Thanks to @MikeMurphy I now have links to both speeches, and that means you do too:
By the way, Mike scores the bout at Dick Cheney 1, Barack Obama 0.
I'm assuming this is going to be a multi-round fight.
Any good name suggestions? The Fisticuffs In The District of... nah.
Alright more name ideas later, need to read the speeches!
Posts
Adjust contrast of a pdf free
8 years ago
Luckily for me, I was able to escape the rhetoric on both sides and just read a few summarizing articles.
ReplyDeleteMy own viewpoint is that compromise is wrong, not merely for the fact that it makes everyone unhappy but also because the right has moved more dramatically to the right in recent years and any compromise with them would be giving ground to a hawkishness and disrespect for civil liberties and due process that we shouldn't at all welcome in our society.
Obama's done great things so far by closing Guantanamo and granting basic legal rights, and also by trying terror suspects on American soil (no nothing's going to happen if they're locked up). It is the right thing to do and it rings positively around the world.
Also, I don't think the Republicans are in any position whatsoever to claim some advantage in national security. I always remind people that the attacks happened under Bush's watch. Period. If they'd been so competent maybe the worst domestic attack in our country's history wouldn't have happened at all. No, it's the same old political story again, and the same old conservative vote-grabbing tactic of winning the patriotic right.
It's a lot of hooey, in my opinion. If Obama changes anything he should completely respect the legal rights of all suspects who haven't been convicted of anything. That is both SAFE and RIGHT.
And if you want to measure national security success on rates of terrorist recruitment around the world, then Bush and Cheney were far more dangerous to the U.S. than any of the preceding presidents.
ReplyDelete