Broder argues that Cheney rightly pointed out that Obama didn't have a "plan" in place when he announced that Guantanamo would be closed, but that Obama rightly advocates a return to more humane standards of treating enemy combatants.
I found this, however, a rather strange assertion:
Proof is missing that would let laymen judge Cheney's assertion that the
methods Obama now has banned were necessary to prevent a second Sept. 11.
Avoiding interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, which historically
have been classified as torture, not only clears our conscience and improves
our reputation; it protects our own troops when they are
captured.
No matter how adamently one disagrees with the interrogation policies adopted by the Bush administration (and, many argue, spurred by Cheney), it seems naive to expect that humane treatment of enemy combatants will be met with reciprocity--particularly in our conflicts with extremist guerilla groups.
For an infinitely more ham-handed account of American ambivalence, check out Kathleen Parker's similar piece on the two speeches. Forgive me, but I'm insulted by comparisons of U.S. defense policies to "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." The article clearly, and damningly, illustrates Parker's journalistic "style": frequently simplistic, appallingly cutesy, bastardizations of current affairs.
How about those fighting words, Dick?
0 comments:
Post a Comment