You know, it's kind of gratifying to hear the President say the same things you've been thinking (and saying) for years.
Obama vs. Cheney: Contrasting views on the war on terrorism
President Obama:
Former VP Cheney:
Obama vs. Cheney: Contrasting views on the war on terrorism
President Obama:
Brutal methods like waterboarding… undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increase the will of our enemies to fight us.As for Cheney's comments, while I make it a rule never to agree with our former VP, I can make an exception in this case.
Former VP Cheney:
…when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims.The fact that I don't support the use of waterboarding, "enhanced interrogation" or torture doesn't leave me thinking terrorists are victims of anything but the consequences of their own agendas.
Comments
You know what I find interesting about this story? The way media and "news" has changed in our lifetime.
This was, essentially, a full-on, in your face debate on how to deal with terrorism between the current President and the former VP over national TV. It looked like it was going to become a huge story (and, it should). 10 years ago, it would feed the news cycle for a month or so.
Today, it is gone in less than a week. Nobody is talking about it anymore. No one is debating torture vs. non-torture anymore. Regardless of what side you take or what your points are, this is a worthy debate.
But, we are on to the next issue!
It's funny you mention how this should have been a huge story. The companion piece in the LA times (href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-cheney22-2009may22,0,3321788.story) talks about the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public over whether Democrats can "step up to the plate" where national defense (a Republican stronghold) is concerned. But as you point out, in less than a week the debate was old news. (Now we just get conservative a-holes accusing the President of treason for daring to turn a reasonable face to the Middle East. Gotta love 'em.)
The sad thing is how all our various options for news and information are serving to make us LESS aware and informed, rather than more. It's simpler now to tailor your news to give you only the info, and viewpoints, that you want, rather than be forced to have to find out about things that may conflict with your world view.
And Media (in all its many forms) is just contributing to it. Web 2.0, and its emphasis on engaging the user and bringing them into the discussion, is crippling news reporting. Before the last election, I tried to do some research on the ballot propositions, to ensure I wasn't just rejecting them out of hand. I turned to the LA Times, since they've been a good starting place in the past. I may not always agree with their analysis and endorsements, but their arguments for and against have always been clearer to me than trying to muddle through the ballot measures booklets the state sends out.
This time, instead of well thought out analysis and commentary, what you got was a single paragraph summary of the ballot measure, and the option to comment and/or read the comments of others. It was framed as a kind-of Town Hall debate idea. But my only thought was that the last thing I wanted to do was to slog through the rantings of internet trolls, trumpeting their personal issues with the government, taxes and whatever else might be troubling them that day. I'm sure I'm selling the cogent debaters (the ones that truly thought things through before posting and had something intelligent to bring to the conversation) short. But I also assume they were significantly in the minority, so I don't feel terribly bad about it.