Reactions to Obama vs. Cheney

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It wasn't really Obama vs. Cheney, largely because it was an outright mismatch. While Cheney regurgitated more of the same old nonsense that destroyed America's credibility both at home and abroad, Obama presented, as he is wont to do, a thoughtful, nuanced understanding of American national security.

Overall, I tend to agree with Greenwald, whom Creature quoted here: While there was much to like in Obama's speech ("closing Guantanamo, banning torture tactics, limiting the state secrets privilege"), there was also much to exacerbate concerns that the current president is, to put it mildly, a bit too much like the last one ("indefinite preventive detention schemes, military commissions, denial of habeas rights to Bagram abductees, concealing torture evidence, blocking judicial review on secrecy grounds").

Here are some additional reactions:

Michael Crowley: "In the near-term, Obama is the hands-down winner of this matchup. The public is obviously tired of certitude and missionary zeal. The memory of 9/11 is fading from our culture's puny attention span. As Andrew Sullivan demonstrates, Cheney's speech is guilty of basic dishonesty."

Jonathan Chait: "This is, of course, completely illogical. You can, obviously, torture a terrorist or a murderer, and nobody has suggested otherwise. But it's a form of illogic that tells you a lot about Cheney's style of thought. To object to the methods of torture used against terrorists is to declare them innocent. You're either with them or against them. The notion that terrorists may be evil but nonetheless should not be tortured is an idea too complex for his brain to process. He is a complete moral simpleton." (Cheney claimed in his speech that opposing torture means declaring the terrorists innocent. Yes, he's that stupid.)

John Dickerson: "At bottom, Cheney's argument relies on the pernicious idea that if you disagree with him over the tactics used to fight the war on al-Qaida, you are fundamentally ignorant that a war is going on. For that reductive trick to work, Obama must play into the caricature of a weak-kneed liberal who rejects the notion that America is at war. There was nothing in Obama's speech or in his approach that obviously fits this caricature."

Fred Kaplan: "Why does anyone still listen to what Dick Cheney has to say? This morning's back-to-back speeches on torture and terrorism -- first by President Barack Obama, then by the former vice president -- could have been an opportunity to weigh competing arguments, examine their premises, and chart an agenda for a serious debate. Obama's speech did exactly that. He spelled out his logic, backed up his talking points with facts, and put forth a policy grounded -- at least in his view -- not just in lofty ideals but also in hardheaded assessments of national security. Those who disagree with his conclusions could come away at least knowing where their paths diverged -- what claims they'd need to challenge in mounting their opposition. Cheney, on the other hand, built a case on straw men, red herrings, and lies. In short, his speech was classic Dick Cheney, with all the familiar scowls and scorn intact. The Manichean worldview, which Cheney advanced and enforced while in office, was on full display."

I highly recommend that you read all four posts/articles in full.