Barack Obama’s speech from this morning, and
Dick Cheney’s speech from this morning.
A few interesting aspects about today’s speeches follow, before addressing the contents of the speeches themselves:
— Barack Obama arrived thirty minutes late for his scheduled performance, continuing his disregard for the broadcast networks and other people’s lives;
— Barack Obama’s speech was scheduled after Obama learned of Mr. Cheney’s scheduled speech for today on national security; Obama requested to be scheduled ahead of Vice-President Cheney’s speech, but on the same date (today); and
— Barack Obama’s overall performance showed a man the equivalent of a Summer Associate at any large law firm, overwhelmed with legal details without the ability or inspiration to consider the big picture, complaining about all the work required of him, “the mess” as Obama calls Guatanamo, as if it’s serving no greater purpose even if legal issues are “messy” otherwise, ‘big picture be damned, it hurts his head, has he told you about his mother’…
About Barack Obama’s speech:
— Barack Obama blamed “the Bush Administration” a total of
twenty-two times twenty-eight times in his speech while Obama accepted no responsibility on any of his complaints, by which Obama therein continually emphasized the political purpose and characterization of his speech while denigrating “the politicization” of this issue (terrorists, Guatanamo Bay, what to do with them though Obama doesn’t like the word, “terrorists”) by others, so he says others are and have been doing;
— Barack Obama declared that “(he) bear(s) the responsibility for keeping this country safe,” and then pronounced his disagreement with measures that have kept this country safe, yet he defined nor suggested anything in the entire delivery of his speech today that indicates he has any capacity or willingness to implement “keep(ing) America safe” and, rather to the contrary, his entire speech encouraged an unusual gratuitous approach to those defined as terrorists (Obama’s term for them seems to be “detainees”) as Obama again ridiculed the United States in regards our own safety and those who malign us;
— Barack Obama declared, “our government made decisions based on fear and not on foresight” out of his hat of fantasies — he has no way of knowing what foresight or lack of foresight the Bush Administration and our U.S. military had in the years Barack Obama was safely ensconced in this nation organizing his community, and, by that statement, Obama appears impervious to the fact that measures taken on national security by his predecessors ensured the safety of our nation and him in it, as also by claiming as Barack Obama did that “decisions” were “based on fear,” Obama reveals his own naive if not dangerously cavalier or perhaps even treacherous state of mind, suggestive of an allusion to his wife’s and Rev. Wright’s racial and racist antagonisms (their rages about “White people” as they define “them,” who they hold irrationally responsible for the ills of other-skinned people, taken to extremes become anti-Americanism), such as this is peculiarly and irresponsibly, emotionally defaming rhetoric as it is fanatical, fantastic, even irrational;
— Barack Obama referred to his reliance on “the rule of law” multiple times while his Administration as has Barack Obama the individual utterly offended such a principle throughout the existing days of their duties in the White House;
— Barack Obama, in his campaigning just prior to the November 2008 election, referred to the United States Constitution, from whence the principle of “the rule of law” is established and upon which the Constitution is entirely based as to founding principles of this nation, Barack Obama referred to the Constitution as “a flawed document”;
— about the Constitution, Barack Obama, in his speech today, declared that he “(has) been bound by the Constitution” (and referred to his Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution) while also then referring to Constitutional principle that he has violated on quite profound terms in the Office of the Presidency, among the most egregious violations being voiding legitimate contracts, extortion of private enterprise, to include blackmail, to accomplish his political intents, none of which actions have been reconciled with the Constitution (and that founding principle, “the rule of law”);
— Barack Obama declared, as to the current enemy-combatants held in Guatanamo Bay, that he “would not release anyone who endangers the American people or National Security,” while preposterously burying the obvious fact that all the individuals held at Guatanamo Bay have already been identified as individuals who endanger the American people and National Security — they are held at Guatanamo precisely because they’ve endangered the safety of Americans and our National Security, in other words; this performance by Barack Obama was clearly an effort to rally support for evasive, misleading and counter-purposed intents;
— Barack Obama declared “the problem of Guantanamo” is that “it was opened in the first place,” revealing either his utter indulgence of those contained in Guantanamo and why they are, or, his cavalier disregard for our National Security, or both (and I conclude it is both);
— Barack Obama delved into his “life” and “mother” in a strange context to national security, indicating a continued irrational focus on himself and not the nation, and, an expectation for sympathy based upon his probable false tales about a parent who abandoned him as a child at a young age, and, whom he had little contact with throughout his lifetime until of late, when it’s become handy for Obama to continue to refer to folk-tales;
— Barack Obama castigated “the former Administration” and current American citizens for “politicizing” national security, while Obama in this context as in all his behaviors up to current engages in political campaigning, political accusations and political espionage of those he and his Administration perceive as opponents to their political goals — a clear case of Barack Obama attempting to shift blame to opponents;
— Barack Obama concluded his speech with the statement, “I have to be honest here,” which anyone with any familiarity with human gestures and expressions can readily identify as the admittance speech of someone who up to that point in time has not been honest in their communications; in other words, concluding any communication with “I’ll be honest with you” or “I have to now be honest with you” or similar as did Barack Obama in this speech of his, is Barack Obama admitting that he has not been honest up to that point, and this measurably calls into question whether he is actually going to be honest in the rest of his speech — or, admitting he’s not been trustworthy which identifies him as not being trustworthy in any or all things; the statement does not identify an honest statement to follow and, in fact, identifies ongoing dishonesty;
— Barack Obama performed a prepared, teleprompter-hosted speech, reading right, left, right, left, engendering and communicating little-to-no genuine familiarity nor association with what he was performing, despite his attempts at Academy Award level “on screen” evocation; he performed the speech, was emotionally agitated and condemning of political “rivals” as he was also hypocritical in his points made, exemplifying an immature, insincere self-involved person engaged in a temper-tantrum.
Which (all of that and more) leaves me wondering just why Obama is so passionate (or acts as if he is) about the “rights” and situations of those who terrorize the United States of America, seeking to integrate those persons into the American justice system wherein they would, quite predictably, engender followers and in doing so, would easily use our justice system to proliferate terrorism and other fanatic goals.
About Dick Cheney’s speech…
Please read the whole speech, it’s a remarkable statement by a mature, responsible, insightful man involved in leading our nation through terrible times into safer times, a truly wonderful, great man of courage, Dick Cheney, who introduced his speech by wishing the current administration well and then entered into the essence of what our National Security is:
…9/11 created need for our nation to define a new method to contend with those who terrorize this nation: up to that point, prior terrorist events had been regarded as and handled as law enforcement concerns; 9/11, however, made it evident that those perpetuating these crimes were engaged in war, without regard for law enforcement or contraints of laws or even concerned with reprimands…
To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.
We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.
So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.
The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.
In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.
In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.
Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.
By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.
Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.
Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists…(speech continues/please read the whole thing).