NEOAVATARA

Anyone ready for a Obama/Cheney cage match?

Thursday’s dueling speeches on the United States policy toward terrorist interment had to be one of the most interesting and enlightening political contests in recent history.

For liberals, Mr. Obama was voicing their discord with the Bush Administration policies on terror, while at the same time trying to balance the reality of leadership.  For Mr. Cheney, it was a brash and confident attack of the Obama era policy, while defending his administrations past conduct.  The two speeches could not have been more stark in their tenor or substance.

Part of that was intent.  While Cheney is now relieved of the chains of leadership, Obama is not.  Cheney can be forceful and vitriolic if necessary to prove his point.  Obama does not have that freedom as the leader of the free world.

That also goes to the heart of the real disagreement:  the middle ground.  Obama feels their is some ‘moderate’ position where both sides can agree.  Cheney does not.  Obama believes that moderation can make us safer.  Cheney vehemently disagrees.  Who is right is anybody’s guess.

One other part of Cheney’s speech that shocked the left: he by no means accepts the liberal tenet that there was torture, and that anything the Bush Administration did was wrong.  It has been so long that the liberal intelligentsia has been challenged on their beliefs, they were apoplectic when finally confronted on the topic.  Numerous liberal commentators yelled and screamed last week, without providing an ounce of real proof of what they have been blabbering about for years.

For conservatives, it was a gasp of relief.  Finally, someone was stating what many (and according to polls, most) Americans believe; that what we did was right and necessary.  This was a fight many wanted to have in last year’s election, but clearly John McCain was not the right candidate for that debate.  Conservatives don’t even care if they are winning the argument; they just want to hold their own.

And yet, both men really did avoid some key issues and facts related to the entire issue.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney:

1.  He has yet to show that harsh interrogations, in fact, did anything.  He argues that there is proof in certain memos.  Time will tell.  However, what will be harder to prove is if the harsh enhanced interrogations were necessary in the first place.  Several members of the intelligence services, including Dennis Blair, argue that information could have been obtained by other methods.  Is this true?  If so, it hinders Cheney’s argument, because the crux of his argument is that waterboarding was essential to obtaining vital information.

2.  Cheney continues to argue that waterboarding is not torture.  Frankly, I think this is the weakest part of his argument.  Waterboarding is not accepted as legal almost any where.  I will admit, Cheney might be ‘technically’ right…the American laws on torture are vague at best.  And despite what legal scholars say, foreign treaties do not clearly delineate the line between right and wrong.

President Obama:

1.  Most clearly and apparent, he did not really provide any solution to the basic question, “What happens after Gitmo?”.  There was no advancement, no further knowledged gained by the public, on where the Obama Administration plans to move forward.  Yes, they are going to close Gitmo; after that, it is all blank.  Facts were sparse in Obama’s speech, and that was to his own detriment.

2. After listening to Obama, you get the feeling that he is pleading with his supporters to give him time.  That is because, the policy as it stands today is virtually identical to President Bush’s…and that does not bear well with the left.  Obama is starting to realize that some of Bush’s choices were not choices, so much as necessities.  Charles Krauthammer puts this into context:

The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

3. Evidence.  If Obama really wants to put the issue to rest, wouldn’t the easiest way to prove that Cheney, is in fact, wrong by just releasing the memos?  The main structural argument for Cheney is that the interrogations saved lives.  Cheney, in lieu of that claim, asked for specific memos, which Obama has denied.  Now, the logic behind this is startling; Obama had no problem releasing memos that even his own CIA Director opposed, but now is restricting these documents?  It raises the obvious question:  Is there proof that Cheney, is in fact, right, and the interrogations saved lives?  Until Obama releases those memos, that question will persist.

Further point:  what evidence is there that Gitmo and Bush policies increased the number of terrorists, or made us less safe?  This is the liberal mantra…but there is no evidence for this, other than the liberal echo chamber.

4.  Flawed logic.  Obama makes the argument that Gitmo, its existence itself, is immoral. He also argues it is reasonable to bring these terrorist back the U.S.  If this is the case, then why not close Gitmo immediately?  Isn’t his delay of the closure, in fact, immoral?  Or is he arguing (and rightfully so, in my mind) that this is not black and white, and there are levels of moral importance to be dealt with here?

5. The future.  The hypothetical question is always hard to answer, but a President must face it anyway.  Is there NO situation under which Obama would consider using harsh interrogations?  Is he going to make the issue that black and white?

Politically, one thing is clear:  This was a win for Cheney.  First of all, Dick Cheney has nothing to lose:  he has no future political career, is already despised by 1/3 of the public, and no matter how things play out his political biography is written.

Obama does not have the same liberty.  Obama has to deal with the political and legal realities; Cheney no longer has to.  Obama has to deal with the left, foreign countries, and his own promises.  Cheney only has to defend the past.  George W. Bush has stayed above the fray, though he stated that he believes lives have been saved by his ‘legal’ interrogation program.  Obama has the difficulty to dealing with real world problems…like the Chinese Uighurs, which courts have said must be released, but now even the Obama Administration is arguing against, which raises the ire of liberal groups.  And Obama fought and won over giving habeas corpus rights to detainees at Bagram in Afghanistan.

Also, Cheney is arguing that we need to use every tool we have to fight the terrorists, which is an argument the public has little trouble in understanding.  Obama’s argument?  That we don’t need to use all of these tactics to stay safe, and in the end, we will all be safe if you only trust this administration.  I think that is a harder sell to a post 9/11 America.  We can see this in the poll numbers;  from Rasmussen:

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide now disagree with President Barack Obama’s decision to close the prison camp for suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted after the President’s speech on Guantanamo last week, shows that 38% agree with his decision.

Just 25% share the President’s view that the Guantanamo camp weakened national security. Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree with that perspective.

And, by a 57% to 28% margin, voters oppose moving any of the suspected terrorists to prisons in the United States. Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party strongly oppose transfers to U.S. prisons. Democrats are evenly divided.

Or, a June USA Today/Gallup poll:

…by more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn’t be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.  n the survey, Americans were inclined to accept the argument by Cheney and former president George W. Bushthat the detention center had made the United States safer. By 40%-18%, they said the prison had strengthened national security rather than weakened it.  Those who want the prison to remain open feel more strongly on the subject that those who want to close it. A 54% majority of those polled say the prison shouldn’t be closed, and that they’ll be upset if the administration moves forward to close it.

Why else would Cheney’s approval ratings increase by one-third in several weeks?  Because he is gaining support, because more of the public supports his position than liberals and the media are willing to admit.  And the public is following Cheney.  In a new USA Today/Gallup poll, by more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn’t be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.  n the survey, Americans were inclined to accept the argument by Cheney and former president George W. Bushthat the detention center had made the United States safer. By 40%-18%, they said the prison had strengthened national security rather than weakened it.  Those who want the prison to remain open feel more strongly on the subject that those who want to close it. A 54% majority of those polled say the prison shouldn’t be closed, and that they’ll be upset if the administration moves forward to close it.

That is the real reason the left, and the Obama Administration, are worried about the former Vice President.