Even as information comes our showing Obama’s hesitation in the run-up to Sunday’s successful operation to kill Osama bin Laden and as the White House bungles in providing that information, the fact remains that the operation succeeded. And that President Obama gave it the go-ahead. While many people contributed to its success, most notably Navy SEALs, the president deserves a great deal of credit. And I for one am hesitant to criticize him on this — or other matters — at present.
Let this be a moment of national unity when we all rejoice that the man who declared war on the United States first in 1996 and then again in 1998 has, thanks to our men at arms, lost the ability to declare war on anyone. I agree with Allahpundit that it’s “fitting” for the president to visit Ground Zero on Thursday to “mark Bin Laden’s demise by paying his respects on the public’s behalf. And if that respect-paying just so happens to produce a 24-karat photo op for his upcoming campaign, well, that’s his reward for icing the man Americans hate most.”
That blogger eminds us that the immediate past president would likely have
. . . have done the same thing and, yes, unquestionably, the left would have screeched about “politicization,” but I would have taken his side then so I’ll take The One’s side now. So much goodwill has he earned in the last 24 hours, in fact, that not only are Republican leaders congratulating him but even — gasp — Donald Trump is patting him on the back.
The President of the United States should be allowed to get some political capital out of his accomplishments. And yet when a Republican does it, we see the mainstream media castigate him for politicizing national security or whatnot. Recall how back in 2004, when then-President George W. Bush released his first ad, the media went apoplectic that he used an image from 9/11 — as if it were blasphemy, violating some sacred compact, to show that good man’s determination in the face of attack.
Instead of castigating Obama, however, many in the media will make his decision to go-ahead with this operation the defining moment of his administration.
Let me stress, Barack Obama got this one right. And he deserves his victory lap. As do all politicians with similar accomplishments.
ADDENDUM: Our reader Heliotrope offers a classy gesture the president could make, “Obama is going to visit Ground Zero on Thursday. It would be appropriate to invite GW Bush to accompany him.”
UPDATE: Looks like the president did as Heliotrope suggested and his predecessor declined:
Former President George W. Bush has turned down President Barack Obama’s invitation to join him at ground zero on Thursday, citing his desire to avoid the media glare.
“President Bush appreciated the invite, but has chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight,” Bush spokesman David Sherzer told POLITICO in an email Tuesday night. “He continues to celebrate with all Americans this important victory in the war on terror.”
Classy move on both men’s parts. Obama to include Bush. Bush to stay home so as not to upstage the incumbent. (Via Weasel Zippers via a friend’s Facebook).
UP-UPDATE: An Instapundit reader offers an alternative explanation: “Maybe Bush didn’t want to be dissed in person, the way Obama sandbagged the Supremes last year and Ryan this year.” Ace offers a similar explanation: “Bush Declines, Deciding He’ll Pass On The Level of Courtesy and Respect Obama Showed Paul Ryan:
And the Supreme Court, of course.
Yes, come on down, and sit mutely as as President Obama insults you repeatedly while controlling the microphone and camera.
UP-UP-UPDATE: Allahpundit offers two explanations:
One: Bush recognizes that this is, more or less, an Obama campaign commercial and would rather not be part of it. Two: Bush doesn’t want to encroach on the singular role that Obama, as president, should rightly have in leading the ceremonies marking Bin Laden’s demise. Given how gracious Dubya has been in retirement, does anyone doubt that the second explanation is correct?
Needless to say, it was also gracious of The One to invite him.
Well, he sure as hell can’t do any victory laps around factories or gas stations.
I’d love to give Obama some credit, but then I remember a lot of people a few years ago telling me how smart they were for being able to see through the evil machinations of how diabolical American Presidents use military action to distract the American people from their incompetence dealing with domestic issues, specifically a lousy economy, and I stop myself from being pulled into believing the subterfuge. I want to be a smart person too, so I better agree with them.
Bread and circuses and all that, ya know.
I am told Obama did invite Bush, but Bush remembered how this president has treated other invited guests (Paul Ryan, the Supreme Court) and politely declined.
Yes and no. Obama did the right thing, no question. On the other hand, other people did the work; and in asking for that work, Obama did what Bush did, and what any middlin’ President (say, Ford or Kennedy) should have done.
So once more, we praise Obama because he has met a *minimum* standard for Presidential competence. Isn’t that the story of Obama’s life? – that, because of his special background (abandoned by his father, biracial, etc.) he is praised for being there and doing the minimum we’d expect of another?
For what, exactly? All he had to do was say “Yes” or “No” on the question of taking out Bin Laden. Are we supposed to give him credit for not voting “present?” In what way was this a difficult decision? (Especially since he, unlike Bush, knew the media would back him to the hilt no matter what he did.)
Obama gets a gold medal for making a decision Corky from “Life Goes On” could have handled. Is this the presidency or the Special Olympics?
There’s scuttlebutt that Obama voted “present” while Panetta gave the go-ahead.
V the K –
Actually, there were quite a few decisions he had to make. Given that they found the house last August, he had to determine:
1) if there was enough evidence that OBL was even there
2) whether or not to drop a huge bomb on it (easier route, but risking collateral damage and loss of valuable evidence)
3) whether to put SEALs’ lives at risk by authorizing the raid (putting men in harm’s way and risking a Black Hawk Down type fiasco, but higher reward including trove of computer assets)
4) whether or not to inform Pakistan prior to the raid (inform an ally, or risk them informing OBL)
As much as you may dislike the president, acting as though everything happened around him and his only responsibility was to say “Yes” is intellectually dishonest. Getting from the intel to Sunday’s raid took a lot of planning and decision making by lots of people, including the President. I guarantee you that if the Black Hawk Down scenario happened, you would absolutely be blaming him and him alone for that. If you’re willing to blame him when things go wrong, then you should be willing to give him credit when things go right.
1) The intelligence people determine(d) this
2) The intelligence and military people had a recommendation (to not bomb)
3) The kind of decision we expect a President to make; what he’s paid to do
4) Continuing to inform Pakistan, AFTER (or GIVEN) years of proof that they would only pass it on to OBL and protect him again, would have been a mark of Presidential incompetence.
So again: Obama did the right thing… the minimum we would expect of Bush or any halfway decent President. I definitely give him credit here, for meeting the minimums.
Speak o’ the devil: Time has an article up, describing the decision to not inform Pakistan as basically the CIA’s: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/cia-chief-breaks-silence-u-s-ruled-out-involving-pakistan-in-bin-laden-raid-early-on/
This article makes Obama’s role sound circumstantial and passive:
Is Panetta enlarging his own role at Obama’s expense, a la Colin Powell? But Obama just promoted the guy, a sign of strong reliance on him.
“There’s scuttlebutt that Obama voted “present” while Panetta gave the go-ahead.”
The President doesn’t have to “vote”, he can express concerns or doubt he he makes the yes/no binary decision.
You many not know this but in America, the responsibility for these decisions fall directly on the Commander-in-Chief.
But nice use of the word “scuttlebutt” with words like that I’m sure you have a direct ear into United States Central Command.
And Obama’s victory lap is, in the end, likely another case of manufactured talking points:
Umm… How about it not being about either man? How about it being about the Islamist threat? and about the vast numbers of otherwise-unsung heroes working to defeat it?
“Umm… How about it not being about either man? How about it being about the Islamist threat? and about the vast numbers of otherwise-unsung heroes working to defeat it?”
How about doing something that you’ll never do anyway and give our President the credit for green lighting one of the most risky and dangerous operations in American history?
ILoveCapitalism – Points taken (though I think calling Obama’s role “passive” is a little unfair). In the end, he still had to weigh all the options and make the final decision (and take the blame if things went south. We only need to look at Carter to see the proof of that). B. Daniel Blatt is right to say that the president deserves a great deal of credit.
I don’t agree with people with say that is was all Bush’s doing and he deserves all the credit or with people that say Obama alone did this he deserves all the credit. This was clearly a case of a lot of departments and teams working together for many years to produce this result. (That the political operatives want to politicize it does not surprise me)
Regardless, comparing Obama’s role to the Special Olympics was a snide and childish remark.
Were I of a cynical bent, I’d predict that the movie will come out next summer just as the Presidential campaign is heating up.
Possibly. I won’t lay down in the railroad tracks for it; as stated, I was going off an article that gave one side of the story (Panetta’s).
Conceded.
I don’t know anyone who says that. I think the people inclined to give Bush *some* credit overlap with the people inclined to give the military and intelligence communities *primary* credit.
I love V’s stuff, but this once, I might have to give you a little bit there, too. I’ve stated my view, that Obama’s action is the minimum we would expect of an average President like (say) Bush, Kennedy or Ford. But the decisions of the average President are still harder than the decisions of the average person. Heck, this was a decision to do a unilateral, extralegal killing – and I can hardly decide whether I should go long or short on silver right now, a simple investment decision.
Already did that, Dave.
Here’s an idea for you Dave: How about you actually reading the person’s comments – in the same thread, even – before you spout on them?
You mean when BJ had the audacity to refuse a request, by SF, for more gear and more support which resulted in the deaths of 18 American soldiers, 73 wounded and one captured? Yeah, I would.
Oh shit! Another literalist.
Once again, a liberal bases his argument on how he imagines a conservative would respond in a hypothetical situation; this is not a valid form of argument, this is fantasizing that you can read minds.
With the four threads currently on this blog praising Obama for this no-brainer decision, it’s like you had a whole bunch of people who got together and baked a cake, frosted it, and set it on the table… and Obama is being congratulated for blowing out the candle.
V,
Shouldn’t that be snuffed out the candle? 😉
Obama keeps changing the story of Bin Laden’s death; therefore, the indecisive dithering fool re-emerges regardless of circumstances. The bump is minimal as inflation from energy, food, clothes, etc al climb, gas prices get higher, & Obama talks about his Communist green initiatives along with Amnesty 2.0.
I do not doubt that it was a righteous kill….but I wish that the Obama admin. could at-least get their stories straight about how it went down. OBL was armed, he wasn’t armed, he resisted…or he was executed. It allows maneuvering room for the Western apologists for Al-Qaeda and the radical propagandists to portray OBL as a hero and martyr.
Now, they are bungling the release of the photos. I don’t think we should release the photos. But telling everyone the reason we are not releasing them is due to the fear of the extremist Islamic angry boy’s reaction is wrong.
The message should have been :
We are not releasing the photos for humanitarian reasons. The photos are gruesome. Our intent is to honor those who have dishonored us. It is one of the things that makes us different.
Score one more for the extremist Islamic angry boy.
We learn that the SEALs were told to assassinate/execute/kill Osama bin Laden if he was not naked when then reached him. This, we are told, is because bin Laden might be wearing a suicide vest.
In the grand scheme of things, how much harder would it have been for the SEALs to wrap him in duct tape and bring his living, breathing self out alive?
We would have had all the intel, plus the big guy and no questions about whether it was bin Laden or a double.
Obama bin Diddlin could have put Osama bin Laden on trial in New York City with the whole ACLU representing him and full Constitutional protection and all the stuff he has been so hot to do since the very beginning of his reign.
Why didn’t Obama bin Diddlin bring that bad boy to good, clean Progressive, Eric Holder style justice? Why did Obama bin Diddlin order his SEALs to blow Osama up unless he was naked? Why didn’t Obama bin Diddlin just cream the million dollar mansion chicken coop and pig sty with a drone attack and be done with it?
Now Obama bin Diddlin says we can’t release the photos because of irking Muslim sensitivities. I thought people jumping from the Twin Towers and crashing loudly onto the lower roofs was fairly insensitive. And I thought passing out candy to the children of the Middle East in celebration was a tad insensitive as well.
So can someone explain the tactics of the smartest President in the history of the United States to me. Speak slowly, I am pretty stupid.
Heliotrope – I’ll take a stab at it at explaining it to you (from my perspective at least)….
Seems pretty obvious to me that taking him alive would present a whole new set of problems. A normal civilian trial would be a security nightmare (before, during, and after the trial), give OBL a platform for his views, cause those opposed to a non-military tribunal (such as yourself) to throw a fit, and just generally turn the whole thing into a circus spectacle. Putting him through a military tribunal at Gitmo (with all of its associations with torture) would be a recruiting wet dream for Al-Qaida. Either way, he would end up dead. Why bother with the hassle? Not to mention that the mission was risky enough without trying to take him alive. Imagine if he had a suicide vest on, or a lot of fighters, or bobby-trapped the house. Any situation where he escaped or our troops didn’t come out alive would again be a recruiting goldmine for Al-Qaida.
As for not drone attacking the house, it would destroy most if not all of the evidence, including whether it was him or not along with any or all computer equipment or other intel opportunities. In addition, if it turned out to be the wrong house, the diplomatic uproar would be pretty significant (yet another win for Al-Qaida)
As for releasing the photograph(s), there is nothing to gain and a lot (potentially) to lose. Those who don’t believe he’s really dead still won’t believe it, but the threat of retaliation puts our troops’ lives and our missions overseas at danger. If I were a snarky one, I would ask you why you hate our troops so much?
Heliotrope –
Regarding the drone attack on the house, here’s an article about some of the info we’ve gathered from the raid. We wouldn’t have gotten this info if we blew the house to smithereens…..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/3/how-bin-laden-led-operations/
Thanks, Alan.
On Sunday, I applauded Obama. Today, I think he is driving the Keystone Kops Krazy Kar.
If we took Osama alive, I would want him taken to Gitmo and interrogated until his beard fell out. I would waterboard him. I would play him off the other prisoners and make them hate him for giving them up. I would be nearly merciless on him.
I am delighted we got so much stuff out of his “million dollar mansion” dump. I would not be broadcasting it like a bantam rooster. I would not even mention it. I would worry the cockroaches in al Qaeda and make them scurry out into the light.
Obama dithered and dithered and had Panetta nipping at his heels to get off the pot. We released the pictures of the Hussein monsters and Osama’s mutilated body will not cause any much more stir than Saddam’s dangling corpse aroused.
I am thinking I will withdraw my support for Obama’s dithering “action.” If we were a banana republic, the colonels would have already overthrown the empty-suit-in-chief.
Now here is my full blown conspiracy theory: Pakistan was in on this and pressuring Obama to act. This whole thing is so full of plausible deniability that it almost comes off as a “B-Grade” movie.
How do you drop two helicopters down almost on top of the military training center, fire guns, blow up a helicopter and spend 40 minutes rampaging through a “million dollar mansion” chicken-coop and not draw nearby military attention? They don’t have any rockets around to bring down some helicopters? They couldn’t whip a few hundred yards down the road and seal off a goat-barn “million dollar mansion” put together with mud and chunks of junk? What is the Pakistani military academy training – scarecrows?
This story is rapidly becoming the laugh riot of the gang who couldn’t lie straight.
How do you tip a board and ease a body into the sea from an aircraft carrier. A 30 foot drop is not easing, it is dumping.
Come on, folks, this sorry joke has turned really lame and weak.
Heliotrope –
I agree about Pakistan being involved. Like you, I just can’t see how we could have pulled it off with some level of compliance/cooperation on their part. Although I’m not sure I buy them pressuring us to act. I’ve read that the Wikileaks dump last week included documents referencing couriers and Abbotabad. I wouldn’t be surprised if that helped tip their hands.
I’m split about the broadcasting of the dump. My initial reaction was “What the hell are you doing?!? Don’t tell everyone what you have if you haven’t had a chance to act on it”. But I’m wondering if there isn’t some larger strategy around this? If they can keep an operation like this raid secret for 8 months, it seems that some of this might be some “strategic” leaking. I keep reading about how they will try to use the raid to work towards negotiation for the Taliban’s surrender. There’s a part of me that hopes these leaks are part of that larger strategy to put pressure on the Taliban and Al-Qaida by making it clear that we’re coming for them. But I’m willing to admit that that just might be a big pile of wishful thinking on my part.
Unfortunately, we have a president with nothing else to brag about; so expect him to flog this for a long time. Like Al Bundy talking about the time he scored six touchdowns for Polk High.
Because that’s reserved for the CIA officials who contributed to Chairman Obama’s single victory.
TGC,
You raise a point that parallels my greatest fear. The SEAL who shot bin Laden is known. At some point, some glory-mouth like Biden is just going to burst open and tell the world who it was, because he is so intoxicated by being able to blurt out the secret.
Biden already spilled the SEAL identification. Now the “people’s right to know” press is scouring Virginia Beach and San Diego to glean who, by name, was involved in the mission. Before long, we will see a formal picture of a proud military lad with the caption: The Man Who Shot Osama bin Laden. The lad will be identified and the theme will be that the choice of “dead or alive” was his alone.
The radical Muslim world with fatwah him and the liberals will ACLU you him into court to justify his actions.
By the way, if you want to get information on this Osama business, you have to read the British press. The MSM in the US is three beats behind and often they just don’t report.
By the way, if you want to get information on this Osama business, you have to read the British press. The MSM in the US is three beats behind and often they just don’t report.
Of course.
The British press has no qualms about questioning and calling out their own monarchy, so it’s no surprise that they would be even less deferential to King Barack the Narcissist.