Cheney, Obama, and Dueling Debates

Despite what Obama says, choosing which principles to uphold is not an a la carte buffet.

My problem with President Obama’s speech is that he was not calling the shots after the planes hit the World Trade Center or the Pentagon and thus did not have to make any hard calls on the matter and he can take a revisionist view of the previous 8 years.  It is a fine thing to talk about the United States and mention “freedom” and “liberty” and “values” it is quite another to have to defend those against an enemy that would see them destroyed.

President Obama seemed to be getting the picture when he said:

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era — that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law, that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

But he is completely wrong when he then follows up with:

For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

What Obama missed was the fact that he did not link the two thoughts together.  The American legal system did adapt and judicial oversight was never ignored.  If the courts found fault with the ways in which the Bush administration was trying to protect the country then those practices were brought into accordance with the law.  As Obama mentions, the events of 9-11 did “present new challenges to our application of the law” which were handled, as best as were possible, by the Bush administration.  Remember… he said “that our government would need new tools to protect the American people.”  Those new tools have been effective as there as not been another attack on America since 9-11.  You can’t argue with success unless you’re playing politics.

 Do not forget that during the Clinton administration al Qaeda declared war no fewer than three times against the United States and was responsible for the 1995 bombing of a U.S. facility in Saudi Arabia, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers also in Saudi Arabia, two bombings against U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 (not to mention the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center which may have indirectly had al Qaeda’s help).  That makes for a total of six terrorist attacks against this country in the span of 7 years not counting 9-11.  Clearly had the Clinton administration taken a more pro-active role and not treated the incidents as a law enforcement issue we would not be where we are now.  The Bush administration attempted to change the rules of the game for dealing with terrorism and largely succeeded.  Judging by Obama’s tone he seeks to bring us back to the time before 9-11 where we can live in a Utopian fantasy land.  This is not fear, this is reality.

Monday morning quarterback doesn't cut it when you're president.

One only needs to hear what an elected official (Dick Cheney) who was actually there has to say about it:

“I’ll freely admit,” he says, “that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on your country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.”

President Obama was not in charge on 9-11.  He did not have to make any tough decisions and now has the luxury of blaming the former administration for whatever he can get away with in order to push his agenda through Congress.

Obama remarked that:

And in this season of fear, too many of us — Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens — fell silent.

He fails to make the connection between a force – al Qaeda – that sought and still seeks to destroy our civilization on the one hand and his cherished “principles” that, while great in theory don’t mean anything if there is no civilization left to hold them.  And for all of his highfaluten talk about “principles” do not forget that he has chosen to uphold the Bush-era doctrine of not releasing certain terrorists… ever.  Obama cannot pick and choose which principles he will “uphold” as a principle is a principle.  And because he has chosen to portray himself as being the politician who has taken the moral high ground he either chooses principles or he chooses reality.  After all, the phrase “If you dimish one you dimish all” comes to mind.

So, I ask you, how can Gitmo be “morally wrong” but indefinite detention without a trial be right?

And that is why, at the end of the day, President Obama is a hypocrite who seeks to blame others on an a la carte basis while maintaining some of the other policies from an administration he castigates.

Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.