Two speeches, thirty minutes apart, just a few miles down the road from each other, on the same subject, reaching two very different conclusions.  A House Speaker in a pickle over accusations that the CIA has been less than candid.  Republicans and Democrats alike subsequently citing instances of CIA grievances of the past.  And six Democrats who kept their heads while all those around them were losing theirs.

For the pure politics of the moment, it’s been one of the better weeks this year.  We can expect a fairly quiet day today, for it is a long weekend Friday, and news tends to quiet down when there’s no one to hear it.  This average Joe’s take on these events is hard to reduce to a ten word sound bite, and fortunately there is plenty of space for ideas to coalesce.

In Gadfly General Cheney’s speech, he had his eyes solidly focused on all of the days since September 11, 2001, and wants our eyes to see the same vista.  It’s a classic misdirection that any third rate magician and slight of hand artist could execute well, and we shouldn’t be fooled by it from Cheney.

His remarks spoke to the “second look” he and President Bush were required to take at terrorist threats and the possibility of subsequent attacks.  Implicit in that phrase is that there had been a first look, and apparently a first look at which Cheney et als failed miserably and shamefully.  Richard Clark’s unanswered cries of warning went unheeded during those first seven months of the Bush administration, and yet Cheney conveniently overlooks those failings.

Cheney insists on linking the word “legal” with “enhanced interrogation techniques,” no doubt believing in the notion that a lie repeated often enough becomes a “truth” in enough people’s minds to make it so.  His misdirection techniques also include failing to acknowledge that those “enhanced interrogation techniques” have not been practiced on detainees in several years anyway, most of which time had been on his watch.

Think about that for a moment . . . he and the Bush administration held office until January, only four months ago, and yet for several years the practice of torture on detainees had been suspended.  By him.  Still, he now takes full aim at President Obama for announcing that torture will not be a part of his administration.

Again, we’re just average Joes out here, but on logic and reason alone, putting aside the questions of whether the use of torture is legal, and whether truly actionable intelligence was gleaned from its use, Cheney’s words just don’t fly.

Perhaps it’s the sneer, or the curl of his lip, when he speaks.  Or the tough sounding words he uses.  That 37% support he holds from among people surveyed this week is just a mystery, frankly. He has criticized President Obama for announcing the end of a practice Cheney’s administration ended the use of a few years ago; he wants us to believe that Obama’s torture cessation is more dangerous to our country than Cheney’s own cessation of it.

The attack in 2001 was on Cheney’s watch, and it came after repeated warnings to him from within the Bush Administration.  The practices Cheney takes credit for implementing, those he claims have kept us safe from further attack since then, came on his “second look” at the issue of terrorist activities.

These are Cheney’s words, not Obama’s.  These are right out of his very public remarks during these past weeks, hoisting himself on his own pitard, if you will.  And yet, he’s framing the argument and public debate in terms most favorable to his slight of hand trick, and that’s the politics of the moment.

President Obama’s public speaking talents and leadership are being put to the highest test so very early in his administration.  The words need to be found for him to retake the debate, move it in his direction and under his control.  Gadfly Cheney needs to be seen for what he is now – - a misdirecting, revisionist, Grafton Street busker who should just go quietly into the night – - no offense to  true  and truthful buskers intended.