Actually, I'd say we realized (at first) we had the wrong (or no institutions at all) to handle what we were facing and thus we decided to get back to some reality-based counter-terrorism/warfare methods…but that was all BAD and NAUGHTY we now find out, despite copious legal justification to the countrary.
Good luck with that…between the rejection of California's spending plans and the attempt to close Gitmo and Princess Nancy's antics, you'd figure he might be getting a clue that all is not well in Democratic ideology-land, certainly not as far as the great unwashed voter goes.
Figured there was a reason they'd want to preempt Cheney. Interesting how he's emerging as the representative of reality-based foreign policy and security.
Sort of obvious.
Cheney will argue that his intent is not to look backward but will say that a truthful telling of history is necessary to inform our choices going forward. “Though I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do,” Cheney will say. “What I want to do today is set forth the strategic thinking that drove our policies.”
Both the president and Cheney will rest a good part of their case on effectiveness, with the president saying the last administration’s approach to fighting terror was not effective, and Cheney arguing that those programs are the reason there has been no second Sept. 11.
Nonsense. It was more like we tried to go back to handling this stuff the WAY we did in the past--I'll admit they didn't do a good job of it, but it wasn't a departure--rather the attempt to shoehorn everything from terrorism to conventional combat into the lawfare template--that my friends, is the "departure." As for alienating allies, hasn't he figure out that a lot of them still don't like us no matter what we do?
Oh, do tell. So what is the "more effective" approach? I'm still waiting…and here I was thinking that the jew-hate that is integral to islamofascism had something to do with their extreme worldviews. Silly me, it's only because the US put them in rooms with bugs that they turned to violence.
Translation: If we can't shoehorn it into the civilian court system, we'll ignore it.
Obama will say that the paramount responsibility of any president is to keep the American people safe. That is what he thinks about every morning when he wakes up and every night when he goes to sleep. The president believes with every fiber of his being that we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.
In the meantime, I'll just undermine that very process if it conflicts with a preestablished ideology.
What they are not is a license for our enemies to destroy us--I think the founders got that. I think in the past a lot of Ds and Rs got that. I'm not sure the 1970s wing of the Democratic Party really understands that.
Obama will point out that he is providing the resources to take the fight to the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who attacked us on Sept. 11; investing in the 21st-century military and intelligence capabilities; re-energizing a global nonproliferation regime and locking down loose nuclear material to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons; protecting our borders and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster; building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates; and renewing American diplomacy.
Some stuff is good and was already in the works…the counterproliferation thing strikes me as attacking the wrong part of the crocodile at this particular point in time.
Not through any failure on the part of the methodology--it was a political decision to fiddle-f*ck around and not get this done, oh and lawsuits that were settled by the USSC and Congressional legislating had SOMETHING to do with this, did it not? I guess we won't mention the nature of the inmates--could be embarrasing.
Obama will contend that the record is clear: Rather than keep Americans safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. Turning to detainees who remain, the president will announce this framework:
And his proof for this is? He has none. It is ideological belief masquerading as fact. I guess letting these guys into the civil courts were they would be acquitted/let out is much, much safer somehow. I also don't get where this endlessly silly belief that if we're just nice to violent jihadists they'll somehow realize the error of their ways and take up pottery or join Mr. Van Driessen's music circle.
Already do that.
Were about to do that when this admin c*ck blocked it and then changed its mind.
Yeah, that works. I wonder if they've figured out yet why none of those "third countries" want these bozos?