No Middle Ground on Gitmo Approach - WSJ.com

No Middle Ground on Gitmo Approach - WSJ.com

The headlines will say two big, dueling speeches about the war on terror were delivered in Washington on Thursday, one by President Barack Obama and one by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

And that's true, as far as it goes. But it would be more accurate to say that four quite different speeches were delivered.

Mr. Cheney gave one speech, a remarkably focused, blistering attack on those who criticize the Bush administration's methods for detaining and interrogating terror suspects. Scathing in terminology, scornful in tone, Mr. Cheney took on those critics and gave not an inch of ground to them. He questioned both the integrity and wisdom of those, including the current president, who would reverse policies that he said have kept America safe for more than seven years since the 9/11 terror attacks.

Obama: I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As commander-in-chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I categorically reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.

Cheney: The interrogations were…legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Those who prefer their Washington policy debates to be cloaked in understatement or delicate euphemisms may have been taken aback by the ferocity of the Cheney rejoinder, which crackled in intensity, even while being delivered in the former vice president's trademark monotone style.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama, facing the trickier task of selling a policy to both parties, really gave three speeches wrapped in one. His first was meant to address critics on the right, who charge he has gone soft on terror and that his decision to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will bring to U.S. soil dangerous extremists.

The second speech was to those on the left who say Mr. Obama has hewn too closely to Bush policies, as shown in his decision to retain military tribunals for some suspects, his refusal to release photos of the treatment of terror suspects and his disclosure, in Thursday's speech, that he will continue to indefinitely detain some suspects without trial.

The third speech was directed to Americans in the middle, to whom Mr. Obama offered assurances that he is searching for a sensible middle ground that will keep terror suspects out of circulation while also honoring American values.

In fact, though, the most basic difference between the Obama and Cheney presentations came on the question of whether such a middle ground is even possible in the struggle against radical Islamists.

Parsing Obama's and Cheney's Dueling Speeches

3:11

Executive Washington editor Jerry Seib and national security correspondent Peter Spiegel discuss a blunt speech by former vice president Dick Cheney criticizing the administration's policies on the war on terror and President Obama's attempt to address critics on all sides.

Mr. Obama portrayed the search for the proper strategy for handling terror suspects as a debate between those on the left who "make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism" and those on the right who argue that "anything goes" in fighting terrorism.

"And both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right," he said.

Mr. Cheney would have none of it. "The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism," he said. "They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum....But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground. And half-measures keep you half-exposed."

Mr. Obama, of course, is coping with the practical problem of persuading Congress to buy his new strategy, meaning he had to at least try to satisfy multiple camps. In the strange minuet of the day, the president spoke first, and his goal was to convince lawmakers that his decision to close Guantanamo was correct, backed up by a plan to execute it safely, and worthy of their support.

Even some in his own party fear closing the facility means scores of suspects will end up in the U.S., with some possibly set free. The president's response: I have no choice but to fix a legal "mess" over Guantanamo -- caused by the decision to open the facility in the first place -- setting off a legal battle that is steadily making it impossible to keep suspects there.

He then walked through a careful explanation of how prisoners would be split into five categories, with most brought to justice here or abroad and a small group kept in open-ended detention because they fall between the legal cracks but are too dangerous to release. That was followed by an equally careful explanation to critics on the left of why his decision to keep secret photos of terror suspects' interrogations wasn't a betrayal of his promise of open and transparent government.

But if the president thought a nuanced speech could satisfy all sides, Mr. Cheney, who began talking literally the minute the president was done, replied: Forget it. Trying to make everybody happy is a recipe for disaster.

Mr. Cheney showed he isn't encumbered now -- if he ever was -- by the need to make everybody happy. Guantanamo, he said, has worked. Using "enhanced interrogation techniques" also worked. Those methods weren't torture and saved lives by preventing attacks.

Critics of those techniques are engaged in "contrived indignation and phony moralizing" and, worse, endanger the country by making it lose its "focus" on stopping terrorism, he said.

As he began his remarks, Mr. Cheney declared: "Today, I'm an even freer man" than while in office to speak his mind. Boy, did he prove it.