I refuse to take sides on this, but I applaud this debate between President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney over the appropriate level of security and caution against terrorism in the U.S. right now.
People (a lot of them, anyway) intuitively seem to want to instantly disregard what Cheney has to say, simply because he is old news - or simply because he was part of the "evil" Bush Administration. Cheney is perhaps hated even more than former President Bush is, yet he's still willing to come forward and press the case for caution. I, for one, think that act alone makes what he has to say worthy of my attention. Cheney was far from being a media whore when he was V.P.. There is certainly no reason to think he's making this noise only so he can steal the spotlight. Couldn't it be at least possible that Cheney knows what he's talking about?
President Obama has enjoyed (and largely deserved) a path of little resistance during his first four months in office, and it's good, I think to see him challenged. Cheney is clearly not alone in his reticence over the administration's policy on terrorism. Just yesterday, the Democratic Senate voted 90 - 6 to block funding for the President's bid to close the terror camp at Guantanamo Bay. There's nothing wrong with stepping back and giving full consideration to what the security needs are for the nation right now.
I'm sure I'm being idealistic, but opinions cannot hurt the national debate. They only serve to drive and expand thoughts and ideas. And what can be wrong with that?
Ya gotta love that First Amendment!