Posted on 05/19/2009 6:15:14 AM PDT by steve-b
Dick Cheney's "Shut Up and Listen" tour continued last week on CBS's "Face the Nation." There, the former veep reiterated his favorite theme: Obama is putting America at risk by "taking down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe."
What in the world is Cheney talking about? Granted, Obama's anti-terror policies are clouded by rhetorical "Hope" and euphemism, and the new administration is less given to chest-thumping than its predecessor. Otherwise, Obama's approach to terrorism is virtually identical to Bush/Cheney's.
Whatever you think the right policy is regarding enemy combatants, warrantless wiretapping, and "enhanced interrogation," the differences between Obama and Bush are far more stylistic than substantive.
Let's look at Obama's policies in those three key areas:
"Enemy Combatants": Actually, there's no such thing as an "enemy combatant" anymore: the Obama administration has, with great fanfare, abandoned the term. We can call terrorist suspects our "special friends" if we like, but the Obama team has fought hard in court to retain the same powers that Bush exercised.
Obama plans to close Guantanamo, but his lawyers have insisted (unsuccessfully, thus far) that the president can seize suspects anywhere in the world, and hold them at Afghanistan's Bagram base indefinitely, without meaningful judicial review.
Though candidate Obama repeatedly railed against Bush's military commissions, on Friday, President Obama announced that modified commissions were ideal for trying terrorist suspects. National Review's Andrew McCarthy was outraged by the president's disingenuousness: "Obama is trying to bluff the country into thinking he's engaged in a major overhaul when it's really a tweak."
Surveillance: Here too, the promised "Change" is less than meets the eye. Obama sold out on surveillance well before he was inaugurated, breaking his campaign promise to filibuster any law immunizing telecom companies that cooperated with Bush's illegal wiretapping program.
As president, Obama has gone further still than Bush, arguing in court that, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation has put it, "the government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes." Yet Cheney insists Obama hasn't gone far enough over to the "dark side." You just can't please the guy.
Interrogation: In the first week of his presidency, Obama swore his administration would follow the Army Field Manual in interrogations. A welcome change, until you looked at the fine print, which allows the CIA to adopt other tactics if the president chooses.
If Obama sets the CIA loose, they still won't be allowed to waterboard. But only three prisoners were subjected to that technique, and none since 2003. Which points up a weird disconnect in conservative arguments about torture: Folks like Cheney insist that these techniques were vital, but defend themselves by maintaining they were rarely used. Has Bush/Cheney timidity kept us at risk for the last six years?
Bush 43's defenders make the opposite claim, insisting that a war footing, warrantless wiretapping, and aggressive interrogation "kept us safe" from further terror attacks. There are abundant reports to the contrary.
FBI officials scornfully referred to "leads" generated by Bush's secret wiretapping program as "calls to Pizza Hut," and a CIA operative told the Washington Post that, thanks to torture, they'd "spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms." Lacking access to secret evidence, ordinary citizens are hard-pressed to sort out these claims.
Even so, we went more than seven years without a foreign terrorist attack on US soil after the attempted World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Should we therefore conclude that Bill Clinton's policies kept us safe all that time? Or could it be that Al Qaeda terrorism isn't quite the "existential threat" that the Right breathlessly insists it is?
Either way, the claim that Obama has abandoned "essential tools" in the fight against terror is wearing pretty thin. Real civil libertarians aren't fooled by Obama's "kinder, gentler" rhetoric, but Obama knows that civil libertarians are a miniscule voting block. His aim is to convince Democratic voters that he's kept his promises to change Bush's draconian approach to the war on terror.
In this, Dick Cheney is an enormous asset to the president. As Obama quietly adopts the Bush policies, Cheney gives him cover by loudly insisting that there's a meaningful difference here.
It's an odd role for a man who says he wants to set the record straight.
I guess this guy failed to notice that the Obama Admin did an about face on several topics after Cheney opened up his attacks on their effort to change many Bush Admin antiterrorism policies.
Exactly! The author the article is experiencing a major disconnect of the facts and sequence of events.
This pretty much sums up the liberal worldview on national security, and is the same reason why I won't miss such people the next time a terrorist attack happens and they are killed as a result.
This is also about the fact that the Obama admin has made several overt steps that indicate prosecution of Bush/Cheney is in play. . .Cheney is engaged in a “make my day” response to that fact. “Go ahead, Obumo. . .and it will be 4 years of Cheney up yo arse.”
And this leads me to a recurring notion: as wrong as BHO is, he _is_ President, and to succeed by any measure he _must_ correct his ways, even if unpopular or contrary to his campaign promises. He is surrounded by smart, powerful people (on both sides of the spectrum); from Soros to Cheney, he is being hugely pressured to stop screwing up. He might even come out of this term looking not all that bad - IF he learns his lessons early and follows them.
“Even so, we went more than seven years without a foreign terrorist attack on US soil after the attempted World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Should we therefore conclude that Bill Clinton’s policies kept us safe all that time? Or could it be that Al Qaeda terrorism isn’t quite the “existential threat” that the Right breathlessly insists it is?”
++++++++++++++++
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...once AQ showed the capability of murdering over 3,000 US citizens on US soil in 1 hour and bringing the NYC financial district and our airlines to an abrupt halt, we’re to conclude that ‘Al Qaeda terrorism isn’t quite the “existential threat” that the Right breathlessly insists it is?’ I suppose this guy doesn’t believe there are suitcase dirty nukes either. Why don’t we open the border to any and all aliens and give them benefits? Oh yeah, pret’ much do...and don’t you love the part about Clinton keeping us safe when he could have killed OBL numerous times...ENOUGH B@#$H!T!
Especially in the first sentence. Everyone is telling Cheney to shut up - including the author. Not the other way around.
Good point. BHO threatened Bush/Cheney over handling of terrorism issues; now Cheney is retaliating with a relentless high-profile tirade making it abundantly clear that what was done (and is being condemned) is exactly what BHO, as President, _must_ do - and if BHO continues this threat of prosecution then he will find himself between a very big rock and a very hard place (either numerous large-scale terrorist attacks, or similar prosecution for doing what is required to prevent those attacks).
The little guy from Chicago isn’t used to playing hardball. He thought he knew the game well, but is now finding there are much better - and much more serious - players out there.
That was AFTER Cheney's verbal smackdowns, Healy.
Gee, everyone in the media and ‘moderate’ republican party want Cheney to shut up. He must be doing something right!
“Bush 43’s defenders make the opposite claim, insisting that a war footing, warrantless wiretapping, and aggressive interrogation “kept us safe” from further terror attacks. There are abundant reports to the contrary. “
Ummmm — I guess 7+ years of not getting hit again in the US is not good enough for this POS.
Good point.
America owes both Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz a debt of gratitude for their fine efforts. The have shown how facts trumps fantasy every time it is tried.
“made it clear that as President there are some things BHO _must_ do even if unpopular.”
dear leader will get credit for being brave from the mediots, whereas President Bush will always be bushitler to those dolts.
++++++++++++++
“He is surrounded by smart, powerful people (on both sides of the spectrum); from Soros to Cheney, he is being hugely pressured to stop screwing up. He might even come out of this term looking not all that bad - IF he learns his lessons early and follows them.”
You forgot about the TOTUS - the TOTUS is really instrumental in Bammy’s presidency. Whoever feeds that thing controls it all. Is it a committee - is it one person? The TOTUS knows all...
I don't hold out much hope for this.
“The little guy from Chicago isn’t used to playing hardball. He thought he knew the game well, but is now finding there are much better - and much more serious - players out there.”
He prefers basketball and swagga - if you recall...lol.
Yeah, this is a bit of a pipe dream, isn't it? In New Mexico Bammy said that this nation can't hold up under the debt load. Nice thing to say! He can even mimic us (and the tea parties), and conservatives...
We need to watch what this cabal DOES (and has already done.) His insane budget makes us realize that he will NOT ‘come out of this term looking not all that bad’ as he already does!
Heh. The image of BHO on a skinny bicycle, safely riding on the sidewalk with a helmet, comes to mind ... as does Cheney’s rather large machinegun collection. Which one sounds more like “defender of the free world”?
The smarter folks on the left recognized this and Obama reversed on a few issues. Why? Because Cheney forced them to by pointing out what assholes they truly are.
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.