[tomder55]

Here is his address . Waiting for Cheney to respond.

RealClearPolitics - Protecting Our Security and Our Values

[speechlesstx]

Hello again,

The thing that is so disheartening, is that Cheney hasn't changed his position one iota. The Obadufus, on the other hand, is changing every minute. He looks a deer caught in the headlights.

I'm waiting for the Obama speech. He's a wimp.

Been listening vaguely to Obama's speech, he's very good at taking every side of an issue. Mostly he's justifying himself.

[tomder55]

Summarized this way
“It's all Bush's fault... and he released terroists before I was in office "

[tomder55]

Meanwhile he told human rights groups yesterday that he was considering a "preventive detention " system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us...a.html?_r=1&hp

Now if that is the case ;why does it make a difference if they are held in GITMO or inside the US??

Now he is being rediculously stubborn.

[excon]

Hello again:

He speaks about the nation and our core values, like I speak about the nation and our core values. Even though I might not agree with him on everything, he's the man for the job.

I'm listening to vice. I wonder if what he's going to say represents our nations core values. I doubt it.

excon

[speechlesstx]

meanwhile he told human rights groups yesterday that he was considering a "preventive detention " system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us...a.html?_r=1&hp

Now if that is the case ;why does it make a difference if they are held in GITMO or inside the US ???

Now he is being rediculously stubborn.

If it becomes law he can say we're still a nation of laws... the difference is he can get away with it unlike Bush.

So, EIT's "serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America."

Gitmo, "has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us."

How is that any different than conservative's arguments on what would "embolden the terrorists?" The best recruitment tool, rallying cry, emboldening act for terrorists is a successful terrorist strike. Cheney will argue that Bush administration policies were successful in preventing such another attack.

Btw, enjoyed an entertaining, informative, encouraging evening with Michael Medved last night thanks to a friend (an autographed copy of his book included). Watch Israel.

[excon]

I'm listening to vice. I wonder if what he's going to say represents our nations core values. I doubt it.

Hello again,

I was right.

excon

PS> Oh, yeah. Be scared - very scared!

[ETWolverine]

One thing that everyone seems to forget is that films of the 9/11 attacks have served as the single greatest recruiting tool of the terrorist groups.

Anything that prevents another 9/11 from becoming a recruitment tool of the terrorists is a good thing.

Gitmo and EITs haven't been nearly as effective a recruiting tool as the actual attacks were, and have prevented actual attacks from taking place.

The "rallying cry" and "recruitment tool" argument is complete BS. Yes, it serves as a propaganda tool. It creates martyrs. But as Meir Kahane used to say, "Martyrs in the Middle East are a dime a dozen. Nobody pays attention to them anymore." A dead or incarcerated terrorist, however, is one less badguy that needs to be stopped later. And any information that can be obtained from him that prevents attacks is a good thing.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again:

Here's the deal... As sleazy as it was, and as bad a speaker as he is, it was far more riveting than Obama's speech, and ultimately, more effective.

And, THAT is the problem.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again:

Here's the deal.... As sleazy as it was, and as bad a speaker as he is, it was far more riveting than Obama's speech, and ultimately, more effective.

And, THAT is the problem.

excon

Didn't I say something about that yesterday? :D

[excon]

Didn't I say something about that yesterday? :D

Hello again, Steve:

How did you hear vice's speech yesterday? ;)

Riveting doesn't make it accurate. In fact, THAT'S what makes it so scary. It was absolutely WRONG - and absolutely BELIEVABLE.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

How did you hear vice's speech yesterday? ;)

Riveting doesn't make it accurate. In fact, THAT'S what makes it so scary. It was absolutely WRONG - and absolutely BELIEVABLE.

excon

I'm omniscient. Um no, I said something about him being effective. :D

[tomder55]

I will echo the others who said the images of the Twin Towers going down or Daniel Pearl's head being sawed off by KSM were much better recruiting video for jihadistan . In fact if someone can show me video that AQ has used depicting prisoners in GITMO suffering I'd love to see it.

Certainly Obama has proven that being tough on jihadists offends his sensibilities .But I have seen no evidence of this claim that it helps them in their recruiting . How is it that he was so successful recruiting jihadists pre- 9-11 ?

[tomder55]

Here is text of Cheney's speech

RealClearPolitics - Keeping America Safe

[speechlesstx]

Here is Allahpundit's recap of Obama's speech, "We must look forward while also remembering that everything is Bush's fault, and we must not abandon our core ideals unless doing so would make things too difficult for The One."

I think he set a record for referring to himself, 104 occurrences of "I" if my count was correct.

[speechlesstx]

Thanks for the link, tom.

For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

Bravo...

[spitvenom]

I was to busy at work to pay attention to either speech so I can't make a judgment on either. I'll read them later.

[ordinaryguy]

If it becomes law he can say we're still a nation of laws...the difference is he can get away with it unlike Bush.

But Bush DID get away with it, and so will Obama. I feel sick.

[speechlesstx]

But Bush DID get away with it, and so will Obama. I feel sick.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. Bush was hammered relentlessly, Obama will get a pass because it isn't about what's being done, it's about who's doing it.

[ordinaryguy]

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. Bush was hammered relentlessly, Obama will get a pass because it isn't about what's being done, it's about who's doing it.

Well, I'm not giving him a pass. For me, it's entirely about what's being done, not who's doing it.