Progressive Wednesdays…Osama, Obama, Abbottabad, Gitmo and Steven Harper….

Progressives this week were frothing at the mouth regarding the raid into Abbottabad Pakistan which killed Osama Bin Laden. In reading most Progressive web sites and blogs the congratulatory chatter was unrelenting. What stood out however was that it was more about George Bush not getting the job done as opposed to Obama succeeding. One blogger crowed “and it only took him 16 hours” another “we should give him another Nobel Peace prize”

 

celebrating

Obama got Osama

When considering the operation that turned bin Laden into a fish meal Obama showed himself capable of making a serious decision.  Perhaps it’s early in this particular game, but I can’t think of any area in this scenario, except for his self congratulatory speech, where Obama comes in for any legitimate criticism.  That may change as we learn more … but for now it’s “job well done, Mr. President.”

 

As the details of the raid begin to slowly trickle out however, we learn the following:

The National Journal reports that:  For Obama, Killing –Not Capturing bin Laden was the goal. “National Journal’s Yochi Dreazen, Aamer Madhani and Marc Ambinder report that capturing bin Laden and bringing him back alive was apparently never a serious option for Obama’s national-security team. Killing him in an audacious attack was always the more elegant solution to the problem he represented.

In the first place, if bin Laden had been captured, the problems related to how to interrogate, imprison him at Gitmo and try him could have made the controversial decisions around the handling of 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Muhammad pale by comparison.”

 

Obama-Not-Osama

I Want You

In an Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street JournalJohn Yoo states; “Mr. Obama’s policies now differ from their Bush counterparts mainly on the issue of interrogation. As Sunday’s operation put so vividly on display, Mr. Obama would rather kill al Qaeda leaders—whether by drones or special ops teams—than wade through the difficult questions raised by their detention. This may have dissuaded Mr. Obama from sending a more robust force to attempt a capture.

 

Early reports are conflicted, but it appears that bin Laden was not armed. He did not have a large retinue of bodyguards—only three other people, the two couriers and bin Laden’s adult son, were killed. Special forces units using nonlethal weaponry might have taken bin Laden alive, as with other senior al Qaeda leaders before him.”

 

bin laden compound

bin Laden compound

The New York Times confirms this : “Osama bin Laden was not carrying a weapon when he was killed by American troops in a fortified house in Pakistan, the White House said Tuesday, as it revised its initial account of the nighttime raid.

 

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, answered reporters’ questions on Tuesday about the details surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden.

Members of a Navy Seals team burst in on Bin Laden in the compound where he was hiding and shot him in a room on an upper floor, after a fierce gun battle with other operatives of Al Qaeda on the first floor.

Bin Laden’s wife, who was with him in the room, “rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed,” said the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, reading from the brief account, which was provided by the Defense Department. “Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.”

 

osama-bin-laden-dead-body-original-picture-500x330

Possibly leaked or a fake

 

 

In John Yoo’s view, if true: “one of the most valuable intelligence opportunities since the beginning of the war has slipped through our hands…..bin Laden was still issuing instructions and funds to a broad terrorist network and would have known where and how to find other key al Qaeda players. His capture, like Saddam Hussein’s in December 2003, would have provided invaluable intelligence and been an even greater example of U.S. military prowess than his death.”

Think Progress of course takes an entirely different view and in a screaming headline announces: ANALYSIS: BUSH’S LACKLUSTER HUNT FOR BIN LADEN!

bush captured osama

“…….. supporters of George W. Bush are “irked” that the former president isn’t getting more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden, despite the droves of conservatives lawmakers and pundits who have been rushing to give Bush equal credit as Obama.

But this praise for Bush relies on rewriting history to obscure the fact Obama re-prioritized the hunt for Bin Laden after Bush had largely abandoned the effort to focus on Iraq.”

So yesterday we had Blah Blah Wawa saying on The View that she “would hate to be a Republican running against Obama.”  According to Neil Boortz: “ That’s going to be spin from the left.  We’re going to be told time and time again over that Obama has been made electorally bulletproof by virtue of two bullets in Osama’s head.  This is more the progressive dream than it is the American reality.  The progs think that those who believe in personal responsibility, freedom and economic liberty are the dark underside of America.  They also know in their hearts that Obama has been a miserable (and utterly predictable) failure as president – bin Laden’s death notwithstanding – and they are grasping at anything that will give them hope for 2012.”

 

Barbara walters

I'd hate to be a Republican........

 

Boortz goes on: “Sure, Obama is going to get a boost in his approval ratings, but they won’t carry him through next year’s election.  And why not?  Consider, if you will….. .  the economy still sucks, the dollar continues to fall, business start-ups continue to be slow (or non-existent) due to the tax and regulatory burdens they face in this country.  Obama continues in his belief that America’s greatness comes from government and that it is his role as our Dear Ruler to seize wealth from those who have produced it and give it to those who have not because that’s “fair”.  Obama’s proposed budgets still call for increased spending in a nation that has spent itself to the brink of insolvency.  In other words … the things that made Obama dangerous to the cause of liberty and our economic future haven’t changed one iota with the death of bin Laden.”

I think a good reality check on what the future holds for Progressives comes from Canada, a country far more liberally inclined than the U.S.  In a story barely reported in the U.S., Canadian Conservative party leader Stephen Harper captured a landslide victory in Monday’s Canadian elections. Mr. Harper has been running the a minority government since 2006 and this time he won big.

 

harper wins

What Canadians want

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Canada avoided America’s housing mania and meltdown, but as our biggest trading partner it shared some of our economic pain. Harper’s conservative policy—low taxes and a willingness to allow the exploitation of rich oil and mineral deposits –has been a life saver for a small economy heavily integrated with the US. Its GDP grew 3.3% last year, compared to America’s 2.9%, and it now takes $1.05 to buy a Canadian dollar.”

 

Aspiring Presidential candidates south of the 49th parallel please take note!

And that’s the way it is here: “a little left of right”

JT

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.