside, as Commentary's John Podhoretz reminds us, fear was "the handmaiden of foresight" because it allowed us to think of the worst possible forms of terrorist attack that might take place, and to take action to prevent those scenarios from becoming reality. One can certainly overdose on fear, but the reason we feel fear is so that we can take action before actual harm comes to us. The President ignores this, and argues that fear necessarily equates to irrationality. He could not be more wrong.
Equally wrong is the belief--suggested by the President's words--that somehow, the United States only became unpopular because of the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. This is not true; September 11th and the killing of Daniel Pearl--among other outrages--occurred prior to any information concerning enhanced interrogation being made public. Does the President propose that we ignore this history? We would do so at our peril.
In contrast to the President's vague generalities, the Vice President provided specific and detailed arguments explaining why the Bush Administration took the actions that it did. One is not forced to accept those arguments, and as I write, I find a number of them unpersuasive.
But at the very least, the Vice President tried to persuade, unlike the President, who simply thought that he could substitute rhetorical razzle-dazzle for argument. And the Vice President made an excellent point in his speech: Since the Obama Administration saw fit to release the interrogation memos, why does it not declassify and release memos detailing how successful those interrogations might have been? I am not sure they were successful, but I would like to have the full evidence before me in order to make a fully informed decision.
Judging forensics and rhetoric, it is clear that while President Obama came to make a speech, Vice President Cheney came to have a debate.
Pejman YousefzadehIt seems as if the Obama Administration is incredibly capricious about the evidence it chooses to release, and the evidence it chooses to keep under wraps. This capriciousness is puzzling; by calling for the release of memos detailing how successful enhanced interrogation might have been, Vice President Cheney is, in effect, inviting the Obama Administration to call shenanigans on his arguments. If enhanced interrogation was unsuccessful, the Obama Administration can show it through those memos and prove to the public that Dick Cheney was wrong.
Of course, it is entirely possible that the Obama Administration is refusing to release those memos because Dick Cheney was right. If so, the Administration's refusal to take up the Cheney challenge, while self-righteously claiming that Dick Cheney is wrong, is dishonest in the extreme. And if that dishonesty translates itself into policy, it will be to the detriment of us all.
I realize that Dick Cheney is "Darth Vader," as far as the Obama Administration and its allies are concerned. But he is also an excellent debater who is able to bring well-placed facts overwhelmingly to bear in any argument. He did so against Joe Lieberman in the 2000 Vice Presidential debate. He repeated the performance in 2004, manhandling the silver-tongued John Edwards in the process. And despite the fact that I disagree with much that makes up his stance, I have to admit that he appears to have done so again. If President Obama--eloquent as he is--is unable to persuade those who are inclined to agree with him, he ought to reconsider his debating strategy.
Maybe he'll consider taking a lesson from Dick Cheney.
2) It isn't mine.
3) Here's the site.
4) I have no financial interest, direct, or indirect, in the site, except that I'm going to spend my *own* money to buy one of their shirts soon.
Cheers!
btt
Bump for later follow-up, because Dick Cheney ROCKS.
No, I just think it would have been really great if our people (supposedly conservative/GOP) would have provided some support of their president. Yet, all that filled the threads, all that fills every comment even today is some form of putdown on Bush. We realize you would have been far superior as president - but somehow you and the other critics were not elected. Bush put himself out there, ran the government as he felt best and I for one thank him for being the man that stood (by himself) against the enemy, the democrats, the international leaders, the UN, the critics, the propaganda media. No wonder he did not defend himself - he had a massive job to do without support.
Where are the GOP people now as Cheney is out there alone doing the work for them in challenging Obama? You will note they are not backing Cheney - they are cowering in their power seats.
Just be glad you no longer have the worthless Bush. He did nothing of value so I presume you have no problem with Obama cancelling all of the executive orders Bush put into place.
We are in a new world and you will have plenty to criticize but you may never again have such a man as George Bush with Cheney, Rice, Rove steering this country. Enjoy the sleepless nights as you watch this country fall from within.
Conservaatives do not know how to fight the dems and will always lose because they are just like you - computer screen critics shredding their own election politicians because they are just not the ideal they expected.
I too felt he should have defended himself and since he did not, I have spent 8 years daily defending him against the hateful comments from “conservatives”. Sorry, I did not have time to go to DU and try and counter the negative talk there.
So, I see red when I run across more of the same. I’m tired and extremely worried about my country now. No more trust in government, no more the security of having a man who will defend this country against all outside forces wherever he might be. He just did not defend himself.
Of course, it should not have been hard to have fellow conservatives/GOP voters be able to see that politics means you get done what you can when you can and that each president comes into office with beliefs in his own views and will naturally try and get those things done. But this man was blindsided by an attack on America here.
One man cannot do all by himself. Somewhere, there are going to have to be those that will help a president. Just watch how the democrats support their president. I sure do not see criticism against him from “his side”. I see utter support.
And I am scared to death of what that will do to this country.
Time to get over Bush and start trying to save this country. You don’t have him to do it for you anymore - he is retired.
He wasn't perfect and the mistakes he made allowed Bozo to be elected, if you can't see that I am sorry for you because you will make the mistake of trying to put another Bush in the WH in the future.
I support Presidents when they do things I think are right for the country and for Freedom. I strongly supported Ron Reagan altho he wasn't perfect either, but a lot closer than either Bush ever was. I even supported Nixon until the idiot broke the law, uselessly I might add, trying to win re-election.
A smart person recognizes the failures of those who are leading, even if that person is in the same political party. Bush was a failure in many ways. I am glad he listened to Cheney on national defense, but I wish he would have fought back against the media, I wish he would have stopped illegals, I wish he would have been a lot better on domestic issues and I wish he would speak out now and back up Dick Cheney, but true to his "take the high ground" idiocy he does not.
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.