Cheney Gets It -- Will Obama?
By Richard Olivastro
May 25, 2009
The Bush administration had it right all along. During the campaign, Candidate Obama said he "would close Gitmo". Despite the contradiction, Candidate John McCain failed to take his opponent to task on the subject.
After inauguration, our new President reiterated his commitment to close the terrorist detention facility on the U. S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Except, this time - although not a candidate for any office - former Vice President Dick Cheney stepped up to the plate, faced the new president and his fastball rhetoric, on what has become a torrid political issue -- relocating suspected terrorists and enemy combatants to the U. S. mainland.
Cheney understood the implications -- spoke out - connected with the American people - and hit it out of the proverbial ball park.
Still, the core question remains: 'Why would any responsible U.S. leader ever consider relocating terrorists stateside housing them in a facility near you?'
While far left liberals in Congress as well as notorious special-interest groups, and friends in the media, work overtime to spin and confuse the fundamentals in order to avoid the question, growing numbers of incumbents are beginning to see the handwriting on the political walls back in their districts. The chalk messages are clear: 'no terrorist suspects here in my back yard'.
Of course, that clearly means: 'don't bring them anywhere in the United States'.
Americans understand that the Bush administration did succeed in preventing another terrorist attack on the U. S. homeland. That is a fact. And, facts should not be ignored; nor should they ever be rationalized. That's especially so when safety and security is involved.
At the same time, many individual Americans feel that the methods reportedly used to extract information may have been more aggressive than they would prefer to now condone publicly. For some, that's understandable, considering the time that has passed since America's Second "Day of Infamy" -- September 11, 2001.
Still, on a practical human level, the terrorists did accomplish their mission, to strike 'terror' among all Americans. Thus, is it not a valid question for Americans to ask themselves, 'did our government do what had to be done to protect us in the three instances in which "water-boarding" was reportedly used; or, did it go too far regardless of the risks to Americans?'
That is the fundamental question at the core of the controversy.
But, no matter what anyone may deem to be appropriate regarding interrogation techniques; there has been no acceptable reason, provided to date, that warrants the relocation of terrorists or suspects into the United States.
The re-emergence of a 'pre-9/11' mindset seems to abide the apparent liberal protagonist rationale for wanting to bring the terror suspects stateside... where they can be tried in civilian courts - with the same rights you have as an American Citizen - where ACLU attorneys can be expected to ask if our soldiers read each terrorist suspect their "Miranda Rights"; and, ultimately, if the evidence is not sufficient to either go to trial or convict based on civilian evidentiary requirements - then those relocated terrorist suspects could be released here among us.
The American people do not want to be put at risk because of a wrong-headed campaign promise. That's the clear message to Washington incumbents.
We know Dick Cheney gets it.
Now, let's all have the 'Audacity of Hope' that President Obama and congressional democrats will finally get it -- and accept it.
---
Richard Olivastro is a professional member of the National Speakers Association, president of Olivastro Communications - an executive leadership development company - and founder of Citizens For Change.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
Current rating:  5.0 out of 5.0 (23 total votes)
| 
