This is the third part of my response to Doug Hagler, who also issued this challenge:
I am constitutionally unable to come up with 10 positives about Cheney—and I challenge anyone who is not a sociopath to do so.
That’s unjust, so I had to take it up.
- He’s a loving, devoted husband.
- He’s a loving, devoted father. See my comment on Barack Obama.
- He’s absolutely dedicated to serving his country. You might disagree with how he thought best to do that, but this is still a profoundly important and positive statement which cannot be made about all too many of our politicians.
- He took his oath of office seriously. He didn’t do his job for the fun of it, he did what he thought was right and necessary to protect and defend the lives of people in this country.
- He’s candid about his beliefs and positions; he doesn’t pretend to believe what people want to hear, he just tells them what he thinks, whether they want to hear it or not. That sort of candor is all too rare on our political scene, because it’s not the easiest way to get elected.
- He never tried to win a political argument by obfuscating his positions. Actually, as a politician, Cheney has a strong resemblance to a bulldozer; that’s why he ended up so unpopular. A little tact probably wouldn’t have hurt.
- He’s consistent in his beliefs and positions; he doesn’t compromise for political gain. Politicians who actually have principles rather than just poll-testers are important for the health of the nation.
- He’s willing to be unpopular to do what he believes is right. The name for that is “moral courage”; it’s an unfortunately rare quality.
- Indeed, he’s been willing to endure abuse, slander, and unjust calumny to do what he believes is right. That’s a rare degree of courage in American political history, or indeed in history more generally. He’s not Darth Vader, nor is he a sociopath (and waterboarding isn’t torture, nor did anybody ever call it so before that became a political weapon of expediency against a Republican administration), but he’s had to endure all that for the sake of keeping Americans from being butchered by their enemies. The irony here is that those who use debasing, dehumanizing language (such as “monster”) to describe him are guilty rhetorically of exactly the same thing of which they accuse him; the difference is one of degree, not of kind.
- He defends his people, rather than scapegoating to protect himself. Had he been willing to play the blame game (like, for instance, our current president), he probably could have ended office a fair bit more popular than he did; but he has refused to do that, which is admirable.
Good job, Rob! I liked reading this tremendously.
…I'm going to just let this stand without much comment. *Not* because I agree with most of these (I've probably got a blog post's worth of rebuttals for each with the possible exception of the first and second which I don't feel like I can really comment on), but because of the nobility of the effort. [Deleted further comments here]
I'm glad that my hyperbole provoked you to respond. 🙂
No, no, damn, I have to say it. Waterboarding is torture. Just because it isn't *manly* enough torture does not matter the slightest bit. It has been part of the grounds for The International Military Tribunal For The Far East to execute people. Waterboarding is torture, and indefinite detention of human beings, without any recourse to law or any intent to provide such recourse (as we are learning watching Obama trying to close Gitmo) is utterly indefensible. Lacking a military uniform does not divest a person of their human dignity. Now I'm actually done for the night.
I want to end with a thank you. I like how you stepped up to the challenge(s), and it reinforces my good cyber-impression of you. It is a rare situation where someone is rewarding to disagree with on the Internet. Bravo.
The fact that some people argue that waterboarding qualifies as torture doesn't make it so. At some point, I have a longer post on that one . . . when I have the time and mental energy to spare from more pressing matters.
Otherwise, thanks (and to you, Sis, as well). 🙂
Just to clarify, Rob – I did read them all, top down. And I was complimenting you on all of them, not just this one, although I liked it best. 🙂
I know, Rob, that's obvious, and not really a rebuttal. I'm curious to see your definition of torture which would not include waterboarding, and how it is in your theology that you justify that kind of treatment, whatever label we put on it.
Well, when your argument consists of an assertion on your part and a reference to another body that defines it as torture, then yes, actually, that does qualify as a rebuttal–it's all the rebuttal the argument requires. Of course, I didn't actually argue the position, either, so we're all in keeping.
Sis–thanks. 🙂
I gotta side with Doug here and call waterboarding torture. No single thing I can think of (other than someone harming my kids) comes as close to scaring me to death.