Liz Cheney to Obama: Stop letting the polls shape your policy on terror

posted at 4:00 pm on May 21, 2009 by Allahpundit

The money bit comes at 1:45 in the exchange about what her dad meant when he said there was no “middle ground” on this subject; ironically, this is a rare case where the left would probably agree. As I said in the post on Obama’s speech, his policies in this area are defined by half-a-loaf gestures meant to appease critics on each side. He’ll release the torture memos but he won’t release the detainee photos; he’ll stick with military commissions but he’ll add a few extra procedural safeguards; he’ll ban torture but he’ll appoint a task force to decide if the CIA needs any additional interrogation techniques; and on and on. LC’s point is that he needs to decide what’s more important, fighting terror by the most effective possible means or placating his detractors with middle-ground muddles. Although, of course, The One would claim that those muddles are in fact the most effective possible way to fight terror, just as universal health care is the best way to end budget deficits, just as everything he does for political reasons supposedly isn’t done for political reasons but because it’s “pragmatic” or the only sensible solution or whatever.

As for Cheney herself, I’m surprised at how much of a fan base she’s built on righty blogs over the past month. I think it’s the fact that she comes at this with the same perspective and eloquence as Dick but minus the Palpatine vibe. Note her shrewd point in the middle here, too, about how the recidivism among detainees is likely to be greater among the hardcore group still left in Gitmo than it was among those already released. Luckily for us, Obama has a very principled, Hopenchange-y solution for that.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

LASue on May 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM

I second that motion.

thecountofincognito on May 21, 2009 at 11:49 PM

Like many others, I’m very impressed by Liz Cheney. If she were to run for the Senate, from which state would she run?

Renascent on May 22, 2009 at 2:11 AM

Cheney-Cheney 2012

darktood on May 22, 2009 at 5:08 AM

I had never seen this person before last night, and when I flipped to one of the news stations, I wondered why Tonya Harding was being interviewed. Then they flashed her name. I would have bet $10 that she was Tonya Harding. The resemblance is uncanny.

These are serious questions I have:

How does she know what is in classified documents? Has she seen them? If so, how was she able to see them if they were classified?

If she hasn’t seen them, why is Dick Cheney telling her/people what is in classified documents?

If they were classified, why didn’t Bush/Cheney have them declassified before they left office?

If we declassify these documents, are liberals then allowed to ask that all the documents and emails from the Bush/Cheney era be declassified or do we only declassify the documents that the Cheneys believe should be declassified?

Sally S on May 22, 2009 at 10:07 AM

The only part of the speech I enjoyed was “Thank you and G-uhgag god bless america and good night”. The rest of it had me talking to the T.V. and getting an upset stomach.

I bet President Obama used his teleprompter to find his way to the Smithsonian and to even have an idea of what is contained therein.

MSGTAS on May 22, 2009 at 10:51 AM

“I would have bet $10 that she was Tonya Harding. The resemblance is uncanny.”

Have you considered an eye exam?

Her point is valid. We don’t know what the documnets hold other than what Cheney implied. He expressed that they support his position that the methods used, on 3 people, helped stop attacks. The information obtained was checked and verified to be true. Obama said they don’t. Fine. Release them and let the public decide.

What does Obama have to hide? Why release some parts and not others? You can’t selectively release, redact, and hide behind National Security reasons when you are playing politics with National Security. Well, you can. But, it doesn’t make you look very honest when smearing the past administration you are mirroring policy wise (in many examples). If Dick Cheney was lying, you would think that Obama releasing the documents, to prove this, would be that final nail in the coffin, right? Why not do so then?

The part being obscured, that irks me the most, is the wishy washy defnition of torture and waterboarding they are creating. Waterboarding, or EIT, will be ok to use as long as it is used in a non-torture intended way. What. a. joke. We can have show trials to determine “intent”. Great. It’s a responsibility loophole just like plausible deniability.

You try this in your world. See how well it works for you.

DWB on May 24, 2009 at 6:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2