OBAMA VERSUS CHENEY: NOT DUELING SPEECHES, BUT OPENING ARGUMENTS IN THE TRIAL OF THE MILLENNIUM

OBAMA'S SPEECH WAS LIKE A PARTISAN ATTACK, IF NOT A PROSECUTOR'S OPENING ARGUMENT.

AND - CONSIDERING HOW MANY ON THE LEFT THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TRIALS AGAINST BUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTON, IT MAY VERY WELL TURN OUT TO BE AN OPENING ARGUMENT, TOO!

UPDATE: THERE'S A DEFINITE LEGAL DEFENSE ASPECT TO THIS ARGUMENT:

• ACCORDING TO HIS DAUGHTER, CHENEY STARTED TO SPEAK OUT ON THE MATTER BECAUSE OBAMA THREATENED TO PROSECUTE HIM.

EXCERPTS FROM CHENEY'S DEFENSE:

9/11 made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat: what the Congress called an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We'd just been hit by a foreign enemy, leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit. And the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and it was our job to stop it. We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad.

... To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with a far greater homeland security to make the United States a tougher target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.

We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to the enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction and might transfer such weapons to the terrorists.

We did all of these things and, with bipartisan support, put all of these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations: the takedown of the A.Q. Khan network and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program.

It required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and at every turn the people of our military carried the heaviest burden.

Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of his time on the defensive, and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

...So we're left to draw one of two conclusions, and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event, coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort.

... Our successors in office have their own views on these matters. By presidential decision last month, we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question.

Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release.

For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called truth commission. Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense and political opponents as criminals.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called truth commission. Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense and political opponents as criminals.

It's hard to imagine a worse precedent filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessor.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security and what it requires.

I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at the interrogations is utterly misplaced, and staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

... At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation and simple decency. For the harm they did to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice.

And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Those personnel were carefully chosen from within the CIA and were especially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training and the limits of the law.

Torture was never permitted. And the methods were given careful legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew to stay on the right side of it.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, with our statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about values.

... Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all- important purpose: We sought _ and we, in fact, obtained _ specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogation. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the president is on the path of sensible compromise.

But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half-exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States; you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.

Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned or one lead that goes unpursued can bring on catastrophe, it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people hang in the balance.

I THINK CHENEY STARTS OFF LIKE A DEFENSE LAWYER - DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST THE PROSECUTORIAL OBAMA.

THEN, CHENEY'S SPEECH ACTUALLY BECOMES AN INCREDIBLY DAMNING INDICTMENT OF OBAMA. (AND THE NYTIMES!)

AND IN THIS CASE I WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA: HE'S GUILTY OF LYING AND MAKING OUR NATION - AND THE WEST - MORE VULNERABLE.