It’s hard to be objective when listening to these two perspectives on defending our country. I will try my best.
President Obama gave a tightly scripted speech with a teleprompter. It was probably written by many hands. It was a speech well suited for a man who has no experience with National Security. It was a forty minute speech that could have been given very well in 15 minutes maximum. It was short on facts, had no plan to close Gitmo, and was long on flowery language. It was very well delivered as we should expect. He spoke of finger pointing and fear, then pointed his finger at the Bush administration no less than 28 times. He blamed them for everything. It was their fault that recruitment might be up in the Taliban, since Gitmo did that. Honestly, that logic escapes me.
At times I felt President Obama was a spokesman for the ACLU. Much of what he is trying to do is the platform of the ACLU. He spoke of transparency but did not address the release of the memos that tell the outcomes of the “torture” the Bush administration engaged in at Gitmo.
I head a man who had a personal agenda to take away from the Bush administration their one claim to fame. They kept us safe. By diminishing that, President Obama strips the Bush years away. A political coup. In the minds of the Democrats, this is the nail in the coffin of the Republican Party.
In Cheney I heard a 30 minute speech written in notes, probably many while he watched Obama attack him and his former Commander and Chief for 40 minutes. No teleprompter, since it seemed like it was his own words, not the words of many.
Cheney told us things Obama did not tell us. Only three detainees were water boarded. For three detainees, we are causing all this trouble? Doesn’t the current administration have more important work? He also told me that President Obama has left in place the right to use the same interrogation techniques if he should need them. Does this seem a little hypocritical?
I thought Cheney knew what he was talking about, had fact after fact, and was truthful.
Bottom line, if my safety and the safety of my kids and grand kids are on the line, which man do I think would do the better job of protecting them?
Easy call on this one. The man who has been there and did the job, not the spokesperson for the ACLU.
After this debate, I am even more concerned that our new president is going to get us in big trouble. He may truly believe what he is saying and doing, but somehow I don’t buy his beliefs and his motives. I find him to be a very disingenerous person, driven by ego and ambition. If he had a sound Director of Homeland Security, I would feel a little better. But, only Joe Biden is a bigger liability to Obama than Janet Napolitano.
Unfortunately, it will be a story that is yet told. Somewhere down the road, in the not too distant future, we will have a threat to our country. I hope I’m wrong, but I think out enemies believe they have a window of opportunity while Obama and his people are busy doing the work of the ACLU and not watching the store.
These speeches will be played back if that happens and Obama will pay a dear price for all he has done with Gitmo, the released documents on enhanced interrogation, and the numerous attacks on the strategy the Bush people used to keep us safe.
Does it make anyone else nervous that a President with all the resources at his disposal can’t present Congress a plan to close Gitmo?
