Tyrant de Jour

I first learned of the death of Osama bin Laden while at work Sunday night. One of my co-workers called me a little while after he’d already left and gave me the news. I haven’t quite identified my exact emotions at that moment and through the rest of the night, but it was some combination of shock and excitement. Over the next 24 hours, those emotions would come to include bits of relief, satisfaction, and—yes—even pride.

I’ll save the questions of celebrating death for another time, for what I’m interested in here is that, amazingly enough, it seemed at first that this historic event had actually provided a story around which the country could (mostly) unify. Even those who might not actively celebrate the killing of another human being could theoretically see it as the completion of a necessary evil. Again, not a total unity, but closer than we’ve been in quite some time. At least something that could make us step back for a second, set aside partisan disagreements, and exclaim in unison, “Holy crap. We finally got him.”

The operation that took place this weekend, and all the events leading up to it, entail with them a range of issues worth debating and discussing. One doesn’t “permanently compromise” the number one terrorist in the world without invoking some degree of controversy, after all.

Understandably, then, certain points are worthy of debate. Among these would be such items as: violating the national sovereignty of a supposed ally; said ally’s apparent incompetence or potential collusion with public enemy #1; the release of post-mortem photos of numero uno; and finally, in what I think could make for a very worthy discussion, the potential use of waterboarding in extracting intelligence critical to the completion of the mission.

Oh yes, and I can’t forget: did we fake the moon landing?And what really happened to Biggie and Tupac?

And some, thankfully, have started addressing these issues. These discussions are not only taking place, but they also aren’t necessarily falling strictly on party lines. Which in and of itself shows this is something unique.

Not everyone is taking this approach, however.

For the record, I voted for Obama. I have not been pleased with every action he’s taken (nor did I expect to be), but thus far, I wouldn’t say I regret my vote either. If anything, I feel more comfortable saying that now than I did when so many people seemed to think they were voting Jesus into the White House. The point of this, however, is to say that I will defend him when I think he’s worth defending, and likewise criticize him when I feel it appropriate.

There seems to be this spreading perception out there that Obama has been claiming undue credit for the success of this weekend’s mission, hoping to use it as a political tool and ignoring the accomplishments and work of those around him. I have seen people being very quick to say that, “Obama didn’t kill Osama—a soldier did,” or, “Obama is taking credit for George Bush’s work,” or—more specifically—“The only reason we got Osama was because of tactics [e.g. waterboarding] that Obama banned—he doesn’t deserve credit.”

For those who might feel the President is taking undue credit, I would direct them to a transcript of his speech from Sunday night. Note:

1. He acknowledges multiple times the efforts of ten years of work by the military and intelligence communities. He thanks the communities in general, and also specifically points out the team who carried out the operation.

2. No, he did not thank Bush by name. Even though I think there’s at least a decent argument against his need to thank Bush, if nothing else, yes, it would have been a nice gesture of bipartisanship. Might I point out, though, that he does reference Bush positively in regards to his outreach to Muslims following 9/11. Plus, even if tactics used during the Bush administration (e.g. waterboarding) were instrumental in extracting key intelligence, the fact that Bush was still subsequently unable to capture bin Laden during his tenure shows that the Obama administration apparently did something right  [more on that in a moment].

3. Nowhere does he thank himself or claim credit for the success of the mission. The only points at which he even mentions himself is explaining the sequence of events leading up to the mission [e.g. “I made decision X to do X,” "I ordered X to do X"]. This is what Presidents do: they make decisions. This is a narrative--not self-aggrandizement in the least.

However, some may still argue that, even if the President himself is not actively claiming undue credit, we as a people are still giving it to him. Much of this seems to arise from proclamations like, “President Obama killed/got/‘permanently compromised’ Osama bin Laden.” Some feel it necessary to point out that it wasn’t Barack Obama who stormed the Abbottabad compound and put two bullets in bin Laden’s head—it was members of the U.S. armed forces.

I would think that everyone is well aware that Obama hasn’t been re-enacting his favorite moments from Call of Duty any time lately. Saying “Obama got bin Laden” is the same as saying “Bush got Sadaam” or “Lincoln invaded the South” or any other reference to an action taken under a given president’s administration. To take it from the complete opposite angle, by this logic, one might even argue that bin Laden couldn't be blamed for 9/11 since he wasn't on board the planes.

Of course Obama’s not the one who put the bullets in bin Laden’s head. He is the one, however, who gave the orders for the mission to go ahead, and thus should be credited for that decision. If something had gone horribly wrong Sunday and the events had come to light, I have a strong suspicion that those slow to give any modicum of credit to the President would have no problem heaping blame upon him.

What I think this reveals, and what I might have taken away from the last three days more than anything else, is the existence of a blinding negativity towards our President steeped in something between ignorance and hatred. I do not use the words “hate” or “hatred” very often, for they are indeed very strong words. This is part of why I feel (or hope) that at least most of this is based on ignorance.

But the fact is that I am unable to come up with other reasons why people should be so loathe to acknowledge one positive thing the man does. It’s as bad as (if not worse than) how certain segments of the Left were under Bush. Only now, instead of having Hitler in power, we have Lenin…or still Hitler. Honestly, at this point, I've lost track of what tyrannical maniac is supposedly running our country.

Disagree with him, yes. Criticize him, of course. Because there are plenty of fruitful opportunities for such, and it is not mere differences of opinion or even general dislike to which I'm referring in this entry. But don’t let your ideological divergence cloud your reason so much that you are incapable of recognizing it whenever he—directly or through the actions of his executors—succeeds.

[Though I admittedly didn't live up to my own exhortation to ask questions this time around, that will come in later entries.]