May 22, 2009--Obama v. Cheney: The Great Debate
For months I have been arguing with my Republican friends that they need to stop driving moderates from their party because if they do they will become so marginalized and politically insignificant that even the Democrats will lose something they and all of America needs—a vibrant opposition party.
From a partisan perspective, as a general supporter of the Obama administration and most times the Democratic Party, I am not looking for ways to help the Republicans come back to power; I am rather urging Republicans to find their voice again so that their opposition can become something more substantial than just saying no, that they will be able to more effectively serve as a check to those in the majority, and not only contribute ideas of their own to the debate but at times see these become part of domestic and international policy. Like welfare reform during the Clinton administration.
It is in this spirit that I welcome the efforts of former vice president Dick Cheney to participate in the greatest debate of our day—how best in this uncertain world to keep our country safe.
I know that he has a personal ax to grind—he is concerned about his and the Bush’s administration’s place in history; and he may very well, as I have speculated here, be attempting to so rattle and even terrorize the Obama administration and especially the Justice Department that they will decide to not even think about prosecuting him or members of his staff for alleged crimes he and they may have committed while in office (who in their right mind, at times like this, wants to grapple with such a fearsome foe?); I also know that the vast majority of Americans distrust him and hold him responsible for the things they least like about the Bush administration (he was, wasn’t he, really running things?).
All of these things I share and thus I needed to take a deep breath and force myself to listen to his speech yesterday, the one on his views about the Obama administration and how he differs with them on national security issues, the one that followed immediately Obama’s on essentially the same subject. After first listening to both and then reading the full texts of each of them, though I still mainly disagree with Cheney and mostly still agree with Obama’s approach (in spite of his most controversial, quasi-constitutional call for “prolonged detention” without trial, for the most-dangerous category of prisoners, or “detainees,” at Guantanamo—what, after is, is the best thing to do with them?) if one can get by the dislike, the disdain one may likely have for Cheney, it is this very kind of thing from Republicans that I have been urging—challenge the core ideas of the new administration and by so doing force them to rethink their most essential and complex positions and, if as the result of the reflection, they discover flaws or weaknesses in their arguments, press them to make adjustments.
After all, when it comes to national security it is not about winning quick political points or exerting dominance because your party is in power but rather figuring out the best ways to keep our country safe. And, if Dick Cheney can serve to play this role while all other Republicans who can get our attention via the sound bite-oriented media have little to contribute that can be taken seriously, than I say, “Dick, keep talking. We need you. If we can’t help mobilize a loyal opposition, then we’ll settle for the value we can get from just the opposition.”
Without dragging you through a textual analysis of both speeches (which, if you have the time would be interesting and rewarding), let me try to put aside the snideness and self-congratulation in the Cheney talk and mention just one of his points that Obama and we would do well to consider—his claim that what he calls “enhanced interrogation techniques” are the only ones that can quickly extract essential, life-saving information from terrorists.
I am skeptical that waterboarding and other forms of torture—because that is surely what it is—do what he claims but rather forces prisoners to tell you what they think you want to hear in order to get you to stop. But I am not certain that this is true.
As much as I hate the idea that Americans might be asked to perform torture—I also hate the idea that non-combatants are killed and wounded during even “good” wars—if, and only if it can be incontrovertibly proven that in certain very limited circumstances that it is the only thing that works—Cheney’s claim—than I am prepared to put aside my moral resistance, swallow hard, and grant the president—and it would need to be the president—the power to order torture.
In his speech yesterday, Barack Obama said that he has read all the relevant intelligence on the subject of waterboarding and that he has concluded it doesn’t work. While I am inclined to trust him, and thus believe him, and more than inclined not to trust or believe Dick Cheney (I feel that he has earned this distrust), about this subject I do not fully trust either of them.
I want to know, I want to see the actual evidence on both sides of the argument. Cheney says that the CIA documents Obama recently released have those parts redacted that speak to the question of effectiveness and that there are others, which would prove his case, that should also be declassified.
This coming from someone who was arguably the most squirrelly man in Washington, who was most comfortable leading from an undisclosed location, may seem ironic; but about this I agree with him—I want to see those censored passages and the memos he is calling for. Let’s find out what the truth is. I suspect that Cheney is either not remembering correctly or not telling the truth. It is likely to me that Obama is being honest. But if it turns out that Cheney is right, we need to know.
This is not about what Nancy Pelosi knew or didn’t know or what she did or didn’t do. That is a distraction, a Fox News-MSNBC sideshow. But the questions Cheney is raising—putting aside his motivations or nastiness—are essential ones, the kind a responsible opposition should raise, and are enriching our debate about some of the most important issues we face.
So again, “Dick, keep it up.”
(Though if you want a gloss on what may have be at the heart of Cheney’s real agenda see the fascinating New York Times article linked below.)
From a partisan perspective, as a general supporter of the Obama administration and most times the Democratic Party, I am not looking for ways to help the Republicans come back to power; I am rather urging Republicans to find their voice again so that their opposition can become something more substantial than just saying no, that they will be able to more effectively serve as a check to those in the majority, and not only contribute ideas of their own to the debate but at times see these become part of domestic and international policy. Like welfare reform during the Clinton administration.
It is in this spirit that I welcome the efforts of former vice president Dick Cheney to participate in the greatest debate of our day—how best in this uncertain world to keep our country safe.
I know that he has a personal ax to grind—he is concerned about his and the Bush’s administration’s place in history; and he may very well, as I have speculated here, be attempting to so rattle and even terrorize the Obama administration and especially the Justice Department that they will decide to not even think about prosecuting him or members of his staff for alleged crimes he and they may have committed while in office (who in their right mind, at times like this, wants to grapple with such a fearsome foe?); I also know that the vast majority of Americans distrust him and hold him responsible for the things they least like about the Bush administration (he was, wasn’t he, really running things?).
All of these things I share and thus I needed to take a deep breath and force myself to listen to his speech yesterday, the one on his views about the Obama administration and how he differs with them on national security issues, the one that followed immediately Obama’s on essentially the same subject. After first listening to both and then reading the full texts of each of them, though I still mainly disagree with Cheney and mostly still agree with Obama’s approach (in spite of his most controversial, quasi-constitutional call for “prolonged detention” without trial, for the most-dangerous category of prisoners, or “detainees,” at Guantanamo—what, after is, is the best thing to do with them?) if one can get by the dislike, the disdain one may likely have for Cheney, it is this very kind of thing from Republicans that I have been urging—challenge the core ideas of the new administration and by so doing force them to rethink their most essential and complex positions and, if as the result of the reflection, they discover flaws or weaknesses in their arguments, press them to make adjustments.
After all, when it comes to national security it is not about winning quick political points or exerting dominance because your party is in power but rather figuring out the best ways to keep our country safe. And, if Dick Cheney can serve to play this role while all other Republicans who can get our attention via the sound bite-oriented media have little to contribute that can be taken seriously, than I say, “Dick, keep talking. We need you. If we can’t help mobilize a loyal opposition, then we’ll settle for the value we can get from just the opposition.”
Without dragging you through a textual analysis of both speeches (which, if you have the time would be interesting and rewarding), let me try to put aside the snideness and self-congratulation in the Cheney talk and mention just one of his points that Obama and we would do well to consider—his claim that what he calls “enhanced interrogation techniques” are the only ones that can quickly extract essential, life-saving information from terrorists.
I am skeptical that waterboarding and other forms of torture—because that is surely what it is—do what he claims but rather forces prisoners to tell you what they think you want to hear in order to get you to stop. But I am not certain that this is true.
As much as I hate the idea that Americans might be asked to perform torture—I also hate the idea that non-combatants are killed and wounded during even “good” wars—if, and only if it can be incontrovertibly proven that in certain very limited circumstances that it is the only thing that works—Cheney’s claim—than I am prepared to put aside my moral resistance, swallow hard, and grant the president—and it would need to be the president—the power to order torture.
In his speech yesterday, Barack Obama said that he has read all the relevant intelligence on the subject of waterboarding and that he has concluded it doesn’t work. While I am inclined to trust him, and thus believe him, and more than inclined not to trust or believe Dick Cheney (I feel that he has earned this distrust), about this subject I do not fully trust either of them.
I want to know, I want to see the actual evidence on both sides of the argument. Cheney says that the CIA documents Obama recently released have those parts redacted that speak to the question of effectiveness and that there are others, which would prove his case, that should also be declassified.
This coming from someone who was arguably the most squirrelly man in Washington, who was most comfortable leading from an undisclosed location, may seem ironic; but about this I agree with him—I want to see those censored passages and the memos he is calling for. Let’s find out what the truth is. I suspect that Cheney is either not remembering correctly or not telling the truth. It is likely to me that Obama is being honest. But if it turns out that Cheney is right, we need to know.
This is not about what Nancy Pelosi knew or didn’t know or what she did or didn’t do. That is a distraction, a Fox News-MSNBC sideshow. But the questions Cheney is raising—putting aside his motivations or nastiness—are essential ones, the kind a responsible opposition should raise, and are enriching our debate about some of the most important issues we face.
So again, “Dick, keep it up.”
(Though if you want a gloss on what may have be at the heart of Cheney’s real agenda see the fascinating New York Times article linked below.)
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home