Bloggers, newspapers, news shows seem to have the Obama/Cheney fight buzz. I am no different. Let me summarize both speeches since they take a lot of time. Obama continued in his normal rhetoric saturated fluff that sounds great (transcript reads well too), but ultimately had no substance and lacked specific evidence. I'll admit, that if it were different circumstances, and if I didn't have B.S. Meter installed, I would swallow his tall, dark, and handsome oratory ambrosia everyday. But, since the meter went off the charts today, please allow me articulate why.Here's Obama's summary:
- America has values, subsequently, I am speaking from a position of moral authority so don't question me.
- Fear drove the inept decision making that led to abuse of powers and we should not be fear mongers to promote our illegal policies.
- We [America] went awol on morality and I will bring us back.
Cheney's Speech Summary:
- I just PWNED Obama.
Here's the problem I have with all of Obama's (and those who agree) commentary. What gall does he have to declassify the methods of obtaining information (waterboarding) but is not willing to disclose the information extracted (i.e. the plans of killing and death averted)? By the way, Cheney asked last week to fully disclose everything so that the American people could decide for themselves, but instead, we are kept in the dark by the only guy with the power who preaches transparency. Kind of hypocritical Obama, don't you think?
Furthermore, if waterboarding is torture, and I don't agree that it is (we train our troops with waterboarding), why does Obama still reserve the right to implement it in the future? Does he really believe that it's torture? Answer: No, because if it's wrong, then it needs to be outlawed. However, he does not believe that and I think he reads the results and wants to keep it in reserve. A tool in the back of the shed for special circumstances.
I'm sorry, but intellectual dishonesty Mr. President. Wrong is wrong, not wrong if Bush uses it and right because I may want to. Aaaaaaaaah! It's not relative to the name on the Oval Office door.
Here's the deal, at the end of the day, we were terrorist attack free for 7.5 years. At the end of the day, Bush and Cheney did their job. I don't agree with everything they have done, in fact, I disagree with most of their financial policies except for the tax cuts, but it worked. We were not attacked and I, for one, am very very very very very happy for this.
If you believe waterboarding is torture, fine, we will have to agree to disagree. But I find it completely disingenuous for a follow-up administration to criminalize and consider prosecuting the employees who produced a perfect record when this new administration has not been in office for 6 months.
There is no way he could have taken the appropriate amount of time necessary to analyze the last 8 years in this short amount of time, especially when his first 100 days were spent bailing out companies who should have gone bankrupt, driving our debt mind boggling levels, and firing the CEO's of a major automotive manufacturer. How can he condemn a president for taking unprecedented measures to protect American citizens from death (Homeland Security) and yet be the only president in history to overstep his authority and fire a private company's boss? The only way is through hypocrisy.
If you want to get a hold of the same source material, here it is.
Obama's Transcript of Speech
Cheney's Speech: Part 1 2 3 4
P.S. To California voters...GREAT JOB YESTERDAY! You pwned Arnold and our legislatures. I'm so proud.
Posts
2 comments:
I happen to disagree with not classifying waterboarding as torture. Phyical torture? no. One of the most effective ways of getting almost anyone to say almost anything? yes. I urge you to find accounts of people who underwent waterboarding to dismiss it and still held the same position afterwards.
I think it is a good thing to consider those who have experienced directly what we discuss intellectually. I have heard two people call into the Armstrong and Getty radio show, who were and are still in the armed special forces, state that they did not believe it was torture. I agree with them because, although you may feel like you are drowning, you are in fact very safe from such a death. However, we cannot properly quantify such an act accurately if we do not define torture first. Torture, according to Noah Webster, is "Severe pain inflicted judicially, either as a punishment for a crime, or for the purpose of extorting a confession from an accused person."
I am arguing that because no actually physical pain is being inflicted, nor were they trying to get the 3 terrorists to confess to a crime, waterboarding does not qualify as torture.
I believe that the real reason behind this controversial issue of whether or not waterboarding is torture, lies in the truth that most Americans are rarely exposed to this topic, or even specifically waterboarding itself. Most Americans, until this came into the limelight, never even knew that waterboarding existed. Therefore, it is not one's mind that we are wrestling with, for most, but the emotions that are driving the distaste of it.
The evidence for this is the disproportional attention received by 3 known murderers and terrorists who were waterboarded. We debate so vehemently about this subject, yet only 3 out of the hundreds at Guantanamo Bay were ever waterboarded.
Furthermore, I'd like to know what information was provided and what events were prevented. This, unfortunately, is not being declassified by the Obama Administration.
Post a Comment