Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (482966)	5/23/2009 1:28:34 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576619

CHENEY’S SPEECH — THE TOP 10 LINES foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com May 21st, 2009 10:57 PM Eastern Former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke Thursday on national security at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Here are the top ten lines in the speech, as compiled by the editors of FOX Nation: No. 10: The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. No. 9: In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies. No. 8: If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity. No. 7: Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future. No. 6: To completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe. No. 5: This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.” It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other. No. 4: Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. No. 3: To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed. No. 2: In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. No. 1: Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them h/t KLP

To: Alighieri who wrote (482966)	5/23/2009 1:36:17 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576619

I am financially secure. Everyone is. Obama will take money from the haves and give it to have-nots if they run out of money. There is no need for financial security, because you're mommy Obama will take care of you. If you want to contribute money to the cause just write a check and send it in. I don't. I would be in the group that pays more than receives. All groups are equal. By the way, if you live in arkansas, you are already on the federal dole. I can assure you I pay more than my share. And have for many years.

To: Alighieri who wrote (482966)	5/23/2009 2:01:54 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1576619

voices.washingtonpost.com The Contradiction in Obama's Speech The conservative reaction to President Obama’s national security speech has been muddled. Is he actively undermining the successful fight against terrorism that followed Sept. 11, or shamelessly adopting most of the anti-terrorism policies of the Bush years? The verdict can hardly be both. The speech itself involved a rhetorical sleight of hand. It used a ringing, unqualified language of civil liberties to justify a set of Niebuhrian national security compromises (including military commissions and the indefinite detention of terrorists who cannot be tried but pose a continuing threat). The gap between aspiration and application was massive -- an obvious attempt to appease Obama’s leftist base with civil libertarian and anti-Bush rhetoric while maintaining the policy tools necessary to conduct an ongoing war on terror (whatever that conflict is now called). In spots, the speech seemed to recognize this contradiction. But Obama put the blame for this state of affairs entirely on his predecessor and the “mess” he created. “The problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees,” Obama said, “was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.” Of course, President Bush did not create the detainee problem. The terrorists created the problem of what to do with enemy combatants, wearing no uniforms, who want to murder Americans. Bush struggled with the challenge of where to put them. But the problem would have existed even if Obama had been president in 2001. No location for imprisoned terrorists is particularly good -- as Obama himself is discovering. But self-pitying complaints about the burdens of history are not attractive in a president. As a policy document, however, Obama’s speech was hardly surprising or radical. I have previously criticized Obama’s release of the Justice Department memos, which has opened the CIA to endless, distracting testimony and litigation. It’s a mistake he may already regret. But the rest of the policy in the speech seemed reasonable. Guantanamo has become a liability and Congress needs to step up and be part of a solution. The mechanics of the closure are difficult, but it eventually must be done. Obama continues to oppose a circus-like commission and the release of old photos damaging to the military. Jack Goldsmith, former head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, makes a strong case that the Obama administration is continuing many Bush-era anti-terrorism policies with only small modifications. This is not merely because Obama has been sobered by his presidential responsibilities. The policies of the Bush administration also evolved over time, becoming more legally established and sustainable. Even as both Obama and former Bush officials seem determined to emphasize their differences, there is significant policy continuity in the fight against terrorism between the administrations -- as you’d expect from serious professionals committed to the defending the nation. The starkest difference seems to be on the issue of waterboarding. This is an important argument -- but hardly a current one. The practice, used on precisely three terrorists, was discontinued by the CIA five years ago. Other interrogation techniques -- from exposure to cold, to slapping, to prolonged standing -- continue to be debated. But the Obama administration has been less definitive on these matters, appointing a task force to determine whether CIA methods, in some cases, can be harsher than Department of Defense methods. One suspects Leon Panetta and others would like a little flexibility in the aftermath of a possible future attack. In the end, Obama’s speech was rhetorically irresponsible and, for the most part, substantively defensible. That is not ideal. But it is better than the reverse. By Michael Gerson \| May 22, 2009; 1:06 PM ET