Having read the transcripts of both speeches today, I have a couple of general thoughts:
- Dick Cheney’s speech was totally stock — the same old clichéd, propagandistic, regurgitated, jingoistic credos and mantras; the same unsupported claims; the same lies (the Bush administration did not use torture); the same lame attempt to have it both ways (the U.S. is a wonderful, honorable, principled nation; and there’s nothing wrong with hanging someone from the ceiling by his wrists for 18 hours or days or weeks).
- Pres. Obama’s speech was good (Cheney sets a very low bar), and responsive (albeit sometimes subtly) to some of his progressive critics’ concerns (such as concerns about rejecting prosecutions and about keeping the military tribunals). In my view, though, it was also too much his stock speech on the subject of national security, and he did not, in the final analysis, do enough to clarify or sharpen the distinction between his policies going forward and those of the previous administration.
A few specific observations (in no particular order):
- Cheney accused Obama of using euphemistic language to hide important truths (“overseas contingency operations,” dropping the designation “enemy combatant,” e.g.), ignoring the fact that terms like “war on terror” and “terrorist surveillance program” are themselves euphemisms. At times, he forgets what a euphemism is — as when he scolds the current administration for using the term “abductions” when referring to the Bush regime’s practice of snatching people off the streets of foreign cities and disappearing them into clandestine prisons all over the world. A euphemism is a sanitized synonym used to obscure an uglier reality. “Abductions” is not a euphemism for “ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America” — it’s the reality, and the longer phrase is the euphemism.
- In the end, the most egregious Bush-era euphemism is “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or its close relatives, “harsh interrogation techniques” and “an alternate set of procedures.” To echo Cheney, it’s one thing to use euphemisms like “war on terror” or “enemy combatant” to “sell” an administration’s policies. It’s quite another to use language like “enhanced interrogation techniques” or an “alternate set of procedures” — not to sell a policy, but to hide, and lie about, actual war crimes.
- Cheney notably — blatantly, glaringly — omitted from his self-serving, self-aggrandizing speech any mention of the role played by American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in preventing another 9/11-type attack. Although it certainly does not justify the way the Bush administration lied about its true reasons for invading Iraq, or the way the intelligence was distorted, cherry-picked, and misrepresented to manipulate the American people into supporting a war of aggression, thousands of young men and women, and their families, paid dearly to be human flypaper so the terrorist network that killed 3,000 Americans and non-Americans on 9/11 would not attack us here again. And it’s really disgraceful — as well as very telling — that Cheney had so many boastful things to say about the Bush officials — himself included — who designed and supported the NSA warrantless surveillance program and who put together and oversaw the CIA torture program, but only one throwaway line about tens of thousands of U.S. troops who fought, bled, died, and suffered the agonies of hell to keep us safe.
About Obama’s speech:
- Overall, it was good, as I said above. I did not find his renewed explanation for changing his mind about releasing the detainee photos very persuasive. He said there was a “clear and compelling reason” for keeping those photos classified, but I don’t see that he told us what that reason is. The acts revealed by those photos are just as well known as the acts detailed in the OLC memos that he declassified and released, and it’s hard to believe the photos would “inflame anti-American sentiment” or put U.S. troops in danger more than if they are not released. In my view, the fact that Guantanamo remains open and its inmates still not being given the unequivocal right to be tried in the United States, under the same rules of due process as anyone else, are much more likely to inflame anti-American sentiments. I was very disappointed as well with Obama’s continued use of the Bush administration’s “just a few bad apples” claim about Abu Ghraib. It clearly and indisputably is not true. It’s not even a matter of opinion anymore. It’s really unfortunate that Obama continues to cling to this lie.
- Having said this, I do see subtle indications that Obama is trying to modify his policies on state secrets (“We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government. And that’s why my administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.”) and on possible prosecution of Bush-era lawbreaking (“The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws or miscarriages of justice.”)
I guess my overarching reason for optimism is that I continue to see Obama addressing his critics and choosing not to shy away from controversies surrounding specific policies. It seems to me that progress remains possible as long as that openness to self-examination continues to exist.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.