Re: OT: Our Principles Revived

On Thu, 21 May 2009 17:31:09 GMT, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<usenetremove@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 13:12:42 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:33:29 GMT, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<usenetremove@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:07:17 -0400, Still Just Me
<stillnoEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Finally, after eight years of ignorance, a President who knows what we
were founded upon and what we stand for:

"But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we
also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our
most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall
-- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of
Rights -- these are not simply words written into aging parchment.
They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a
light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and
dignity around the world," "

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/05/obama_takes_on.html

Contrast with

"And when they see the American government caught up in arguments
about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have
constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal
system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the
terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our
resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness
and opportunity."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-***-cheneys-national-security-speech-aei/

Clearly, Obama's speech you quote is emboldening the terrorists.

No. Actually both are not only correct, but right to say what they have.

Obama is smart to say nice, reassuring things quietly content in the knowledge
that he reserves the right to pour water up the nose of terrorist leaders to
obtain operational knowledge.

Cheney speaks wisely that we would do well to appear well-agreed and resolute in
dealing with our enemies.

That might be true in a general sense, but Cheney cannot truly believe
that it's important at all, because if he truly believed that lack of
agreement was a problem, he would be at least as reticent about
speaking publicly as when he was in power.

So he is, at best, being disengenuous.

There are far too many people who in apparent ignorance of the laws of war (or
this land, for that matter) are determined that enemy combatants, illegal
combatants at that, be treated according to some legal standard that has never
existed. Cheney has been near the center of determining and administering policy
and law for some years now. He knows whereof he speaks in discouraging
"lawfare." The Bush administration had a very narrow path to walk and remained
effective and as open as reasonable security permits.

You will notice Cheney is not speaking against Obama's actions against the
jihadis only against the threats to criminalize political disagreements with the
previous administration.

I've got no problem with this good cop / bad cop routine. As you say it is a
feature. This isn't a bad way to use it.

PS - disagreement is inherent in democracy. Always has been, always
will be. It's a feature, not a bug.

I'm fine with disagreement. I do think that public officials have a
responsibility to be careful in stating their disagreements on foreign policy
and military matters. Cheney's statements in that speech you reference were very
careful. Some of what we have seen in recent years has been downright
irresponsible, things like Harry Reid's Pvt Hudson moment a few years ago when
he declared that Iraq was lost. That was so abjectly wrong, stupid and
counterproductive I still can't imagin what he was thinking. I have no doubt
that it encouraged the enemy to redouble their efforts. And, again, attempts to
criminalize political disagreement are simply wrong and contrary to our
tradition of an orderly succession of power.

The next phase will be very interesting. The jihadis have apparently decided
that Pakistan is the next battleground. This is going to require some very
careful diplomacy and very crafty warfare.

.

Loading