There are two issues at play in the intense, fascinating and potentially very dangerous debate taking place between President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney.

The first – less interesting than the second but still pretty riveting – is political. In their dueling speeches on Thursday, Obama and Cheney laid out sharply contrasting views on how American society should deal with terrorism. Obama talked of the rule of law, even delivering the speech in the National Archives, standing directly in front of framed original copies of the US constitution and bill of rights. The president methodically – he had a list of three decisions he'd made, and a second list of five categories of detainees –placed the issue within a legal framework. His critics on the left will remain his critics, especially since he slammed the door pretty firmly shut on an independent commission to investigate past abuses, for example, but at least he explained his legal reasoning.

Cheney, on the other hand, went right for the jugular. He talked, and talked, about 9/11 (funny though, not about Iraq). He threw punches at liberals. He took a huge swipe at the New York Times (no doubt ensuring that a higher percentage of the paper's dwindling investigative resources will be devoted to the pursuit of Cheney). He strafed Obama repeatedly. He echoed Barry Goldwater's famous line about how in the pursuit of liberty, moderation is no virtue, saying: "In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground … half measures keep you half exposed."



I'm guessing it was probably semi-effective. It was also a completely dishonest pack of lies. Lawrence O'Donnell, one of the post-speech cable television commentators, twice used the word "sleazy" to describe Cheney's speech, and sleazy is a good word for it. He said Obama refuses to use the word "terrorist," a word he'd just used in his speech. He mumbled something about how Obama wants to make the American people pay for terrorists' meals and pajamas (in federal prisons), somehow forgetting that the American people have been doing exactly that with regard to Guantanamo detainees for years now, while he was in office.

For Obama, one of the political goals of his speech was to try to get congress to reverse itself and restore funding for the closure of Guantanamo. I thought he made the case pretty well, but the Senate voted against him 90-6. That's a lot of minds to change. So we'll see.

But the second issue here is psychological, and this cuts much deeper than politics. Cheney wants Americans to live in fear. He believes that we should be living in more or less constant fear of another attack. I suppose it probably occurred to him over the years that, when a people are whipped into a fearful state, they tend to hand their leaders more power. But now he's out of office, so this can't be his motivation. I think it's just how he sees the world.

Obama wants to move people beyond fear. "If we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear," he said, "we will make more mistakes." Are the American people up to this? More to the point – and more depressing to consider – are Washington politicians? We will find out as this debate plays out.

In either case, this argument is a long way from being settled. Cheney will see to that. He'll stir the pot the moment he sees the contents settling. But he's really pushing it.

Let's cut to the chase: If, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack on America, Cheney has with this speech ensured that rather than uniting behind the sitting administration – as conservatives insisted we all must do eight years ago – this country will be torn in two. That's a very toxic and dangerous game, and it certainly won't make for a stronger country. Now who's playing politics with national security?