A minor point: John C. Calhoun was secretary of war before he was Vice President. Strictly speaking, then, Cheney was not the first, though the scope of the department and its name changed after World War II.

More generally, it seems to me that there are important and pointed differences. Yes, clear statements, a choice and not an echo, but I am reassured by the president's speech. Still, the essential differences are really between Obama and certain members of his own party, or perhaps especially between the president and his Democratic "netroots." We'll see how this unfolds among Democrats. That has been the question since the late '60s.

Jay Nordlinger argues that the Obama speech was exceptionally partisan and like a campaign speech rather than a national security one.

Yes, I agree: it had too much of that. Somebody I glanced at said there were two or three speeches crammed together. The big news is the preventive detention part, a new "legal framework" -- category 5 of the Gitmo detainees. He's going to have trouble with his own party on that, as if they have a better idea.

You thought a speech freighted with falsehood "impressive?" Obama went out there and preened, going off after interrogative techniques while simultanesouly RETAINING the authority to order the exact same interrogative methods if he, the messiah, deemed it appropriate. And you thought Obama's nauseating stunt today "impressive?" I'm at a loss.

Please go over to Hugh Hewitt's website, and listen to Thursday's first hour segment where Hewitt interviews Mark Steyn. BOTH MEN thought the speech utterly repugnant.

Cheney's speech on the other hand was that of a serious man, speaking in a serious manner upon a subject of tremendous seriousness.

The main reason they won't be coming to trial is because some are shepard boys grabbed by a random factions and turned in to the USA in exchange for cash

Filling in for Scanlon this week, Brutus? A lot of those "shepard boys" get released and then killed while committing terrorist acts. Perhaps they needed you around to remind them of what innocent little shepard boys they were.

Brutus, please provide a link for such outrageous-sounding claims.

">">https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/opinion/22brooks.html?ref=opinion"> Brooks links to the widely read Cheney fallacy. They both explain why we should be reassured, if not happy. Greater national consensus on national security, other things equal, is a good thing,

Greater national consensus on national security, other things equal, is a good thing

It is, but we don't have it, largely due to Democrats like Obama who go to great pains to insist that no such consensus exists.

Packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric, it turns out, are vitally important to the legitimacy of terrorism policies.

Well, they are "vitally important" to allowing the Democrats to pretend to the left that they are different. This is after the Democrats lied their asses off for several years about how horrible the Bush people were.

So pardon me if I'm not falling over myself in admiration for their clever "packaging", given that said "packaging" is needed solely to counteract their earlier equally dishonest "packaging" which was aimed explicitly at undermining the legitimacy of these same policies.

Why is Cheney making speeches? Is he positioning himself to be the Al Gore of the heavy arms industry?

I can't believe that the people of this country would actually be scared of this whole gitmo detainees on our streets thing. Two things, are we really that PC and uncreative that we can't deport them or turn them over to their own countries or even drop them off at the North pole and let santa save their souls. Second, 90% or the people there were turned over to us by other tribes/factions who we then payed. The main reason they won't be coming to trial is because some are shepard boys grabbed by a random factions and turned in to the USA in exchange for cash or they are leaders who one faction did not like so they dropped them off and said they plotting against America.