I listened to both President Obama and Ex-Vice President Cheney deliver their remarks on National Security. The President's speech gave me goosebumps and Mr. Cheney's gave me pause to consider the other view. It seems to me there were three basic issues and points of disagreement. The first has to do with what philosophy/approach is appropriate to maintain 'National Security'. The second is whether 'enhanced interrogation' is torture and was it or should it ever be justified. The third is whether 'American Values' are a source of power and strength or are they potentially a source of real or perceived weakness.
I believe these two men were both eloquent and sincere in their positions. They were both 'taking a stand' for what they believe in and, in this case, those beliefs are radically different. Whichever view one embraces, there is a lot at stake in terms of who we consider ourselves to be, who we are for others and, of course, our day-to-day security. This is an example where two people and their constituents are on opposite sides of an issue. In many regards, this could be viewed as another grand example of conflict and divisiveness -- as polarized as Northern and Southern Ireland, Islam and Judaism, 'Rightists' and 'Leftists', Uppers and Downers. The issue is that when people become polarized, there is no common ground from which to build a common future -- no amount of information and analysis can dictate a decision. Both cases are compelling. And if you accept their underlying assumptions, you will come to more or less the same conclusions.
The problem with absolute divides is that people are seeing and relating to different worlds. CNN characterized the two perspectives presented by President Obama and Vice President Cheney in these speeches as being from 'different universes'. One of the things I've come to appreciate is that when conflict exists at the level of core beliefs or 'paradigms', the question is no longer which one is right or wrong. The question is which worldview can include the other.
In the case of this week's debate, President Obama said that ends do not justify the means if the means go against the core principles and values that define who we are. Vice President Cheney's position suggested that unless we do whatever we need to do to prevail in the face of an enemy committed to our absolute destruction, we may not have a nation to defend (in other words, the ends do justify the means). Leaving short-term political games aside, how can we make this choice?
In my view, the point goes to Obama for the simple reason that if we remain true to who we are, then even in defeat we have the capacity to create a vision of freedom and prosperity and rebuild what has been destroyed. If we lose the core of who we are in the interest of survival, we will at best be hollow mannequins of who we used to be. As our father's taught us in WWII, there are some things worth dying for.
I for one, I am rather amazed that Cheney's speech is getting the media hype it is.
No matter his point of view, which perhaps 33% ascribe, the Bush/Cheney years of decision making are behind us and they were decisively refuted by the american people in November 2008.
There may be a void in the Republican Party leadership, but Cheney is no longer a person of interest in setting american policy both foreign and demestic. He failed to govern this country well.
He is a failure and all his years of public service were directed to Cheney and croney enrichment. Halliburton got numerous military contracts and betrayed our troops in time of war by delivering inferior goods and doing shoddy work in Iraq. Cheney got an F in governance, and the news media and the repug stalwarts, keep passing him off as a Rhodes scholar.
Obama is the President of the United States, he is far and away, the representative voice of the people. Cheney is the shallow, hollow rhetoric of a dismal past, one not forgotten, but just measured for the harm he did to this country.
may be your universes are not so far away from each others, and may be we are being accomplices of his clearance by the very act of commenting his speech as that of an authoritative voice, instead of that of a gangster.
i feel US won't have any authority or credibility, until it will find the courage to face (and trial) cheney and his administration for all the crimes most of us KNOW they've commissioned and perpetrated.
Obama's argument is that 'harsh methods' are not the most effective ways of collecting intelligence. Hence, by using them, you are not maximising our capacity to collect most vital intelligence for our security. Moreover, these 'harsh methods' are 'torture' and they breach the values that define who Americans are.
Verdict: If Obama can prove that (1) 'harsh methods' are 'torture' or (2) 'Harsh methods' are not the most effective ways to collect intelligence, he knocks Dick Cheney out completely.
WAR, as a political tool, is no longer an option in the 21st Century.
It is as simple as that.
Men can't birth, so they 'birth' war.
They revel in it, they ponder it, they fight it, they remember it, they glorify it, they forget the horror of it, they revel in it, repeat, ad nauseum - until the women say:
WAR, as a political tool, is no longer an option in the 21st Century.