A Dangerous Day for War On Terror

Today was not a great day for the war on terror. Hearing these two dueling speeches by the President and former Vice President did not advance our goal of uniting this country in a battle against the terrorists. The problem with former Vice President Dick Cheney's rhetoric is that he is placing America in a no win situation. If there is another terrorist attack--which is widely recognized by law enforcement officials as a very likely possibility--then Dick Cheney and the GOP will say that it was the failure of the Obama Administration to utilize tougher interrogation techniques and to keep Guantanamo Bay open that failed to stop the terrorist act.

Several months ago New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said to me that it is not a question of "if", but a question of "when", as to whether there will be another terrorist attack in this country. I have represented the Lower Manhattan area, including Ground Zero, for the past four years as Chairperson of Community Board 1. For those of us who live blocks away from Ground Zero (which still remains at the top of potential sites for future terrorist acts) the memories of the horrific events of September 11th are both raw and real. Whenever we hear police sirens or see a flurry of activity from the Fire or Police Departments, our hearts beat a little faster. It is precisely this fear that Cheney's remarks play into.
President Obama is in an unenviable position on this national security issue. Today President Obama tried with his soaring speech to bring the war on terror back to core constitutional values that are not subject to the vagaries or whim of politics. He tried to devise sustainable and long lasting standards on interrogation methods to which future administrations will need to adhere. Yet, pragmatically speaking, all those attempts to devise a carefully crafted legal construct for interrogation techniques may be eviscerated--or at least seriously eroded in the eyes of many-- if there is a massive terrorist attack. Grief, fear and emotion will take over.
I felt tremendous unease today watching the two dueling speeches between the President and former Vice President. The country is now being sidelined and divided regarding this deep moral and political chasm over these issues. The focus needs to instead be on galvanizing all of our resources to wage an effective and vigilant battle against terror. With Cheney's decision to engage in an all out attack on the Obama Administration's positions, he is trying to sow seeds of fissure and doubt among the American public. When it comes to people's fear over future attacks, it is hard to underestimate how deep seeded people's anxieties are on this subject.
We civilians are not privy to top level security briefings that a President and Vice President get. If Dick Cheney has true substantive concerns about the direction President Obama is taking the country on national security issues, he should meet privately with the President and address those concerns. To wage a full on frontal public battle on these issues only serves to further inflame people's concerns and to distract this country from a unified response on the war on terror.

Comments

[Pseudonerd5569]

What "War on Terror?" This war was nothing more than a ploy used by the Bush Administration to advance their neocon fantasies and help the rich get richer. Thanks to him (and now Obama and the other Democratic politicians) we are only fanning the flames of hatred around the world. Contrary to popular belief though, people around the world don't hate the PEOPLE in this country... they hate our GOVERNMENT and our MULTINATIONALS! If you're wondering why, check out organizations such as CorpWatch, Survival International, and Inter Press Service to get an idea on why they hate American multinationals and American govt.

[wanttruth]

Cheney is playing the odds of another awful terror attack happening to derail President Obama and the democrat majority. Alot of the experts on terrorism and other national security issues have already said 'it's a matter of when, not if' there will be another attack.

Cheney is betting against the American people and trying to get on the record for the ridiculous 'I told you so' if something awful happens. Nevermind the fact, that 911, and Anthax poisioning happened on the Bush/Cheney administraion's watch! Forget the fact that they didn't get Osama bin Laden or prevent our embassies or other US interests from being attacked.

Cheney seems determined to get his talking points out in case of an investigation too. He's been very good at mudding the torture issue because alot of citizens are now debating if the tactics 'worked' not that were 'illegal' in the first place!

He's hoping the public will be so scared that they will take the chance on Republican rule again--which means he has a great chance of staying out of jail! I hope the American people can see the truth. By the way, if the 'unthinkable' happens (I HOPE IT DOESN'T!), then I know who to blame--THE TERRORISTS!!!

[levee]

Well told.

[Berettasskeeter]

Wow! So, you condemn those politicians who questioned and fought against the Bush doctrine, as divisive and dangerous? No? Why? Isn't it exactly the same thing?
Semper fi

[LeftRight]

It could possibly be the same thing, except that in the case of those of us against the Bush doctrine were insisting that laws be obeyed, whereas those opposed to Obama are insisting that laws are unimportant!

[theclosetconservative2]

President Obama has engaged in fantasy foreign policy based on the idea of bringing the world together by the power of his charm and charisma. But European countries don't want the prisoners from Guantanamo, and neither should we want them on our own shores. President Obama engages in a childish fantasy. Former VP Cheney reminds people that if the adults weren't in charge we would already have had another attack on our shores. This "inconvenient truth" stings the left and their not happy about it. theclosetconservative.comive.com

[jhNY]

Fantastic comment, as in derived from fantasy. The guys who went on vacation before 9/11 and stayed on vacation after receving a daily briefing titled something like "Bin Laden Wants To Attack Inside US" were the "adults in charge" who allowed a disaster to happen on US soil-- after which, they want all kinds of credit for keeping us safe ever since. Sort of like a security guard who wants a raise after a robbery during which said guard was found napping. The adults you cite are and were irresponsible and infantile in world view and actions-- little fraidy cats who never saw a fight they weren't willing to send somebody else to die in, without coherent plans but with oodles of noisy fanfare, while borrowing all the money for the wars and driving up the national debt to a height beyond calculation. Wake up!

[Berettasskeeter]

I presume, as you condemn those who "stayed on vacation", you then condemn Obama for going out on the town with his wife instead of staying awake in the Oval Office worrying over the non-specific threats to the country?!
Semper fi

[theclosetconservative2]

jhNY The only one peddling the idea of the Bush administration being asleep is Richard Clarke. He was ticked off becuase he didn't get the promotion he wanted, so he had an axe to grind. http://theclosetconservative.com

[PeterRoche]

..."fantas­y" ... I suspect you have that genre down if this post is any gauge. Your characterization of President Obama and former VP Cheney pure fantasy on both counts.

I think you flung the closet door wide open on this one :-)

[Poboy]

I hate to inform you, but there is no "war on terror."

The very idea is insane.

A war on a tactic, saught of like a war on drugs, war on poverty, war on the unborn.

The war language has played out.

If your concern is external terrorism, by the way there is internal terrorism, ask Black people, then that is a mission for the CIA.

The WaPo editorial on the subject is half right.

If the CIA can't handle that job, then it needs to go out of existence as the failure it is proving to be,

[LeftRight]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but WHY would Ground Zero be a target for a future terrorist act?? There's no there there! This makes as much sense to me as the talking heads on 9/11 saying that Air Force One was a target, even though it wouldn't be a target without the President on board, and you can't GET to it once he IS onboard!

[jhNY]

Maybe they just want to put a hole in a hole.

[SamEllison]

Dick Cheney has surrendered to the terrorists.

By surrendering our values and our laws he has been defeated.

I reject his surrender.

[socialtalker]

i think you are over-reacting, cheney is not someone that many people respect. its not like col powel or hilary clinton is speaking. when he goes on trial in the world court, he will have to spend time out of the country to sell his spiel, so at least we will get a break.

[Berettasskeeter]

Really? Who will take him to the World Court, you? I rather doubt it!
Semper fi

[LeftRight]

Spain is working on it....