President Obama Gives Tough Speech That Turns the Page on Cheney

President Obama gave a tough, thorough speech today that took aim at critics from both sides of the aisle, all but calling out Dick Cheney by name. He also laid out, with reasonable clarity, the steps he intends to take with regard to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The President's speech also answered critics from the left, however, and was best exemplified tonally by this passage (emphasis mine):

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

His speech was full of the kind of common sense that is designed to defang political grandstanding from both sides. Here are some passages that I found noteworthy, my commentary added.

Tough Pill: The President, pretty early on, gives everybody a bite out of the sandwich:

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

The line that I predict will be taken out of context to launch a thousand crummy YouTube slide shows:

We are an imperfect people.

Line most true in spirit and false in reality:

Neither I nor anyone else standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives.

I can virtually guarantee that there will be a flood of people willing to say just that. Politics is all about telling people what they want to hear. The President is betting that Americans are smart enough not to believe it.

The Cheney Administration: President Obama referenced the former administration, currently figureheaded by Dick Cheney, throughout his speech:

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.

This is his first, most direct shot at Cheney's current World Torture Tour, culminating in his "Me too!" speech immediately following the President's.

On the subject of Guantanamo Bay, the President took square aim at the Bush/Cheney regime, toughening this passage with an emphasis absent from his prepared remarks:

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions that were in place at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setback after setback, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under, not my administration, under the previous Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

...Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks here in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall – when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. Not wild-eyed liberals. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

It is clear, from the fact that the President sweetened these passages on top of his prepared remarks, that he intended to stress the point that his current critics are making opportunistic arguments that don't reflect the full reality of the situation, specifically the notion that Gitmo was all buttoned up until Obama threw open the gates.

Again, the President seems to be introducing Cheney's speech here:

Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I'm an elected official, I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

...As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials. You can almost envision the direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes.

Common Sense: The President did an effective job of exposing some of the silliness surrounding the Gitmo debate, particularly the notion that the choice for detainees is Gitmo or freedom and a key to the city:

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said: "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."

The President laid out his plans for dealing with 5 different categories of detainees. The most controversial of these, from the left's point of view, may be the fifth, "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.":

Let me repeat, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture – like other prisoners of war – must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

This could be interpreted as an endorsement of indefinite detention, as long as somebody peeks into the dungeon from time to time. As Solomonic as much of the President's speech was, this is an area in which both sides of this question are asked to make a leap of faith.

Human rights advocates will need assurance that the oversight is more than cosmetic -- that the President, and future Presidents, will not lock people up and throw away the key without good reason. The security demands of such detention make assurances to that effect difficult at best.

Some will object to the notion that any bar may be set for the possible release of such detainees, and will interpret oversight as a possibly dangerous loophole.

The President also addressed the issue of transparency and his decision to block the release of detainee abuse photos:

I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and they have been held accountable. There was and is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment – informed by my national security team – that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, thereby endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

He also delivered a common sense rebuke to those, on the left and right, who try to bludgeon him with his campaign promises on transparency:

I have never argued – and never will – that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon – and I will vigorously defend – the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. Here's the difference, though. Whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions – by Congress or by the courts.

All in all, this was a very strong speech by the President. One of Barack Obama's strengths as a politician, and as a leader, is his ability to respond coolly to hot-button issues and make his critics on either side seem unserious in the process.

Tommy on: Daily Dose:

• Comedy Central and Tommy Christopher in Feud
• Fox News' Question Hog Major Garrett Cops Major Attitude
• Obama's attempt to block photo release: Good idea, bad idea?
• Inside The White House Press Briefing Room
• I Have Only One Question: Is This Canon?