Cheney Nails the Left, Obama and the Media: Economist Chimes In On The Great Debate

Obama released only part of the memos to strengthen his supporters and hurt his opponents. That dare I say is an inconvenient truth that the President will never be able to live down. By the way Cheney nails the bizarre convergence in the minds of the left of Abu and Gitmo,and among other things the feined outrage of those who knew.(Pelosi) At the end of the day it was Obama who brought this on himself with his rhetoric to appease the left and the release of information that did everything but turn the page on events.

For the full transcript of his speech.

The Economist on the Two Speeches:

Having admitted that the camp was “quite simply, a mess”, Mr Obama went through the categories of prisoners and how he intended to deal with them. The most dangerous of the 240 detainees would be sent to “super-max” federal prisons—from which, he reminded his audience, no one has ever escaped. Their trials would be held in federal court, where terrorists have already been tried and sentenced. Military commissions were “appropriate” for those who had violated the laws of war, and he had not changed tack on them; he had always approved of them, he said, in a reformed shape. Detainees who were suitable for transfer abroad would be shifted there (though, as Mr Cheney pointed out, other countries are not lining up to take them). Those who had been ordered released would be released. As for those who could not be prosecuted but were still a threat, he had begun to “reshape” standards and construct a “legitimate legal framework” to deal with them. Details were lacking.

The great bulk of Mr Obama’s lawyerly speech, however—which repeated well-worn themes from his campaign and seemed unnecessarily lengthy—was devoted to the theme of principles. Unless America abided by its fundamental values, its people would never truly be safe. Guantánamo had “set back our moral authority”, and had become instead “a rallying cry for our enemies”. In the same way, “enhanced interrogation techniques”—as both he and Mr Cheney fastidiously referred to torture—had not advanced America’s principles, but undermined them. That was why he had released the Bush administration’s torture memorandums, to show the world what America was no longer prepared to do. Ending water-boarding (simulated drowning) and closing Guantánamo were further steps down the path of legality and morality.

Fine, unexceptionable words, delivered with the usual eloquence. But Mr Obama looked like a man whose closest brush with terror had been watching “Independence Day”. Mr Cheney, by contrast, had been there. He recalled the moment on September 11th 2001 when he had been bundled from his White House office into the presidential bunker. It had not made him a different man, he said, but it had focused all his thoughts on the safety of the nation. Another attack might come at any time. So, mindful of that, the Bush administration had invoked Article two of the constitution: “all necessary and appropriate force” could be used to protect the American people. Mr Cheney, too, can bring on the Founding Fathers when he needs to.(Emphasis Mine)

As pointed out here, Obama had 4 options and was likely to use them all, they are:

• Send them to Europe.
• Send them to American Prisons.
• Keep them in Gitmo.
• Send them to their Home countries.

Each option provides rewards and pitfalls, for example sending to them their home countries is problematic to say the least. On the one hand they might go right back to the battlefield, on the other extreme their home countries may kill them outright. Europe, despite "Obama" love has been reluctant to provide tangible assistance to the President. Sending them to American prisons is an option, but once again the NIMBY syndrome and the fear of terror attacks make this unpalatable to many. This leaves us with the last option of keeping Gitmo open to hold trials, those found guilty face punishment and those cleared could be released. (Where they would do prison sentences is another issue, of course the death penalty could be carried out in Gitmo) I fully expect some combination of all these options to be the final outcome. Reality is hard, no matter what the left and Obama pretend.

And how does the Economist view it in the end?

The Obama administration had released redacted versions of classified memos that revealed what had been done to extract information, but was silent on the usefulness of that information and the possible atrocities that had been averted. And as for the plan to close Guantánamo, that had been done without proper deliberation; the president might find, “on reflection”, that it was a bad idea to let hardened terrorists go. Mr Cheney was on a roll.

Time still remains for Congress to add Guantánamo funds to the spending bill, if it wants to. The president’s moral argument remains unimpeachable. But his vague and virtuous hopefulness rang a little hollow beside the straight talk of a man who lived through the worst terrorist attack in American history, and did what seemed justified—to some senior Democrats, as well as Republicans—at the time.

Absolutely.