About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Un-debatable: Contrary to media claim, national security was an issue during 2008 campaign

May 22, 2009 7:31 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Numerous media figures advanced the argument that national security issues discussed by President Obama and Dick Cheney in May 21 speeches weren't debated during the 2008 presidential election campaign. In fact, the issues were vigorously debated during the Republican primary campaign.

23 Comments

Following President Obama's and former Vice President Dick Cheney's May 21 speeches on national security, numerous media figures -- including Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, Fox News' Special Report host Bret Baier, Fox News contributor Mara Liasson, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta and CBS chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer -- advanced the argument that the issues discussed by Obama and Cheney weren't debated during the 2008 presidential election. But those figures did not note that some of the national security issues Obama and Cheney discussed on May 21 -- specifically, the Bush administration's policies of interrogation and detention at the Pentagon's Guantánamo Bay facility -- were vigorously debated during the Republican primary campaign, with Republican primary voters opting against any of the candidates who expressed a viewpoint more like Cheney's.

Indeed, as USA Today reported on June 18, 2007, most of the Republican presidential candidates, like Cheney, opposed closing Guantánamo: "For Republicans, who view fighting terrorism as a top issue in their presidential nomination fight, the divide is over whether to close the prison [in Guantánamo Bay] and how to extract information from detainees. Among the 10 announced Republican candidates, only Arizona Sen. John McCain and Texas Rep. Ron Paul favor closing the prison."

Several of the Republican presidential debates featured heated exchanges about Guantánamo and interrogation issues. For example, during the May 15, 2007, South Carolina debate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney told moderator and Fox News correspondent Brit Hume that he wanted to "double Guantánamo:"

Now we're going to -- you said the person's going to be in Guantánamo. I'm glad they're at Guantánamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantánamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.

Some people have said, we ought to close Guantánamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantánamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists -- and there's no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States -- not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States -- has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.

Later in the debate, Hume asked McCain whether he believed "enhanced interrogation techniques" were "torture." McCain replied:

Yes, and the interesting thing about that aspect is that during the debate, when we had the detainee treatment act, there was a sharp division between those who had served in the military and those who hadn't. Virtually every senior officer, retired or active duty, starting with Colin Powell, General Vessey and everyone else, agreed with my position that we should not torture people.

One of the reasons is, is because if we do it, what happens to our military people when they're captured? And also, they realize there's more to war than the battlefield.

So yes, literally every retired military person and active duty military person who has actually been in battle and served for extended times in the military -- (bell rings) -- supported my position, and I'm glad of it.

During the November 28, 2007, YouTube/CNN Republican presidential debate, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked Romney if waterboarding is torture. Romney responded in part:

And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use.

And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people.

And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country.

And, by the way, I want to make sure these folks are kept at Guantánamo. I don't want the people that are carrying out attacks on this country to be brought into our jail system and be given legal representation in this country.

McCain then said to Romney: "I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is." When Romney responded that "I know what waterboarding is," McCain replied:

Then I am astonished that you would think such a -- such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law...

(Applause)

And, governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people.

We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.

After Romney stated that he is not in favor or torture, but also doesn't "believe it's appropriate for me, as a presidential candidate, to lay out all the issues one by one, get questioned one by one: Is this torture, is that torture?" McCain said:

Well, then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, which were for the treatment of people who were held prisoners, whether they be illegal combatants or regular prisoners of war. Because it's clear the definition of torture. It's in violation of laws we have passed.

And again, I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not "24" and Jack Bauer.

Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else.

My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.

Similarly, during the September 5, 2007, Republican presidential debate, Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler asked former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, "[I]f you don't think we should close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, how long are you prepared to live with the international criticism it's causing? And how long do you think we should hold people there that we feel we can't gain a conviction on, but are too dangerous to set free?" Giuliani responded, in part: "Well, this reminds me of a period of time in New York when judges would release criminals into the street, or threaten to do it. We can't close Guantanamo because nobody will take the people there."

During the same debate, Goler asked then-Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), "Are you prepared to hold terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely if you feel that we can't convict them and they're too dangerous to set free?" Hunter replied, "Well, absolutely." He later added of the detainees held there:

They've got health care that's better than most HMOs. And they got something else that no Democrat politician in America has: They live in a place called Guantánamo, where not one person has ever been murdered. And there's not one politician, one Democrat politician in America, that can say that about one of the prisons in his home district. We've got to keep Guantánamo open.

Also during that debate, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO) indicated that like Cheney, he doesn't believe that waterboarding constitutes torture. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Tancredo: "You have said the president should have the power to approve enhanced interrogation techniques, like waterboarding in cases where conventional interrogation is not getting the job done. Sir, I want to ask you, is there a line you won't cross in this regard to keep Americans safe? Would you approve the use of torture if you felt it would prevent a terrorist attack?" Tancredo responded in part: "I would do -- certainly, waterboard -- I don't believe that that is, quote, 'torture.' I would do what is necessary to protect this country."

In addition to Sammon, media figures claiming that the 2008 presidential campaign did not debate the issues raised by Obama and Cheney include the following:

  • On the May 22 edition of CBS' The Early Show, Schieffer asserted that "the interesting thing is, this is the debate that we did not have during the campaign -- because if you'll recall, John McCain was one of those who said that we ought to close Guantánamo." CBS correspondent Harry Smith responded, "Exactly."
  • On the May 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Liasson asserted: "I think there is one level you can see this as the clash of the titans, and these two guys really having a debate that we didn't have in the 2008 campaign. She added, "John McCain was actually on the same side as Barack Obama on some of these issues." Later during the discussion, Baier also asserted that "[t]his was not a debate that we had in the campaign."
  • On the May 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Sammon stated: "[T]his is the debate that I think a lot of conservatives longed for throughout the campaign. You didn't have, you know, a demonstrably liberal Democrat -- at that time he was posturing as a moderate, Barack Obama -- versus a demonstrably conservative Republican; we had John McCain."
  • During the noon ET hour of the May 21 edition of CNN Newsroom, Acosta stated that Obama and Cheney's "dueling speeches on the war on terror and Guantánamo are being billed by some in Washington as a foreign policy debate that was never really had during the campaign."

From the May 22 edition of CBS' The Early Show:

HARRY SMITH (co-host): The president was, literally, answering Dick Cheney, not the least of from his appearance on Face the Nation two weeks ago.

SCHIEFFER: There's no question about that, Harry. And the interesting thing is this is the debate that we did not have during the campaign --

SMITH: Exactly.

SCHIEFFER: -- because if you'll recall, John McCain was one of those who said we ought to close Guantánamo. I think most people think that Guantánamo is an open sore; that in many ways it's a recruiting tool for these terrorists.

But getting it closed, what do you do with these people? Because, I mean, let's face it, there's some bad dudes down there, and no congressman wants those people brought back into his home district, even to be put into prison.

From the May 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

BRET BAIER (host): And, Mara, for -- to follow -- for the vice president -- former vice president to follow the president there and hit on those themes of how hard governing really is --

LIASSON: Yeah, look --

BAIER: -- that was an interesting --

LIASSON: -- I think there is one level you can see this as the clash of the titans, and these two guys really having a debate that we didn't have in the 2008 campaign. Cheney wasn't -- didn't feel as unbound and unfettered to actually make this case. John McCain was actually on the same side as Barack Obama on some of these issues.

But I think underneath that you do have two men saying we -- one of them saying we grappled with the same issues as you're grappling with now, and here's the conclusion we came to to keep the country safe.

[...]

BAIER: Charles, last word here. This was not a debate that we had in the campaign.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor): It's a better one, because a year ago Democrats could demagogue unrestrained. Now Democrats are in power, they have to make tough decisions, and they know how difficult these choices are. It's a better-read debate, and the outcome is going to be extremely interesting to see who wins on the politics and on the substance.

From the May 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

SAMMON: Cheney has emerged as the ultimate antidote to President Obama. In fact, this is the debate that I think a lot of conservatives longed for throughout the campaign. You didn't have, you know, a demonstrably liberal Democrat -- at that time he was posturing as a moderate, Barack Obama -- versus a demonstrably conservative Republican; we had John McCain.

But now you have a guy that has obviously established his liberal credentials -- by virtue of the policies he's initiated in his first 120 days -- versus Dick Cheney, a staunch conservative. And I'm telling you, it was -- you couldn't have had a more stark contrast.

From the noon ET hour of the May 21 edition of CNN Newsroom:

ACOSTA: Which makes the clash between President Obama and Vice President Dick Cheney that much more important. Their dueling speeches on the war on terror and Guantánamo are being billed by some in Washington as a foreign policy debate that was never really had during the campaign.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by right-winger (May 22, 2009 8:12 pm ET)
      3 1
      EGG IN THERE FACES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE WATCHING THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA WITH EGG ON THERE FACES AGAIN. FIRST NOTRA DAME AND NOW THE CHENEY SPEECH. YOU CAN TELL WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MEDIA FACES BEFORE AND AFTER AND WHEN THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT THE STORY ANYMORE. CHENEY ONE DAY STORY.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Tsixram (May 23, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
           
        You're so right. But lets hope that it never gets out what information they got from the water boarding. If it ever gets out, Obama will be ruined! It's bad enough that Pelosi has embarrassed us. It's even worse that Obama pushed it this far without checking what was revealed from the interogations. let's hope it dies in the media now.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by my4cents (May 22, 2009 9:00 pm ET)
      3  
      Cheney is prolonging a debate that got rejected in 2008 Republican primaries.
      Mitt and Rudy followed his rationale.
      If Cheney keeps to continue the debate, I only wish Democrats grab the chance and tie it around ALL Republicans' necks.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Jim Rockford (May 22, 2009 10:37 pm ET)
        7  
        It's true, as he says, his motive is not political.

        In fact, his motive is to keep himself out of jail. He's working public opinion. What a patriotic guy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by phredicles (May 23, 2009 12:21 am ET)
          6  
          I agree that Cheney's trying to keep himself out of jail, but perhaps not the way that's commonly assumed. I think he's trying to make it politically impossible to prosecute him by packaging himself as a "dissident", so that when the well-deserved indictments finally come, it'll be framable as retribution for his speaking out.

          If I'm right, I hope the justice department sucks it up and plows ahead. I'm also confident that, once a substantial amount of evidence is aired, it won't matter how he and his apologists have been trying to frame the discussion.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by urightme3596 (May 22, 2009 10:05 pm ET)
         
      It ain't Cheney or Bush's country anymore. Cheney should just sit down and count the money he and Haliburton made from the war. They think most people are stupid. On the other hand I hope Cheney and Rush keep showing their ass. Gift to the us Dems.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (May 22, 2009 11:00 pm ET)
      3  

      This isn't even a National Security issue.

      Cleaning up this mess that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their maladministration of various hacks minions phuckups and criminals (I'm thinking of donald rumsfeld there in this particular matter), dealing with this mess they left behind, doesn't really come under the heading of National Security, but instead should be categorized under a special heading named "Dealing With Yet Another Mess Bush And Cheney Left Behind"...

      True.

      That's all this is, this issue of what to do next with some motley crew of toothless brainless guys (mostly from Afghanistan I believe) who got caught up in various raids and sweeps ordered by Bush Cheney rumsfeld et al, and once in custody, these characters from Afghanistan, they couldn't tell a sensible or believable enough story, and didn't have the friends and/or family or political connections or money, to get their sorry azzes released from custody there in Afghanistan, and so they wound up in CUBA of all freaking places, primarily for the purpose of the Bush maladministration to be able to claim (post September 11 2001) not only were they sweeping up terrorists, but to even claim they had participants in those attacks of 9/11... yeah right... strange though, that they make such a bold claim as that, where you cannot verify or even examine this claim, for the reason that the supposed 'terror detainees' are in CUBA of all freaking places, completely beyond any and all powers of investigation and oversight and hearing, of both our Judicial system and Congress too... and of course that was the whole point, to pretend to be rounding up 'terrorists', but to make that pretense unverifiable and beyond the scrutiny and examination of the American People and their Congress... yeah right... it was simply a matter of Bush and Cheney saying to the American People "Trust us, we have 'terrorists' in custody, and we're keeping you safe that way... we're holding 'terrorists' in CUBA of all freaking places!"

      It's not National Security, it's yet another in a long series of Bush maladministration bullchit, left for the next President to deal with and clean up.

      And I have a serious question about these 'detainees' in CUBA of all freaking places what sense did that make...

      Q: What kind of precedent is there for this stupidity?

      I mean, when was the last time we sent U.S. Troops into the field, whether in combat or on what you'd call raids and sweeps of some sort, when did we do this last, and send captures or prisoners or suspects or 'detainees' or whatever you want to call them, send them to the U.S. or to CUBA of all places...

      What precedent is there for that kind of stupidity?

      For example (and we don't have a lot of historical examples to deal with here I don't think), where did we send NVA Regulars captured in Vietnam, or Viet Cong prisoners for that matter, where did we send them?

      To CUBA?

      To the U.S.?

      Did we remove them from Vietnam at all?

      How about Korean captures and prisoners, and also German and Japanese prisoners from WWII, did we send them to CUBA or to the U.S. even?

      I don't really need those questions answered, because it's not a History lesson I seek here, nor do I really need to consult precedent to know how stupid this mess is, dealing with this motley crew of mostly Afghani men (I believe) dragged off to CUBA of all places, just for the purpose of the Bush maladministration to make the unverifiable claim that they were on the job, capturing 'terrorists' in raids and sweeps, and (most insulting of all) getting someone or other that participated in the attacks of September 11 2001, and therefore getting Justice for that day... that's a lie... it's bullchit...

      This whole thing isn't National Security, and isn't Justice either, it's just another Bush Cheney rumsfeld mess to clean up is all.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (May 23, 2009 1:35 am ET)
          3
        Perhaps there is some precedent...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101900835_pf.html
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Craig (May 23, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
          3  
          Some good information on the history of rendition there. Did you read #4?

          4. Rendition is just a euphemism for outsourcing torture.

          Well, not historically. The guidelines for Clinton-era renditions required that subjects could be sent only to countries where they were not likely to be tortured -- countries that gave assurances to that effect and whose compliance was monitored by the State Department and the intelligence community. It's impossible to be certain that those standards were upheld every time, but serious efforts were made to see that they were. At a minimum, countries with indisputably lousy human rights records (say, Syria) were off-limits. Another key difference: Renditions before Bush were carried out to disrupt terrorist activity, not to gather intelligence or to interrogate individuals.

          Now, though, the Bush team seems to have dramatically eroded such safeguards. The administration has apparently sent someone to Syria, and Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen, was evidently grabbed in Macedonia and interrogated in Afghanistan in a manner that sure sounds like torture. In light of this and other revelations, the criticism that the administration has "defined down" torture looks pretty persuasive. It's probably a good bet that Congress or the next administration will reform the program, or abolish it outright.

          Here's some more on the horrific cases of el-Masri and Maher Arar:

          http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/carving_up_the_constitution/
          Report Abuse
      • Author by LisaLV711 (May 24, 2009 11:48 pm ET)
           
        Good writing and you're correct. You bring another prospective to folks whether they want to believe it or not is totally up to the individual, but I do agree. Anyway, you brought a new prospective to me.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (May 23, 2009 10:35 am ET)
      1 9
      mmfa has wandered afield again. The issue raised was about a debate between democrats and republicans...not an intramural scrimmage between republicans.

      Sammon was correct in his assessment, "this is the debate that I think a lot of conservatives longed for throughout the campaign. You didn't have, you know, a demonstrably liberal Democrat...versus a demonstrably conservative Republican; we had John McCain."

      The comments critically cited by mmfa clearly stated there was a lack of debate between liberals and conservatives...and mmfa twists them into a red herring by stating they "were vigorously debated during the Republican primary campaign".

      While mmfa tries the "look over there" tactic...conservatives know that mmfa missed the boat on this one...and honest liberals will admit the same.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Craig (May 23, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
        7  
        What the comments clearly state - falsely - is that there was no debate during the campaign. There wouldn't be a problem if they had said there was no debate in the general election because Republican primary voters rejected the candidates who took Cheney's position.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (May 23, 2009 10:46 pm ET)
        5  
        The national security debates took place in the primaries, in both parties.
        McCain and Obama came out the winners. They debated national security during their debates.
        Who missed boat where?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 24, 2009 7:24 am ET)
        3  
        "this is the debate that I think a lot of conservatives longed for throughout the campaign. You didn't have, you know, a demonstrably liberal Democrat...versus a demonstrably conservative Republican; we had John McCain."

        What a bizarre argument. Why do you need someone who's more liberal in general in order to have a debate on one specific issue? McCain played the Obama role there against other Republicans. It's a false dichotomy where it's either liberal vs. conservative or there's no debate at all.

        You don't comment on the other quotes which don't make this irrelevant qualifier. Is your contention that there should be only three examples, and that's how they've "wandered afield"?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (May 23, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
      2 1
      Maybe they are talking more towards the Presidential campaign than the republican primary. I think pretty much McCain and Obama agreed on both the torture and closing of Gitmo, so there was no need to debate it. Most of this BS is coming from Fox as they keep looking for anything to make Obama look bad.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (May 23, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
      4  
      I realize that Dick Cheney was the VP... but he is now nothing more than a private citizen!

      He had his chance to screw up the country as much as he could... this country repudiated his kind resoundingly!

      But somehow, the media wants to keep Cheney on an even keel with the new president... WTF??

      Even after next years midterms, I'm going to guess that the Democrats will take an even larger majority in the Congress...

      But I get the feeling that that won't stop the media from propping up no longer elected Republicans.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by right-winger (May 24, 2009 5:14 am ET)
      1 1
      HEY POWELL WILL BE ON FACE THE NATIONS TODAY LET'S SEE IF BILL WILL GIVE POWELL A EASY TIME LIKE HE GAVE CHENEY? LET'S ALSO SEE IF THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA AND MOSTLY FOX,WOLF,BASH, KING AND DOBBS WILL TALK ABOUT THIS INTERVIEW 24/7 WHEN POWELL DEFEND HISSELF AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE CHENEY, RUSH AND THE RNC? CAN'T WAITE
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LisaLV711 (May 24, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
        2  
        Saw it, loved it! Those right-wingers you referred to, well, it will take a day or two for them to UNDERSTAND what General Powell said before they will be able to communicate it. We can only hope.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by LisaLV711 (May 24, 2009 11:32 pm ET)
      1  
      When will the media stop quoting Cheney and his idea of keeping us safe. CNN's John King just won't stop! Another thing if they think for just one minute the President Obama is not as intelligent as the party whose slogan should be, "We take pride in our ignorance", then they are sadly mistaken. There's isn't anything these idiots can do or say that can stand the test of creditability. Come on, interviewing people like Newt Gringinch and covering people like Cheney are "newsworthy" speaks volumes.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (May 25, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
        1  
        Cheney's idea of keeping us safe is the same idea that keeps maximum security prisoners safe from the outside world. And each other.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by right-winger (May 25, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
         
      WHAT DID I TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ONE DAY STORY LIKE I SAID WHEN PEOPLE TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT REPUBLICANS FOX, CNN , MSNBC,CBS,AND ABC WILL ONLY TALK ABOUT THE STORY FOR 1 DAY. LOOK AT THE WEB SITE AND THERE SHOWS.BUT WHEN CHENEY WAS PUTTING OUT ALL THAT HATE AND LIES LAST WEEK IT WAS ON THE NEWS AND WEB SITE 24/7. HEY SAW FOX TODAY AND THEY SEE THE SCARED AMERICANS WITH GUANTANAMO TERRORIST STORY IS WORKING SO NOW THEY ARE TALKING UP HOW THOSE AMERICANS WHO WAS ARRESTED IN NEWYORK WAS RECURITED IN THE AMERICAN PRISONS. LET'S SEE HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE FOR WOLF, KING ,DASH, DOBBS, CNN,MSNBC,ABC, CBS AND NBC ARE GOING TO JUMP ON THIS STORY.THAT'S WHAT THEY DO THEY GET THERE LIES FROM FOX AND RUSH!!!!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.