An analysis:

What is most striking is that both are arguing the same thing to the same audience--the American public (irony is never lost in politics). Their purpose, in both cases, is to argue that their respective administrations had to react to the failures of their predecessors, who didn't respond to "new" threats in a coherent and/or systematic way. Their choices of rhetoric are similar at moments (their use of the word "ad hoc" to give their argument a tone of formality/legality, thus credibility), but have different emotional appeals. Obama appeals to "tradition" and "value systems" as a source of integrity and pride. Cheney evokes the fear of 9/11 and what this day represents. The words "threats" and "enemies" are used intentionally to emphasize the correlation with 9/11. Finally, both are guilty of trying to establish their credibility by tarnishing that of another - in other words, "I'm right/better, because the other guys were wrong/incompetent."