- Politics and Social Issues»
President Obama VS. FVP Dick Cheney on national security.
Obama's administration made Americans less safe.
As stated by Dick Cheney “half measures leave us half expose” as logically sounded as this statement is no one can fully comprehend it without questioning the attribute “measures”. Supposedly, the meaning of this statement lies within the parameters of many measures taken by Obama’s security team to protect us against terrorism. This statement also implies if half measures leaves us half expose than the opposite is the preferred alternative, which is “full measures”. But is they such a thing as “full measures.”
Perhaps, full measures are abstract attributes which are only relative to the administration who claim to have employed them. As logic stated, In order for full measures to have had merit, they shouldn’t be any penetration of terrorist attack that threatens our freedom when they're applied. If they is 1% chance that terrorist can infiltrate our measures then whether or not we consider our measures full, it would not seem that way if that 1% succeed.
Since full measures would have foreseen every potential terrorist attack, than it reasonable to say under full measures no attack would have been able to permeate our borders. This logic allows one to question the audacity of some who question the measures taken by this administration for ensuring our safety. Although it's possible that they may have left some loop wholes; at least they have not left us completely exposed. It is comprehensible to think that if there is no such thing as full measures than the only option for the administration is to secure our borders to the best of thier abilities.
But is it really true that Obama's homeland security team has left us half expose? By accepting Cheney’s argument, we’re admitting that the current administration actions against terrorism have not been enough. As if to say, more is needed to be done, and until those measures have been met, we will forever remain half expose.
Well, that’s not a pleasant thought to think about. But if that is so, what more is needed is a valid question to ask. And since Dick Cheney did not announce what had to be improved to secure our safety while keeping Guantanamo open sort of left us contemplating whether or not we’re truly half expose.
Added on March 13, 2011
However, as history can prove to us Dick Cheney praises Obama on several aspect of foreign policy. It appear that Obama’s intention was never to quickly dismissed the foreign policies that the Bush Administration had put in place but to evaluate it and make changes as they see fit. And if most of the policies that were put in place during the Bush Administration were not change as much is only because the head of Obama’s security advisor did find them to be in the best interest of our country.
In order to regain America moral statue in the world, President Barack Obama hold the position that we should not torture.
We may never know whether or not we’ve been left half expose, because it’s not likely for homeland security to layout to the public all the measures they have taken to protect us against terrorism. Had they done that not only would the security of this country be compromised but members of Al – Qaeda would have been able to apply what they have leaned to infiltrate the security measures.
It would have also been meaningless and disadvantageous for the country as a whole to consider that approach. It’s always in the country’s best interest for any administration not to discuss every measure taken to protect our citizens and territory. So, how can Dick Cheney say that this administration has left us half exposed?
Since it’s not advisable for anyone to place all their eggs in one basket, it’s reasonable for them to have invested in other measures that are not known to our citizens. And since those measures would be top secret it would not have been in our interest for President Obama to even mention or elaborate on them. Had he done that he would have compromised the security measures that the security advisors had put in place.
After all, that’s what national security entails; no one apart top members of security advisors should know what all these security measures are. And as the president stated “if he chooses to keep something secret, he will tell us why”. And if you believe that you’ll also believe that your mother was born a man.
This president has shown that they are as concern with our safety as they are with upholding the value of our constitution. He said “we should make decisions base on foresight rather than fear”. Unlike the previous administration, our freedom of speech is not handing by a thread we the people provide opinions which can be use as valid info to help keep our country safe.
Having citizens of this country sharing their ideas on national security is also a strength that can be used to help members of national security advisors makes better decisions. Like they say, "two heads is better than one" now think about a million heads. It feels comfortable to have a president who listens.
When President Obama faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we've made in the Bush years he deserves an answer.
Although Dick Cheney oppose the president strategies employed to secure our borders, does not imply that he wishes that he fail, it simply signified an opposition marinated in good will. As stated by the president “even bringing together persons of good will can be difficult, the soldier and the lawyer can love this country with equal passion and yet reach very different conclusion on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm”. Dick Cheney loves his country with equal passion as many of us, but as you can see his approach is very different than Obama’s.
It is never too late to make a difference if the will is there. And since Cheney is our former vice president, one can argue if he couldn’t keep us safe during the Bush years why we should believe that he can do it now?
Well, sometimes it’s when you no longer hold the throne you’re able to visualize what could have been done differently to secure our borders. We should not take Cheney’s view to be meaningless, but instead an expression of concern deriving from good intent.
We’re building new partnership around the world to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qeada and its affiliate.
Tom Ridge who was the former secretary of home land security under George W. Bush, disagreed with both president Obama & “Dick Cheney”, but somehow no one has yet heard what this disagreement was about.
The media has edited the part where he was about to speak, hopefully it gets played some time in the future. However, since Tom Ridge publicly disclaimed the notion that Obama’s security team has left America less safe has to some extent strengthen Obama’s arguments against Cheney’s.
Regardless of what the disagreement could have been this administration has showed great concern with the current state of the economy to the point where they will not let anything deter them from achieving their goal. And that is to bring the economy to a functioning condition where citizens can get back in the job market.
This is not to say they prefer a better economy over the safety of our citizens, but they understand without financial means the security of this country will bear the most fatigue. Added (3/13/11) It is in my opinion why the budget that was set to be assigned to home land security was not interfered with. Although our economy is just as important but an attack on our borders would have disqualified president Obama as a responsible leader.
You can’t give priority to the economy and neglect home land security, because if we are not producing we'll be faced with difficulties securing our safety. This is part of the reason why addressing the naval academy, president Obama said “I will only send you in harm ways if it’s absolutely necessary”.
Wars equal money folks, and if we’re using it to fight wars that are not absolutely necessary, we’ll pay the consequence in other sectors that are just as important as the security of our people, Added (3/13/11) as we have seen, president Obama inherited two wars with an economy that he is still struggling to maintain.
We are acutely aware, that under the last administration, detainees were release and in some cases returned to the battle field.
Likewise, it cost us more to detain detainees in Guantanamo than if we were to hold them in our sails. According to New York Times, the estimated cost for operating Guantanamo is about $90 - $118 million annually. And since we’re now faced with economic constraints, the best options would have been to keep these detainees in our solitary confinement where they can be secure while costing us less to keep them captive.
National security is not a one way street, without our allies keeping a watchful eye we are as expose as the naked cowboy on Time Square. This is why president Obama said “we’re building new partnership around the world to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qeada and its affiliate.” This effort to change the way we fight terrorism by building partnership to amplify our power is derived from this principle Unity is what gives birth to change without it they can’t be no change.
Yes! That’s right folks, we can’t live in a world where no one likes us, it is our friends, our affiliates, and our allied that can help keep us safe. Obama brings hope to foreign policy and we are now experiencing it. Although we will always have some countries that dislike us we should not look at his diplomacy as being weak, but instead a strategically smart move to help keep our borders safe.
He is aware of our weaknesses so for that reason he takes minuscule steps to strengthen it through bilateral talk to better secure our territory and citizens. We rather not live in fear, if we must fight to secure our citizens; we much prefer to do it without having to frighten our citizens instead of using levels of scarcity such as code blue, red, and yellow as scare tactic.
Added on 3/13/11 why is Guantanamo bay still open?
In order to close Guantanamo Bay the Obama administration had proposed to move the prisoners from Guantanamo to the United State. Now, you may wonder why Guantanamo Bay was not close. Did he break his promise or perhaps he realized that he was wrong for proposing that idea.
We the people sometimes support the president idea on certain issue without fallowing through the development of that issue and the administration attempt to enforce into law the idea that we the people have supported.
Guantanamo Bay is a good example of that concept. Many of us have concluded that the president said that he was going to close Guantanamo Bay and it is now three years later and still, it has not happen but yet we know nothing about the president struggle to achieve that commitment.
That struggle is what I intend to bring to your attention because if we the people do not know about it than the president effort has gone to waste. As Hugh Hamilton stated, a radio talk show host at WBAI “in politics there are no friends, no enemies only conflict of interest”. Well, in that case those who are against the president plan to close Guantanamo Bay will off-course attempt to disrupt him from doing so, and if those of us who support his plan are not aware of it all his effort would have gone to waste.
They were alots of red tape that had prevented Guantanamo Bay from closing. Some of which dealt with intelligence issues such as the case with Khalid Sheikh Mohamed the accused 9/11 plotter. The fruit of the poison tree state if evidence is obtain as a result of illegal action; the evidence is therefore not admissible in the court of law.
And the big restriction that really tied Obama’s hands to close Guantanamo Bay was the law passed by the legislative branch of US government which implied that the Obama’s administration cannot use any money to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to US or use any money to built facilities to keep them captive.
As a counter attack in effort to close Guantanamo Bay, the president not too long ago sign into law a defense authorization bill which cannot be veto as an attempt to disarm congress ability to stop him from closing Guantanamo Bay.
On December 22.2010 the US senate passed into law a legislation which would allow the Pentagon to spend close to $160 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but at the same time bans Obama’s ability to close the facility.
Although the president did not get to close Guantanamo Bay he at least got to end the war in Iraq which gave him some leverage, keeping his report card balance because when comes time for reelection these are the issues that will be discuss. What did he promise to do vs. what he actually accomplished? However, if we the people do not know about these efforts we will always missed judge his overall performance and make conclusions that are not base performance.