Challenging Bush on Terror is Just Dumb

Politico has a story that says the Obama administration is in a fighting mood.

Any day spent talking terrorism isn’t automatically a good one for the Obama administration, given the Republicans’ traditional edge on the issue among voters.

But debating Dick Cheney on terrorism? The Obama White House says it’s happy to do that anytime, as it did with Sunday’s split-screen standoff between Cheney and Vice President Joe Biden.

The dueling appearances, along with what is a clear administration strategy to play up its newly aggressive approach in Afghanistan, show a White House determined to project a posture of strength on national security and trying to gain the upper
hand with Republicans who wish to portray Obama as weak.

This is the height of political incompetence, in my opinion. Taking on the Bush administration is a total loser for the Obama administration. That's because no one in the Bush administration has anything to lose.

When you attack your opponent two things happen. First, your opponents negatives go up. Second, your negatives go up. The Bush administration won't be running for office. Dick Cheney's approval ratings can go to zero and it won't matter. He's not running for office. His criticisms will be run in a loop against Biden's.

So, think about that. Biden's defense is that they did the same thing the Bush administration did in the Richard Reid case. So, the negatives will go up for the Bush administration's handling of the Richard Reid case. That's not going to help with the approvals of Obama's handling of Farouk.

Democrats think they are winning because a recent WAPO poll gave the Obama administration 56% approval on its handling of the GWOT. Of course, the GWOT is a much broader thing: Iraq, Afghanistan, drones, etc. The public is overwhelmingly against civilian trials for KSM and they are none too happy with the Obama administration's handling of Farouk.

Let's go back to the Dick Morris theory. It doesn't matter how the media presents an issue. All that matters is what issue they are talking about. For the Obama administration anything in relation to the handling of the Farouk case is a total loser for the Obama administration. So, why draw more attention to it by getting into a spat with Cheney.

Biden Vs. Cheney

Just when you thought the Obama administration couldn't sink any lower, Joe Biden comes out with a full frontal assault against former VP Dick Cheney, and Cheney responded in kind. The fireworks started during the week when Biden showed up on Larry King.


Now, you know the administration is struggling when they try and take credit for Iraq. The president will likely not have all the troops out by the end of his first term. Both Biden and Obama were against the surge. Biden wanted to carve up Iraq into three parts. At best, they can be credited for not screwing things up.

Then, on today's show, Joe Biden trotted out the old Daniel Moynahan line about not getting your own facts. It was on.

There's a few things of note here. First, Democrats love to defend Mirandizing Farouk by pointing to Richard Reid. Well, first, Reid was arrested only a couple months after 9/11. The military tribunals hadn't been set up yet. Second, who cares? The same folks that condemn each and every Bush policy are now defending their own by pointing to a Bush policy. That's rich. We probably shouldn't have Mirandized Reid. We certainly better not have done it until we got all we could from him. Whether we did or not, that doesn't justify Mirandizing Farouk after 50 minutes.

Finally, who knew that the best voice against Obama anti terror policies would be Dick Cheney? He's been the single biggest and boldest voice of criticism against Obama's anti terror policies that the opposition has. As for Obama, they continue to think that picking political fights will somehow make people forget that they find many of their policies reprehensible.

Liberals + Halliburton = Conservatives + ACORN

Let me only speak to my conservative readers for a second. How many of you got real tired real fast when liberals turned every Bush policy into a Halliburton conspiracy? Everything from Iraq, energy policy, Iran, to just about everything else that Bush ever made policy toward was viewed by many liberals as a conspiracy to benefit Halliburton. Now, to the same conservative readers, how many of you believe that ACORN is secretly controlling government policy?

After watching with equal parts fascination, amusement and disgust as the left went into full Bush Derangement Syndrome over the previous eight years, I am no less fascinated, amused and disgusted by how quickly much of the right has gone into full Obama Derangement Syndrome. Part of such a syndrome is the presence of all sorts of conspiracy theories.

Remember how we really went into Iraq so that Halliburton could get a bunch of no bid contracts. Remember how Bush allowed to dollar to weaken so that Halliburton could benefit from high oil prices. Now, ACORN is writing the health care bill. The SEIU is writing our labor policies.

The latest conservative obsession is Bob Creamer. Creamer is a felon who's recently been let out of jail. He's also married to Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowski. Schakowski, incidentally, is one district over from me. Her district is just a shade below Pelosi's for liberal tendencies. Now, conservatives are painting Creamer as the "architect" of health care reform. It turns out, surprise surprise, you have a lot of free time in prison. So, Creamer wrote a manifesto called Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win. On top of all of this, he was once an organizer for, dare I say, ACORN. Well, Conservatives absolutely blew a lid when they found out that Creamer was invited to the White House State Dinner. I don't even know if he himself was invited or if he accompanied his wife, Schakowski.

Now, I have no use for Schakowski. She isn't merely challenging Cindy Sheehan for leftist credentials, but she's a bomb thrower who has little use for the truth. Her husband being a felon is simply icing. Of course, she'll never be voted out. That said, what exactly do the conservatives think they have here. She's in the House leadership. Her husband being a felon isn't new. Are they shocked she was invited to the State Dinner or are they shocked she brought her spouse? The so called manifesto is even more absurd. So what? He had a lot of free time and he wrote a book. Would conservatives have felt better if he got into a series of fights and joined a gang?

Let me let you all in on a secret. Democrats have wanted sweeping health care reform for a century. They've all been trying to figure it out. On this front, Creamer is not new or special. That he wrote a book about it doesn't actually mean he's secretly calling the shots on health care reform.

This is in fact the brave new world lead by Glenn Beck. Everything is a connect the dot to George Soros, ACORN, SEIU, and La Raza. ACORN is a very powerful group. That's what happens when you're an effective organizing force for nearly four decades. That doesn't actually mean that Bertha Lewis is secretly running the closed door sessions on health care. There's no doubt that ACORN is a player in lobbying for health care reform. HCAN was the biggest pro health care reform lobbying group over the summer. ACORN is one of several groups that funds and organizes HCAN. That's no conspiracy. No one is hiding that. Is there something deeper that I'm missing though?

How many times have conservatives pointed out that Andy Stern of the SEIU is the single most common visitor to the White House? Guess what, liberals made similarly sneering remarks about Halliburton's influence in the Bush White House. Do you all believe that Halliburton was secretly making policy? If not, why are you all willing to believe that ACORN secretly is?

There's no doubt that left wing outfits are influencing President Obama. I live six miles from Hyde Park. I know it well. It's the bastion of far left radicals. None of this should surprise anyone. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton before he was the Vice President also. Am I missing something?

In fact, all this isn't even really about conspiracies at all. Halliburton became a symbol and a mantra for liberals. It represented everything that was wrong with the Republican party. They're too close to business, corrupted by its influence, and making decisions that benefit them at the expense of the rest of us. Isn't that about what the left said about Halliburton? Guess what the right is saying about ACORN. It's a symbol of everything that's wrong with the left. It's too close to the Democrats, corrupted by its influences, and making decisions to benefit them at the expense of the rest of us. Again, am I missing something?

Most of us have stopped analyzing, stopped thinking, and ended understanding. Most of us simply want to demonize, ridicule, and turn our opponents into caricatures using symbols that embody everything we think is wrong. On that, conservatives are no better than liberals.

The White House Responds to Cheney

Yesterday evening, Dick Cheney made a speech in which he blistered the administration on a range of foreign policy issues from Afghanistan, missile defense, Iran, and enhanced interrogations. The critique that's gotten the most coverage was Cheney's assertion that the Obama administration has been following the recommendations of the Bush administration all while Rahm Emanuel claimed that the Bush administration didn't leave them with a plan. White House Press Secretary responded when asked about this and here's what he said.

What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform," Gibbs said Thursday. "I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously
...

I think it's pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan," Gibbs said. "Even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president's, for more than eight months

The problem here is two fold. Attacking the Bush administration may contribute to souring the legacy of the Bush administration but it does nothing to settle the criticism that Cheney made. There's no doubt that while the Bush administration figured out Iraq in the end they never finally did figure out Afghanistan. That doesn't change the way that President Obama has behaved in Afghanistan. I agree that the Bush administration could have and should have done a better job in Afghanistan but that won't excuse the current president if we lose there. It certainly won't change the fact that we lose if we lose.

Everyone understands that decisions of war are monumental however this decision hasn't been two, three, or even six weeks in the making but seven months in the making. While it's a solemn decision that must be done with the utmost of care, the president announced a new strategy in March, not six weeks ago. We all know this and his announcement is on You tube and a matter of public record.

This is where the criticism is from. The administration can attack Cheney all they want. That won't change the fact that seven months ago President Obama announced a new strategy. His general wants more troops and now President Obama refuses to make a decision. That isn't simply something that Dick Cheney is saying. That's becoming something that everyone from all sides of the political aisle.

Of course, politically, by responding so directly, they give more life to the story. The problem there is that even if you were to marginalize and bloody Cheney, he is not going to run for office again. Even if the administration bloodies Cheney, they have raised his criticism and allowed the media to discuss and analyze them for several more days. They haven't dealt with the substance of Cheney's criticism and so the criticism is out there with no response.

Cheney Unloads On Obama

The former VP is at it again.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that the Bush administration had developed a new strategy on the war in Afghanistan before leaving office -- a strategy that he said "bears a striking resemblance" to the one announced by President Obama in March.

In a speech to the Center for Security Policy, Cheney said the Bush administration handed Obama's transition team a policy review of the Afghan war conducted last fall to meet the new challenges posed by the Taliban.

"They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt," Cheney said.

The former VP went after the Obama administration's policies on GITMO, missile defense, enhanced interrogations, among just about every foreign policy initiative. Cheney also went after Obama on Afghanistan. It isn't that the policy is different but instead that it's the same. Rahm Emanuel suggested over the weekend that the Bush administration left the Obama administration "starting from scratch".

Cheney countered that the Bush administration had done a thorough review of the situation for the Obama administration on the request of the Obama administration. The current counter insurgency strategy is, in the former VP's words, much like the policy that the Bush administration recommended privately. To top it off, the former VP says that the Obama administration asked the Bush administration to keep their analysis and review quiet. Then, Emanuel claims that Bush left them with nothing. If this is all accurate, this is dirty, cynical and the worst kind of politics.

The speech came late in the day and the news media has only now started to cover it. Expect this to be a major story all day tomorrow. Cheney has been much effective attacking Obama policies and defending Bush policies out of the White House than inside the White House. Each of his attacks has had an effect, and you can bet this will drive the debate for at least the next twenty four hours.

From One Losing Debate to Another

The president is in big trouble. He continues to approach a moment of truth. He had better get control of his presidency or he might see it spin out of control and not recover. The month of August couldn't have gone any worse. Town hall protesters picked apart the bill and citizens made vocal display of their dissatisfaction with the bill. The administration picked a fight with Sarah Palin and suddenly the president was trying to convince the public his bill "won't kill grand ma". He was telling everyone the public option would merely add competition. At the same time, Barney Frank and Anthony Weiner were telling people it would lead to single payer. The administration floated the idea that the bill might not include the public option and liberals immediately said 100 house votes would be lost without it. Then, Senator Conrad proclaimed it won't pass in the Senate if the public option is in the bill. His own popularity as well as the popularity of the bill itself cratered.

The latest Zogby and Rasmussen polls have Obama at his worst approval in the history of his presidency. Zogby is at 42% and Rasmussen is at 45%. Senator Lieberman suggested that Congress pass an incremental bill. Meanwhile, Senators aren't all that clear as to when they want to pass health care reform. Finally, the president, for reasons unknown, picked a fight with cops by injecting himself into the incident in Cambridge. It's safe to say that his presidency is going through serious turmoil.

So, what does President Obama do? Apparently, he's tired of the health care debate and he's opening up a new debate on proper interrogation techniques. Last week, his AG decided to name a special prosecutor to investigate "rogue CIA agents" that acted outside of the parameters their superiors set up. It's important to note that career prosecutors already looked at each and everyone of these cases and made their decisions about four years ago. By doing so, the debate suddenly shifted to one about proper GWOT policy.

Now, if the president thinks that this debate is one he will win, he's in for a rude awakening. The country is not very sympathetic to the "rights of terrorists". They aren't all that concerned that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was made to believe he might drown in order to get him to talk. When given a choice between civil rights for terrorists and security, most people choose security.

Furthermore, only the looney left actually thinks its a good idea to prosecute CIA, or anyone, for the policies enacted by the Bush administration. I don't know the dynamics involved in securing the interview, but it appears that the decision by the AG gave Dick Cheney the room necessary to show up on FNS this past Sunday. He excoriated the administration and questioned their ability to protect the nation.

Yesterday, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary, shot back. He basically said that Cheney is wrong and Cheney has no credibility on the issue.

As such, the debate has officially shifted. Now, the country is going to be debating GWOT policy. If President Obama thinks that this debate will be any more joyous for him, he has another thing coming. The president has a remarkable knack for taking a policy that has enjoyed long term Democratic appeal and made it a Republican issue. That's what he did with healthcare. That's a traditionally Democratic issue, but after his disastrous handling of health care reform, it's now a Republican issue. National security, on the other hand, is traditionally a Republican issue. Trying to convince the country that giving terrorists civil rights is a good idea is a disastrous political strategy.

The president appears determined to engage the country in a series of debates in which the majority disagree with his perspective. I suppose he will want to debate the merits of amnesty for illegals next. After that, he may want to engage in the merits of the fairness doctrine. After that, he should take up the issue of gay marriage. So far, the president's governing skills are nothing short of laughable. It now appears his political instincts are about as good as his governing skills.

Cheney Vs. Powell: The Republican Political Civil War Continues

This weekend General Powell fired the latest salvo in the political civil war within the Republican Party.



Along with this, and on another show, for Governor Tom Ridge referred to Rush Limbaugh as "shrill". On that note, here is how pundit Bruce Bartlett described the situation.

Powell has to accept that he is in a unique position to command attention and lead the Republican Party—or at least that part of it that isn’t consumed with defending the indefensible on torture or living in a fantasy world where the economy would be booming today if it just wasn’t for Obama’s budget deficits. It’s a pretty small constituency these days—most of those, like me, who share Powell’s views have left his party to become independents—but it may be enough to build a foundation on that can offer a meaningful challenge to the dominant Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin wing of the Republican Party that views all efforts to expand its membership as a sell-out to be resisted at all cost, even if it means further political losses.

But at the end of the day, the job of a political party is to win elections and to win elections it must be inclusive, not exclusive. Thus the ultimate message Powell has to offer Republicans is the most persuasive one of all—follow him and win or follow Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin and lose. Personally, I would like to see Powell follow in the steps of Dwight D. Eisenhower and run for president—I’ll sign up for his campaign today even if it means having to rejoin the Republican Party. But if he is serious about not wishing to do that, then Powell has a responsibility to help those who share
his vision by lending his enormous credibility, popularity and fund-raising ability to their efforts. If he fails to do so he risks being seen by history as someone who walked away when the times demanded that those who share his beliefs stand and fight for what they believe.

This follows weeks in which such figures mocked the likes of Colin Powell as folks no longer invited to be in the Republican Party.

All of this leads me to ask, why can't there be room in the party for both. I feel like Rodney King, "can't we all just get along". The party maybe going through some soul searching however it would be patently false to conclude that the party has been holding to strict conservative principles and they lost because of this. That's simply not accurate. The party lost its way on its conservative principles and that's why it lost.

That said, just because someone is pro choice, for comprehensive immigration reform, or doesn't mind a few government entitlement programs, doesn't mean they aren't, and shouldn't be welcome in the party. The party must stand for something and that something needs to be strict adherence to conservative principles. That said, it shouldn't be a mandate that strict adherence to every principle is a prerequisite for entry into the party. Rudy Giuliania is moderate to liberal on several issues, but I consider him a very solid Republican. He governed as a fiscal conservative (even though he worked with a liberal legislature), he was tough on crime, and he believes in an aggressive GWOT policy. Should we dismiss him because he's pro choice?

Moderates shouldn't try and move the party more toward their ideology. That's a battle they will lose. The base is now, and always will be, a solid conservative base. Tom Ridge shouldn't demand that the party adopt a pro choice platform. John McCain shouldn't demand the party adopt a moderate border policy platform. Ron Paul shouldn't demand that the party adopt a dovish GWOT policy. Yet, they are all welcome in the party even though on these issues they disagree with the platform.

In fact, the whole thing is so obvious to me that I wonder why so many politically astute individuals are going on like this. Does Colin Powell really think that the Republican Party will embrace the position that people want more government and are willing to pay for it? Does Rush Limbaugh really think that daring Powell to leave will help the party? Do all of them really think that sniping back and forth helps anyone but the Democrats?

I understand that there is a natural progression of soul searching following a big loss in politics. I just don't understand why it needs to turn into the food fight it has so far. All of this appears to be egos rather than principle. I, for one, would hope that all of these pols begin to act with some maturity because this political civil war is getting really immature and ugly.

Obama Vs. Cheney: The Politics Are Not So Clear

I have no doubt that President Obama hastily rushed to develop and deliver his national security speech today because he knew that Dick Cheney was giving a similar speech as well. Conventional Wisdom (CW) would have it that as long as Dick Cheney is visible that's bad for Republicans. That, to me at least, is far too simplistic. Obama only began to seriously lose the debate over GITMO when Cheney pushed back. Does anyone really think that the Senate would have voted 90-6 against Obama yesterdady without Cheney leading the way in condemning the closure of GITMO?

As far as the duel speeches, the folks over at Hot Air make an excellent point.

In hindsight, wasn’t it awfully stupid of The One to rush out a national security speech to try to preempt Cheney? If he’d kept quiet, this still would have been a hit on righty blogs and Fox News but nowhere else. By jumping in, he created the sensational “terror duel” storyline that’s forcing the media to magnify this. At the very least, he should have waited a week or so and then given his speech as a rebuttal to Cheney’s. For someone so message-savvy, he crapped the bed this time.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Cheney's approvals have been moving up since he took on this strong defense.

For me, the reason that I believe that Cheney will win this debate is because he speaks with a clarity that Obama simply doesn't. Cheney believed then, and believes now, that the defense of this nation was his only priority. He makes no excuses for any of the measures that he took to protect the nation. He sees a moral clarity in doing everything necessary to gather all available intelligence to stop the next attack.

Obama doesn't have nearly that kind of moral clarity. He believes that GITMO and most of Bush's terror policies wound up costing our nation our moral bearings. Yet, he also stipulates that a set of the detainees won't be tried or charged but simply held incommunicado for an indefinite period of time. It seems he'd like to have it both ways. He'd like to adhere to a strict moral code in condemning his predecessor while leaving himself a lot more flexibility for his own policies.

He says that he released the memos relaying our most intense interrogation techniques because we already knew everything in them and so there was no harm to releasing them. Yet, he won't release the photos of prisoner abuse because that would harm our troops even though there's nothing new in those photos either.

Obama wants to keep the very military tribunals he's condemned and instead give the terrorists more rights in them. But of course, it isn't the structure of the tribunals themselves that had folks like him outraged with moral indignation, but rather the idea of trying anyone in a military tribunal at all. So, exactly what sort of moral clarity is he adhering to?

Finally, Obama was clear that Bush's policies, which he saw as lacking in moral clarity, created more terrorists than it destroyed. Of course, he offers no proof or evidence of this. Here is the ultimate contradiction. If moral clarity is the key to destroying terrorists, then wouldn't it make sense to release those we can't charge rather than hold them incommunicado? Why not release the photos? Why did a lack of moral clarity cause more terrorism under Bush, while a slightly less lack of moral clarity won't do the same?

For me, Cheney had a job to do and he understood it. Obama sees a lot more nuance to the same job. Bush was both lauded and criticized for his simplicity, and knack for black and white, Obama, we were told, would see a lot more nuance. Yet, in my opinion, it is exactly this nuance that will lose him this particular debate. As Dick Cheney himself said, "there is no middle ground in fighting terrorists".