Who Gets Credit for the Killing of Bin Laden?

“Obama killed Bin Laden.” Oye... I understand that this is the easy answer being parroted by many on the left (including in the lamestream media), mainly because the real answer won’t help him get re-elected (none of this will likely help at all – history has shown events like this most often have ZERO lasting positive effect*). I'll explain this very delicately, because if/when Obama is HONEST about his time in office (this typically occurs once a president is out of office), he will admit to the following;


A) Osama bin Laden was killed by a member of Navy SEAL Team Six (AKA: DEVGRU), and NOBODY ELSE. YES, this was under order of the president (more on this later), but Obama DID NOT make the kill, and gets no credit for it (nor should he take any – and I don’t believe he has, per se). As I have said MANY TIMES since the news broke: This is not any person’s victory, and any politician who tries to claim it for themselves or someone else other than the 9-11 victims and their families SHOULD BE PUBLICLY FLOGGED. This is not a victory for the American people. This is also not a military victory. They secured it, TO BE SURE, but it belongs only to the victims and their families. PERIOD.

B) Many in the media are saying things like; “OBAMA gave the order.”, “It happened on his watch.”, etc… These are nice soundbytes, but not much else. I have never been a big fan of either, for reasons which will be explained further throughout this. I will say, concerning “It happened on his watch.”: This is easily one of the dumbest phrases used in modern political reporting. It is only used by folks in a manner which is pleasing to them. They say things like , “9-11 happened on Bush’s watch.”, while ignoring all of the Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda attacks that occurred under Clinton (who had opportunities to get Bin Laden, but didn’t – another fact ignored by the media) AND while refusing to say that the Ft. Hood/Times Square/Detroit runway, etc. incidents happened “on Obama’s watch.” (Hell, they not so quietly were initially HOPING it was a “tea partier” or some militia yokel in each instance). Here is a link to an old post about the Ft. Hood incident (http://politicalrealitywithpubliusx.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-does-buck-not-stop-in-oval-office.html), if you’d care to see more on why this is typically a very unfair statement most often made by folks who have NO CLUE as to what REALLY goes on in daily governmental affairs. When people use phrases like this, they basically prove that they don’t believe that political correctness nor decorum should be two-way streets.

C) Many have tried to say that Obama made a very tough decision here in “giving the order”, even eluding that there were other options. Most former presidents understand, and often admit (usually when they are leaving or have actually left the office), that in situations like this; THERE IS ONLY ONE DECISION. Bush (43) has said, in certain situations, the presidents’ hands are in reality tied by circumstance. The president takes in all the available intel, hopes it’s accurate (mainly because it’s almost always coming from multiple sources, sometimes FOREIGN), and then gives the okay. The reality is; this was the only option. To NOT go for the acquisition or kill would have been a death knell for 2012 had it become public knowledge. To just bomb the compound and HOPE the intel was accurate and that we got him SOMEWHERE in the rubble? Another disaster, both domestically AND internationally (could it have been seen as an act of war, even if we think we found his remains – assuming we’d be allowed to look?). Obama really had no choice but to trust his advisors, hope the intel was good, and then play the waiting game.

D) Finally, the policies which made all of this possible, are not Obama’s to claim. They aren’t even available for Bush (43) to claim.  Although, many were tweaked and/or better implemented during his tenure – a fact necessitated by the changing world after 9-11. Almost all were put in place by previous administrations (Clinton, Bush (41), Reagan, etc…). These are actually policies which CANDIDATE Obama LOATHED, but the reality of the daily operations could not be ignored once he got into office. Actually, I’m waiting for far-left crazies like Dennis Kucinich (Democratic rep. from Ohio who is considering a move to WASHINGTON STATE to try and save his job…) to try and charge Obama with murder, etc. over this… These are policies like, but not limited to;

a. The prison at Guantanamo Bay, and the intel that was gathered there.

b. “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” like WATERBOARDING. Much of this intel was apparently gleaned from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

c. Extraordinary Rendition

*A few modern examples of why this type of event usually has a very short term bump… Just after Desert Storm (about 18 months before the 1992 elections, Bush (41) had an approval rating of over 80%. A number almost unthinkable modernly. He got his BUTT WHIPPED by Clinton. Also, Bush (43) was riding a sky-high wave of gung-ho Americanism following our response to 9-11 and the capture of Saddam Hussein in December of 2003. The latter occurred less than a year before the 2004 elections. Bush BARELY won, although more comfortably than he did in 2000.

Thus, Obama gets no credit.  And, if history is any guide, he should close this chapter out QUICKLY and focus on what will actually help/hurt him in 2012: THE ECONOMY.