Obama’s Cheney Dilemma

Quickly after starting reading the article it is apparent that the author has made the classic political error: It assumed that the world was black and white. You either did something or you did not. I do not accept or agree with the basic setting of the article. The world we live is way too complicated to assume that you are either a bad guy or a good guy and that picking one of those options will lead to your success or failure. There is an on-going war or terror. It is complicated...way to complicated to assume that it started on or near 9/11. It is global now not because the terrorist are better or we are worse or better...it is global now because the world we live is more global. The point I want to make is that there is no way to win the war on terror as our media defines it, because one person with no regard for life can cause horrific and cause damage that will make news across the global instantly. No one can stop that. Killing the most bad guys is not success. The opposite of that is.

We're quickly closing in on 300,000 Americans having been killed in car crashes since 9/11. (about 40,000 Americans a year).
Why couldn't Bush/Cheney spend more time urging Americans to drive slowly, defensively and to wear their seat belts?
Is it because Bush has a DWI conviction and Cheney has two DWI convictions?

Posted at article on Panetta at CIA:

Posted By: bobcat4424 @ 01/10/2009 7:21:54 PM

"During the Bush administration intelligence managers and analysts were "required" to either support coercive interrogation methods and wiretapping of American citizens without warrant or to "get out of Dodge." Their training had unequivocally told them that both activities were wrong and, in themselves constituted criminal acts. Many quit. They call it the Cheney Purge. A similar thing happened when President Carter took office. Many analysts and managers felt that the Russians were poorly trained and equipped and could not match us in sustained operations. (Think Russian-trained and equipped Republican Guards in Iraq.) The military-industrial complex and Carter himself advocated a huge military presence and this stance undercut that. Basically, intelligence analysts who saw a Rustbucket Army instead of a Russian Army were shown the door. It was called the Carter Purge. In both cases the United States cost its taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars because they got rid of intelligence people who did not go along with the "party line." Neither Bush nor Carter had any source of trustworthy intelligence during their terms --- only "yes" men who told them what they wanted to hear. The choice of an outsider instead of someone from inside the intelligence system who prostituted his craft to keep his job is a wise one. I know. I was there. I was one of those who quit before the Carter Purge."

But will Obama be criticized for being from the dark side? Will the media give Obama the same treatment as he wields the same power?

The Media, Newsweek, Obama, and the democrats excoriated Bush and Cheny for the policies that have kept Americans safe since 9;/11. It's facinating to watch the back tracking going on at all levels now that the responsiblity for the safety and lives of the American people is passing to a President Obama. And the Press, and Democrats are getting their way as Obama gives in to political correctness from the left and chooses a politician rather than an intelligence professional to head the CIA. As he diminishes our intellegence aparatus he is setting up more 9/11s. If the terrorist get through his guard and kill Americans in the homeland again, after Bush kept us safe, the Amercian people will know how to judge him,and the party of terrorist rights the democrats.

Dilemma ?? Cheney's wreckage is not a dliemma for Obama,. It's just a relief for Ameroca to have him gone

I'm astounded at how many apologists for the behaviors justified via this administration's policies on detention and interrogation appear to either rely on the good will of the people designated to carry out orders, or simply haven't thought through the implications of what they are defending.
Let's take a look at two scenarios: First - I know a crime has been committed, and somehow (I'm not prepared to tell you why or how I have come to believe this, or even really whether I truly believe this) I have decided that you have, or may have, committed that crime. I'm going to incarcerate you for as long as I want, perhaps incommunicado, perhaps without even telling you what I have accused you of, let alone why, and use enhanced interrogation techniques (however you want to define them) on you to get you to confess, and/or provide further information of other crimes. You will not have any right to know what you're accused of doing, what evidence I have of that, who accused you, and you will have no opportunity to have a hearing before an independent authority until I deem it necessary, let alone be heard about why I might be wrong.
Would anyone in their right mind be willing to voluntarily subject themselves to such a system, no matter how innocent they are?
Second scenario (just in case that wasn't enough) - I have decided that a crime MAY have been committed, and have decided you MAY have some information I could use, and from then on, everything is the same as above. Same question. Are you insane, or would you not want to subject yourself to such a system.
I'm sorry for you if you don't want to be at the mercy of that system, because right now, YOU ARE, no matter where you live in the world. Just trust us, we're doing this to protect you and the ones you love, so it's really in your best interest.
By the way, someone will be stopping by shortly to talk to you.
If you don't believe this is a plausible scenario read Kafka's (fictional?) account of Josef K. in The Trial (1925).