Michelle Malkin » Dueling banjos in Washington; Updated

Dueling banjos in Washington; Updated

By Michelle Malkin • May 21, 2009 08:50 AM

Scroll for updates…

It’s the Obama-Cheney showdown this morning. I, for one, am gratified to see this White House forced to put national security on the front burner. If not for the forceful public defenses by Vice President Cheney of the aggressive, proactive measures the last administration took to keep us safe, the current commander-in-chief would be happily gabbling about solar panels and weatherization subsidies or somesuch.

National security is and always will be the Democrats’ soft spot. And they know it.

Which is why Team Obama scrambled to preempt Cheney’s AEI speech.

Which is why the same Senate Democrats who cheered so lustily when Obama declared his Gitmo closure date turned around and denied him the funds to implement it.

Which is why Obama is embracing the very same principles of preventive detention that the Left went bananas over for the past eight years.

And which is why you woke up this morning to news of one of countless terror busts whose results were, ahem, inherited by the Obama administration.

The men and women who worked tirelessly the past eight years to prevent and disrupt jihadist plots at home and abroad aren’t the ones who’ve “lost their way.”

It’s the unreality-grounded civil rights absolutists, grievance-mongers, and 9/10 juveniles who have been and remain, in Andrew McCarthy’s apt description, willfully blind.

***

Related thoughts from Meghan Clyne in the NYPost on national security and the SCOTUS wars:

A poll released this week shows Democrats have closed the gap with Republicans on national security. There are few media circuses like Supreme Court hearings — and if the GOP seizes the spotlight to focus attention on some of the left’s more bizarre and dangerous legal theories on the War on Terror, it can only work to its advantage.

After all, by placing terrorism center stage, they might just accomplish one more thing: reminding Washington, and the American people, that we are still at war. With a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, it’s unlikely that Republicans will be able to block Obama’s nominee, no matter how unappealing. Yet if they can use the Souter vacancy to show that the War on Terror isn’t just about preening lawyers, but a real battle fought by real Americans whom a lot of judges are endangering . . . well, there are worse things to get out of a confirmation hearing.

***

Update: Here is the text of Cheney’s speech.

Cliff Notes’ version of Obama’s speech: I blame Bush (but, uh, I will follow his “lost way” on preventive detention. Just in a kinder, gentler, more, uh, moral way).

Update: I second Kathy Shaidle on Dick Cheney’s speech:

“Cheney’s speech was the best speech of the Bush administration. Too bad it was months/years late.”

Posted in: Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Gitmo, Homeland Security

Regular View

comments (187)

trackbacks (34)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#705421

On May 21st, 2009 at 10:22 pm, jangar said:

Rags – I agree with your point, but you’ve got to admit that libs see it as a list of restrictions also. Seems to be in their DNA to want something that is not defined by law….beyond natural law, if you will (ie: gay marriage, anti-life issues, etc.).
#705422

On May 21st, 2009 at 10:24 pm, jangar said:

the study is directed at case law interpreting the Constitution

Is that not a part of the problem?
#705433

On May 21st, 2009 at 11:05 pm, GraniteMan said:

Thank God for Dick Cheney. A man!
#705434

On May 21st, 2009 at 11:13 pm, Ragspierre said:

Is that not a part of the problem?

Certainly. The doctrine of stare decisis “to stand by that which is decided” is a standard of law. It can be a very good, serviceable standard. Generally, it is a rule that prevents every judge from taking a question of law as though it were before them for the first time, and prevents judicial chaos.

In practice, however, it…like a lot of other rules…applies only to those who abide by rules. Statist judges often do not.

Sometimes, overturning a decided question of law is the right thing to do. Sometimes, it is merely legislating from the bench. Roe v. Wade is a terrible example of the latter. Without touching the issue of abortion, Roe was simply awful jurisprudence…or no jurisprudence at all. It was cut from whole cloth, and the reasoning was miserable…even stupid. It found a Constitutional “right” where no such right exists, and would have been inimical to the Founders.

That aside, law students have to study the case law precedents to understand how we arrived where we are…wherever that is. In that way, we can craft a case to use the precedents to our client’s advantage, or understand how our client will be attacked.

But, over time, precedent can cause the meaning of law to drift to the point where the statute on which it was predicated…even including the Constitution…cannot be read and relied upon. The plain meaning of the law is distorted to the point of being unrecognizable.

If you want an example that will make you mourn for your country, research the Commerce Clause. Mark Levin has a very good discussion in his current book.
#705437

On May 21st, 2009 at 11:18 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

I did prefer Cheney to anyone else in the administration.
#705458

On May 21st, 2009 at 11:58 pm, Member-VRWC said:

On May 21st, 2009 at 9:23 am, right4life said:
oh and of course these 4 guys just arrested in a terrorist plot are VICTIMS of ameriKKKan imperialism. they should be set up in ~~a fashionable NY~~ lgm’s pad, and given all the weapons they want

FIFY
#705462

On May 22nd, 2009 at 12:05 am, Member-VRWC said:

On May 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pm, Ilovemycountry said:
“Dueling banjos” – you people are finally talking about something you’re good at.

Yes, I do play a pretty mean banjo. You, I suspect, are an expert at squealing like a pig.
#705501

On May 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 am, Papa Louie said:

Dick Cheney said:

I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

One source of great danger is staring us in the face. If Obama moves the Gitmo terrorists to prisons in the US, what’s to stop them from converting other prisoners to their cause?

That has already happened without the aid of Gitmo extremists. The four men arrested for the recent NYC terrorist attack knew each other from prison. And three of the four were introduced to Islam while in prison. My source on that is from MSNBC:

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he believed the defendants knew each other from their time behind bars. Relatives said Payen, David Williams and Onta (pronounced ON-tay) Williams were introduced to Islam in prison.

Let’s bring more Muslim extremists into our prisons. What could go wrong?
#705503

On May 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 am, atheling said:

On May 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pm, love2rumba said:

“Cheney and the Lady, 2012″(?)

I love it!
#705522

On May 22nd, 2009 at 6:21 am, MtsEdge said:

On May 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pm, Major O said:
He’s not white?
I hear that. Don’t try to hang His Incompetence solely around the neck of us black folks

MajorO, I agree with everything you said, except this first statement. I think it’s backwards. It’s not that his incompetence is being blamed on his racial identity, but his racial identity is being used as a cover by the media to ignore his incompetence. I have never before seen so many plates, keychains, coffee mugs, and CDs of speeches for someone who has accomplished nothing other than to be elected President. Perhaps if these hawkers could wait at least until the end of his term (hopefully the only term) to push on us the wonder of Obama, I could accept it. (Of course, by then, America will be unrecognizable, if not a smoking pile of ash, and no one will be interested in or able to afford the trinkets and collections of speeches.) I have never seen Nancy Pelosi plates, or Harry Reid keychains, or collections of Chris Dodd speeches.

In the media, I keep expecting one of them to come out and say, “Isn’t he CUTE? I think he just looked at me…he did!”, etc, etc. The media seem so enchanted by the idea that a (half) black man could accomplish so much. That, to me, is the racist part. Those on this blog who bring up his racial identity are trying to point out this hypocrisy and lax standard for success that translates into a fawning, slobbering media. Conservatives analyze results, liberals count noses.

Obama runs the risk of being patronized to death, and it is intrinsically linked to his being half black. But I think it’s important to recognize that those that mention his incompetence in the same sentence with his racial identity are NOT making a cause and effect statement.
#705601

On May 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 am, Ragspierre said:

MtsEdge said:

I agree with what you said. It was well put.

Americans are so conditioned on the issue of a person’s race that they seemingly cannot see them for their merit or paucity of merit as an individual. A generalization, of course.

This is not confined to one race, and there are metrics that show that Obama is almost universally approved by African-Americans, who polling shows hold views on many issues that are opposed to THE ONE. These uniquely high popularity numbers for Obama I think are only attributable to his race, and keep his popularity higher than would be the case if he were another race.

I also think that polling in the white population is skewed, with many people reporting their views are more favorable than they actually are. Sort of a combination of guilt and The White Man’s Burden syndrome.

Personally, I’m really ready to leave all this crap behind us. I loved the military as being the closest thing to a meritocracy I have personally ever experienced.
#706033

On May 22nd, 2009 at 7:28 pm, lgm said:

On-my-soap-box said (#117):

STILL WAITING ON THE REPORT THAT TELLS US HOW MANY LIVES WERE SAVE BY A FEW OUNCES OF WATER.

None. The “information” produced by torture was bogus. According to FBI sources.
#706079

On May 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm, RetFireman said:

None. The “information” produced by torture was bogus. According to FBI sources.

And in typical LGM fashion, he lists NOTHING in the way of sources or links or anything else. We are just supposed to take his word, which has been proven to be nothing more than what comes out of the back end of a donkey who ate bad alfalfa.
#706620

On May 24th, 2009 at 11:11 pm, frontierguy said:

None. The “information” produced by torture was bogus. According to FBI sources.

If it is nothing, then release the memos. If the birth certificate is nothing, then show us the vaulted bc. If your college transcripts are nothing, then let us see them. Bush showed us his report cards, found out he was a C student, what you hiding their President Shady.
#706784

On May 25th, 2009 at 10:20 am, Member-VRWC said:

According to FBI sources.

Since when did the people of your ilk pay the slightest bit of attention to anything relating to the FBI?
#707890

On May 26th, 2009 at 8:59 pm, MtsEdge said:

On May 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 am, Ragspierre said:

Rags, thanks. I’m glad I jumped back on this thread and caught your remark. Sorry for the delay in responding.

I appreciate our military so much, and in so many ways. Thank you for your service.