The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Cheney vs. Obama

Text Size

President Obama and Dick Cheney continue to be the strongest advocates for their vision of how to fight the War on Terror. The text of Obama's speech is here and Cheney's speech is here. Obama gave a characteristically nuanced speech, explaining how his administration has sought to fight terrorism in a way that is consistent with our values, and said "we went off course" during the Bush administration.

I thought this was the strongest section of Cheney's speech:

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Cheney also reminded the audience that there weren't any attacks on U.S. soil in the seven and a half years since 9/11, which he attributed to the administration's effective policies that Obama is unraveling.

While I think this is a very important debate, there is a sense in which it doesn't really matter. Obama is running the show now, and he's going to decide what he thinks will make America safe -- no president wants to see thousands of American civilians killed. He says that the Bush administration's policies not only violated our ideals, but they made us less safe, fine. Now he's changing those policies, so we'll be able to judge him based on his performance.

That's why I thought this statement by Obama, toward the end of his speech, was interesting:

Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my Administration – along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security – will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe.

Obama campaigned for nearly two years on the premise that Bush was utterly incompetent and as president, Obama has displayed confidence that his own way of doing things is superior. I hope Obama is correct. But if there's a major terrorist attack on his watch, it won't be satisfactory to simply say "we tried our best." It's hard to argue that national security policies that kept us safe for seven and a half years were wrongheaded, if you change those policies and there's another attack on the homeland.

View all comments (40) | Leave a comment

Dan| 5.21.09 @ 1:51PM

It's NOT "unimportant."

Obama's kooky policies are going to lead to piles of American corpses. It's as if he established a date certain for disaster.

And when that happens, it's absoluely crucial that prominent Republicans have been on record, IN A PUBLIC WAY, against these idiotic notions of our Kenyan/Indonesian-in-chief.

Tim| 5.21.09 @ 2:43PM

What a terrible responsibility it is, to find every cell, stop every plot and do it by treating even foreign terrorists in foreign countries with the same respect we accord American citizens.
Good luck Mr. President, for all our sakes.

Ron| 5.21.09 @ 2:56PM

Pointing out the 7 1/2 years of safety is neglecting the first 1/2 year where 9/11 occurred. Under Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney want to say we kept America safe. They did but they did after 9/11.

Its not a linear argument and Cheney tries to make it one, Obama doesnt.

jim rice| 5.21.09 @ 2:57PM

Is life really that much more important than ideals and morals?

The early Christians certainly didn't think so.

And it's such a fallacious argument that the bush administration's policies are what kept us safe after we got blowed up. It's completely impossible to prove... but if you're going to believe it, you should equally believe that the bush policies allowed the financial meltdown to occur.

AJs Daddie| 5.21.09 @ 3:13PM

"Pointing out the 7 1/2 years of safety is neglecting the first 1/2 year where 9/11 occurred. Under Bush and Cheney."

Oh come now. I didn't hear anybody on *either* side of the aisle clamoring for more security prior to 9/11. Certainly prior administrations (both Republican and Democrat) share the primary responsibility for that shortcoming.

But clearly the response after 9/11, including the thwarting of the plot to bomb Los Angeles, has been correct, especially as measured by the safety of the American citizen.

BrT| 5.21.09 @ 3:48PM

The the Big Eared Chimp in the White House is a "former mooslim", what else can we expect than to have the Chimp sympathize with Islam, even with radical, militant mooslims?

When unemployment hits 15% which it will, the Chimp may be driven out of office for his anti-business, anti-free market, Marxist policies.

We need to drill for our own oil, build nuclear, coal and natural gas plants, instead the Chimp offers windmills and solar panels! Ha, ha, is this idiot a Marxist academic or what?

tonypal| 5.21.09 @ 3:50PM

Ron:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 9/11 bombers get in the country while Clinton was president?

There's plenty of blame to go around, but I think the single biggest mistake was the Clinton era policy of segregating the different intelligence agencies and cutting off the interagency flow of information.

As for what is going on now, it should be clear to everyone by now that Obama has seen the light. It's one thing to run for office, but when you have access to all of the classified information, things are much different. So I guess it's now safe to say that warrantless wiretaps don't offend the Constitution, fighting a war in Iraq doesn't make a President a war criminal, and in fact the war itself isn't unconstitutional.

jim rice| 5.21.09 @ 4:16PM

It's not safe to say that at all!

Warrantless wiretaps do offend the Constitution and starting the war in Iraq WAS a criminal offense.

Just b/c one criminal opened the bag and started something... and someone else carried it on... does not justify the actions taken.

Attempting to finish the mistake that bush made in Iraq is not criminal. Continuing those wiretaps is, however, and it's bs that Obama has kept that program. Yet it's still bush's fault for letting the cat out of the bag.

Oldefarte| 5.21.09 @ 4:52PM

First, 9/11/01 was the Clinton Administration's fault, since they downsized the military/spy agencies [in favor of domestic, social services governmental expendatures] which resulted in terrorists' attacks during their term culminating in 9/11. The Obama Administration is following the exact same political path, and the exact same result will no doubt occur. As to so-called torture, who cares if some radical Muslim terrorists are waterboarded or even de-fingernailed [liberals ignore the true torture of 9/11 victims, Daniel Pearl type terrorist interrogation methods, and captured US soldiers], if valuable information concerning their future attacks are gained in the process. As to liberals' MORAL ISSUE [in the form of Constitution violations], give me a break! The Queensbury Rules of fighting war has long disappeared [ever heard of the military phrase KILL OR BE KILLED?], and the Constitution only applies to US citizens, not foreign terrorists! The entire liberal argument is based on political payback----liberals want revenge for Clinton's impeachment hearings by Republicans, and are using the Constitution and/or morality to effectuate same!!!!!

Violette| 5.21.09 @ 5:06PM

Funny that liberals would try to use 'morality' to avenge Clinton's impeachment. They wouldn't know morality if it bit them on the butt.

Baldie| 5.21.09 @ 5:21PM

I think that some wouldn't know morality if it handed them a...cigar.

tonypal| 5.21.09 @ 5:53PM

jim rice:

Sorry pal, but warrantless wiretaps do not offend the Constitution in exigent circumstances. There are exceptions to the 4th Amendment requirement that an impartial justice sign off on a warrant, and one is exigent circumstances. Law enforcement authorities must merely demonstate after the fact that probable caus existed at the time the action took place. Plenty of case law on this for you to consult.

As for the argument that the war was criminal, explain how. However, before you do, I would strongly advise that you consult Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. Then, I would suggest you thoroughly research the SC case law pertaining to the President's "plenary" power to commit troops to military action.

Also, because I'm a good guy, here's a helpful hint: Don't make the argument that only Congress can declare war, because the President, under his plenary powers as Commander in Chief, is not required to seek a formal declaration of war in order to commence military action.

So get at big guy and let's see what you've got.

tonypal| 5.21.09 @ 5:55PM

jim rice:

One last thing. If, hypothetically, the war in Iraq was a criminal enterprise, then wasn't it incumbent upon Obama to bring an end to said criminal enterprise the day he was inaugurated? Also, if young men and women are dying over a criminal misadventure by Bush, and continue to die until this day, then doesn't that make Obama as culpable as Bush?

Teleprompter Messiah| 5.21.09 @ 7:24PM

Lightworker is prepared to see his fellow citizens murdered for a theory. He is gambling but hopes no jihadi calls his bluff.

gene| 5.21.09 @ 9:23PM

WELL PUT TONYPAL

tonypal| 5.21.09 @ 10:41PM

Gene:

Thanks. As I'm sure you're aware, I wasn't expecting jim rice or any other lefty on this board to take up the challenge because that would require them to use the non-emotional part of their brains.

Carol| 5.22.09 @ 12:07AM

Apparently the loony fringe did not learn a thing from the 2008 ele4ction.
To clarify - you lost, we don't want you, and we will only engage in intelligent discourse.
Until you come up with positive ideas, please gag yourselves.

cathy| 5.22.09 @ 12:19AM

What I don't get is this: Where is the Commander in Chief from the previous administration? Why is the second in charge doing all the speeches now? What does the previous Mr. President have to say about all of this? Will he go in front of a camera and speak up on his own behalf? George Bush was the president, not Dick Cheney. I want to hear a debate on this between Obama and Bush.

cathy| 5.22.09 @ 12:22AM

I need to hear a debate between former president george bush and president barack obama on this issue. Where is bush? Why can't he speak for his own administration?

cathy| 5.22.09 @ 12:23AM

CH| 5.22.09 @ 12:26AM

Geeez, Cathy--not real computer savvy are you? Carol, free speech for all--screw yourself.

Ed Hudecek| 5.22.09 @ 12:28AM

Cheney's deluge of misinformation to Americans now surpasses 2 terms. He's just basically said that waterboarding and forced nakedness possibly "prevented the death of hundreds of thousands"? He quotes Adm. Dennis Blair saying "a deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization" was gained, yet doesn't mention that Blair also stated "bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." (search "Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements" to find the McClatchy story by J S Landay.) Cheney may have enough credibility for the American Enterprise Institute, but I wonder how many at the AEI share Cheney's penchant for war profiteering? I hope Cheney lives to see the day that he's brought to trial for one of the largest frauds in American history.

Mary McLemore| 5.22.09 @ 12:59AM

The problem for Obama is that he is NOT doing everything he can, but instead has been striking possible things off the list, while he undermines our intelligence agencies, just as the last Democratic president did.

asad| 5.22.09 @ 2:04AM

I saw the cheney talk last night, i was amazed to see this guy actually has the audacity to still say sadam hussain had ties to terrorsits, and WMD, does he not realize the only thing keeping him and bush out of jail is the mercy of Obama for their criminal acts in iraq?

Basil Plumley| 5.22.09 @ 2:17AM

Hey tonypal,

Outstanding post!!

The silence from jim rice is deafening. The guy's self-righteous schtick is wearing thin. I get the feeling he is a "black flag" anarchist.

jusme| 5.22.09 @ 3:47AM

I for one see the present times as a much needed transition period. If we are going to consider history all the time in such debates lets look at the state of the economy at the end of the Clinton term as opposed to the Cheney term (lets also face facts when it comes to who was in power the recently past 8 years...hmmm?)

Basil Plumley| 5.22.09 @ 10:57AM

@ jusme

You said-If we are going to consider history all the time in such debates lets look at the state of the economy at the end of the Clinton term as opposed to the Cheney term

Good Lord, have you forgotten the Clinton-Gore recession that began in March of 2000?
Have you forgotten the argument for the Bush tax cuts in 2001?

Obviously, you must have been in grade school at the time. The problem today is statist solutions to the economy. Cheney would not be making the same decisions that Obama is making. I don't think even Bill Clinton would go as far.
Your Obama is doing a job Mussolini would be proud of.

tonypal| 5.22.09 @ 12:02PM

asad:

Here's a novel idea for you and all of your fellow travelers. When you assert that the Bush administration committed war crimes in Iraq, why don't you tell us what crimes were committed and back up your assertions that the acts were criminal by citing to specific provisions in the law, either Constitutional or international. If you can't do that for us, then we must conclude that you're a non-thinking drone who simply regurgitates whatever you hear because it's emotionally appealing.

tonypal| 5.22.09 @ 12:07PM

Ed Hudecek:

I can just imagine the citizens of LA on the day after they were attacked, thousands of dead, many more wounded, saying to themselves and each other, "at least our world image is still intact."

tonypal| 5.22.09 @ 12:09PM

Carol:

I assume by loony fringe you mean the people here at TAS. If so, then I think you've already engaged. By the way, I wonder if you're capable of intelligent discourse. What would you like to discuss? Just let me know we'll see if you're up for it.

Mark Dias| 5.22.09 @ 1:01PM

Yes, Cheney was great. I loved his speech. Wish Bush did this when he was president.

My analysis
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2009/05/gloves-are-off-obama-vs-cheney.html

MT| 5.22.09 @ 3:13PM

No more Bushes ever!

candyxiaoxiao| 8.28.09 @ 2:43AM

Ultra Short Ugg Boots

biniki| 9.1.09 @ 9:50PM

bikini
bikini swimwear

chi original flat iron| 9.4.09 @ 3:46AM

Another limited edition of CHI is the chi pink flat iron that was sold in dark pink with a heat protector pad included with the chi pink flat irons

naiy| 1.10.10 @ 10:34PM

Cheney also reminded the audience that there wenike outlet
ren't any attacks on U.S. soil in the seven and a half years sinadidas outletce 9/11, which he attributed to the administration's effective policies that Obama is unraveling.