In his first big post-Vice Vader interview, Cheney clings steadfastly to the rationalization of the worst excesses of his administration. He's not a stupid man, but he's certainly pandering to the stupid. He and Bush mastered oversimplification tactics, and some of the greatest hits are on display here: claim over and over that terrorism suspects are actual terrorists, just because he says so; claim that torture prevented attacks when we can't know. And then there's vintage Cheney, very carefully peddling debunked falsehoods. He says that 61 terrorists have “gone back into the business of being terrorists.”
All very scary until you pay close attention–what is "the business of being terrorists"? On a common sense level, we all know, right? It's nebulous, yet it conjures up certain images, things like footage we've all seen of terrorist trainees running obstacle courses in black masks, things that make us uncomfortable or afraid. That's what Cheney's counting on, and what the Bush administration counted on over and over, even though they themselves knew better. A certain impression is purposefully conveyed, but once called on the BS, they can always backtrack and say they were misunderstood. Because, as a recent and quite damning study showed, the Pentagon's ever-evolving definition of recidivism of Guantanamo inmates currently includes such scary "terrorist business" as writing op-eds in the New York Times and appearing in documentaries. (Both of which are, admittedly, pretty scary.)
It's extremely likely that there are actual terrorists among the suspects we hold at Guantanamo (and they are legally only suspects until they're tried and convicted). It's also highly probable that some of the guilty can't be tried because evidence gained through torture isn't admissible. We can thank Cheney for that. And it also seems certain that some of the innocent who were released already from Guantanamo under Bush will feel a deep sense of animosity against their former captors and will indeed become actual terrorists. We've played that very well.
The rest of the civilized world has dealt with terrorism far more successfully than we have for many years within judicial systems. Admittedly, it lacks the Dirty Harry maverick angle, but if it works, it works. And it works without giving up democratic ideals.
So it's quite something to see, after eight years of nonsense, someone in the White House who understands that Bush and Cheney repeatedly employed oversimplification. Not only that, Obama is undoing some of that subtle but deeply important brand of damage. After trying another very un-Bush tactic, owning up to his screw-up with Daschle instead of claiming to do no wrong, Obama delivered this breath of fresh air in his recent CNN interview:
Cooper also asked Obama about reports that he is not using former President Bush's phrase, "war on terror," to refer to the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan.
"Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds," Obama said. "I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations, but that those organizations aren't representative of a broader Arab community, Muslim community."
Subtlety and nuance: prerequisites to America not blundering about in the world like a misinformed oaf. Obama isn't going to be perfect, and he needs to be called out just like anyone else. But it's certainly good to hear that he's not going to treat us Americans like a bunch of kneejerk morons by claiming terrorism is dealt with easily or simply. It's a refreshing and immediate difference.
Cheney also employed a favorite tactic that I just blogged about, the straw man: “When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.”
That's deeply belittling stuff. Of course, it's a straw man: Obama has never said anything like that, and no one except wingnuts would even vaguely believe the President of the United States would be unconcerned with protecting the country (heck, even Bush seems to have believed he was doing good, even if he wasn't). But it doesn't stop Cheney from boiling down necessary nuance to a simplistic equation meant only to inflame and divide. This nonsense is what brought us to the idiocy of Bush-era propositions like "I don't support the Iraq War" equalling "I hate America."
The election of Obama points to a clear conclusion: Cheney's fear-mongering straw men have lost their power. Thank heavens. If we lend an ear to the more honest understanding Obama brings to the struggle against terrorism, perhaps we'll eventually manage to fully comprehend and eradicate the threat. Finally.
