We previously discussed the unease that many of us felt with the celebrations that occurred over the killing of Bin Laden and the later use of the killing to bolster the Obama campaign. This discomfort increased recently with an Obama commercial that unfairly suggested that Governor Mitt Romney would not have ordered the operation to go forward. Just in case anyone thought that was a tasteless and baseless campaign pitch by an overzealous Obama aide, the President himself just reaffirmed that message in a press conference with the Prime Minister of Japan this afternoon. It appears that, while the Administration will again bar the release of photos to the media and the public of the operation, they are eager to drag the body of Bin Laden behind the presidential limo to every possible campaign stop.
Recently, Vice President Joe Biden called the President’s ordering the operation as the most audacious plan in 500 years — apparently dwarfing Washington’s crossing of the Delaware and a number of other minor skirmishes. The thrust of these comments is that the President was the brave one to risk the political fallout of an unsuccessful operation.
We previously saw a squabble between Bush and Obama on who can claim part of the scalp of Bin Laden. It is clear that the President has decided to abandon his promise not to engage in excessive celebration or self-aggrandizement over the killing. I suppose there is now regret in the White House that they decide to forgo the taxidermist option in favor of the ocean disposal.
In the press conference, Obama seemed eager to suggest that Romney doesn’t have the guts to kill people, even our most hated enemies.
“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden. I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that’s been at least my practice. I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him–and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.
I suppose that explanation will now trigger a contest on how more willing each man is to order killings like some natural-born killer. With Obama recently claiming the right to kill citizens on his sole authority, that could be a dangerous race to the bottom. Romney is already insisting that he would have ordered the same killing.
Former and current Seal members criticized the President for using the operation in a political ad. Here is the commercial that ran in the last week:
The concerted attack appears to be based on Romney’s statement in 2007 that he believe that it was “not worth moving heaven and earth … just trying to catch one person.” That was a reasonable statement and one that many in the military appeared to agree with.
The use of the killing of Bin Laden as a campaign trophy is as unfair to Romney, unseemly of Obama, and unbecoming to the presidency. The President’s remarks this afternoon should be condemned by every citizen regardless of party affiliation.
Here is the press conference:
Mike S.,
In re your comments of 11:03 and 11:13, I laughed and laughed until I remembered that what you were saying was true.
Gyges,
“So no, he doesn’t have to ignore the attacks, but he doesn’t have to answer them with bloody militaristic appeals to mankind’s worse nature either.”
Remember that politics and Washington are the arts and Hollywood for ugly and/or talentless people.
“If it bleeds, it leads” and “sex sells” still apply.
That being said, Obama’s actions in this matter are as tasteless as they are expected.
Beyond the fact that our corporate controlled media sets up the narrative and that money helps to buy public opinion, the messy fact of our electoral system is that you have to get enough votes to win the electoral college. As the link below shows the public approved of the Bin Laden killing. The public also believes generally in the concept of the America President being “strong”. While “strong” is an adjective that doesn’t lend itself to precise definition in political terms, it has been a defining meme of American politics since the
founding of our country.
Many principled people somehow believe that it is “facts” and “ideals” that should drive the electorate, but time and again we have seen “facts” and “ideals” fall short of the mark of electoral persuasiveness. Like it or not (and I for one don’t like it), since the inception of the “Cold War” there has been a bi-partisan consensus among Americans that approves of our country acting as an imperial power. This consensus is an unreasonable one, yet it will not be
broken by the use of reason, since it has attained the status of conventional wisdom. To ask Obama to go against the consensus, is to ask him to consign himself to political defeat, in a service of little value to those who have suffered through more than 32 years of Right Wing attacks on anyone not of the 1%.
Give the above, the only real issues of this coming election are the domestic ones dealing with the economy, health care, jobs, women’s rights and the encroachment of religious tyranny. I am quite pained and angered by the death and destruction rained on foreign peoples by the predation of America foreign policy. At present we who decry it can do little more than decry it, since for the most part the American people believe in dubious foreign adventure, when stirred into false fears of imminent disaster. The murder of innocent Iraqi’s and Afghan’s is awful, yet the murder of the lives of many at home via draconian social policies, racism and lack of health care coverage deserves just as much attention. Whoever wins this year will not be able to make much difference against the predation of the MI Complex/Oil Wealth who will continue to control the narrative. There will be a distinct difference though between the total dismantling of the social safety net, lowered health care protections, laws crafted to advance religious fundamentalism and aimed at the further oppression of women and people of color. Call me a cold blooded pragmatist, but I believe we need to protect the home-front, since my empathy for those suffering here is as great as for those suffering abroad from American foreign/military policy. We need to change America’s imperial foreign entanglements, but more importantly we need to first deal with the deterioration at home. If we don’t, then even more military service will become a lone, viable career option for Americans and our country will come to resemble the home-land of the Hessians.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/bin-ladens-killing-helps-presidents-poll-numbers/
“gee, Gyges, lets not talk about wyatt earp coming into town and killing the bad guys when he runs for sheriff. and lets not talk about words from the Romney like “if Obama gets elected Iran gets the bomb but not if he gets elected”. No of course not, the electorit is really smart and they get we should just talk about the issues.”
Setting aside just how historically inaccurate that comparison is(The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral was hardly just ‘Wyatt Earp comes in and kills the bad guys. It’s a fascinating example of different groups of people supporting those who they perceive to be acting for their interests or even just against the interests of their enemies. And the ability of people to overlooking and excuse moral failings in allies There’s also a good bit of the winner writing history thrown in. So I guess it is a good analogy, just not in the way you think):
There’s a difference between “Since I was sheriff there’s been a sharp decline in cattle thefts, so re-elect me,” and “I was involved in the death of 6 men so re-elect me.”
As you just demonstrated, it’s entirely possible to redirect a conversation (I mean, you went from “This doesn’t recognize reality” to “Obama’s like a sheriff” completely ignoring my request for clarification). If you can do it, in a direct dialogue surely a skilled orator like our President can, especially when he has so many OTHER things to brag about, and isn’t talking directly to the people whose attacks he’s addressing. He’s more than able to prove his foriegn policy is effective without hanging the heads of his foes over the fire place.
In fact this is a GREAT opportunity to highlight the differences between his foreign policy philosophy and that of the Republicans. Can you imagine just how feeble they’d look if he said “they have one tool, killing. While I recognize that sometimes human lives must be taken or lost in the protecting of the innocent, I also realize that that’s a last resort. The dramatic decline in innocent lives lost to terrorist attacks during my administration speaks for itself as to the effectiveness of my tactics.”
So no, he doesn’t have to ignore the attacks, but he doesn’t have to answer them with bloody militaristic appeals to mankind’s worse nature either.
Well said Swarthmore. The Right of George W. Bush’s day is now the Left or middle of the Democratic Party. The new Right is so far to the Right, that the 1950’s are going to look downright enlightened if the Republicans get control of both houses. I do believe that the Senate will stay Democratic,and that Obama will defeat Romney. However, I am still in the air as to the results in the House.
1zb1, It has been 32 years since Carter was beaten by Reagan, and the republicans are still using him to portray the democrats as weak on defense.
1zb1. Don’t you know that democrats are just supposed to stand around and get attacked for being weak like Michael Dukakis and Jimmy Carter? lol
gee, Gyges, lets not talk about wyatt earp coming into town and killing the bad guys when he runs for sheriff. and lets not talk about words from the Romney like “if Obama gets elected Iran gets the bomb but not if he gets elected”. No of course not, the electorit is really smart and they get we should just talk about the issues.
please will you and jt put out your list of what we can and can not talk about. obviousely, according to you and jt we should not talk about abortion, healthcare, education, environment, taxs either because the fact is people are going to die based on the choice politicians make on those issues.
this is just another one of those made up phoney debates created by the right for politics and promoted (exploited) by jt with his comments even to the point of using his conjecture in an intellectually dishonest way.
SwM,
Since they purposely have not named an opponent to Brown, the best recourse is to run against the “outside” money from groups like the Chamber. The idea of men and women debating each other and seeking votes has been completely skewed by Citizens United. No one is named as a candidate and the campaign against the incumbent is well underway when, at the last minute, the opponent steps in. It’s democracy as a joke and we owe it all to the Supreme Court.
“recognition of the fact that American politicians are much more likely to respond to a grass roots movement then they are to lead it” (Gyges)
Excellent insight
1zb1,
“as to my original comment i do believe – and I find this issue with jt and many others on this site – is a disconnect between the world we all would like, and the world we have – a disconnect between the real world and the idealized abstract (and even a disconnect between comments and facts).”
So putting pressure on elected officials to not use certain rhetoric is not recognizing the real world? How so? I’d say just the opposite, it’s a recognition of the connection between speech patterns and actions, with a bit of recognition of the fact that American politicians are much more likely to respond to a grass roots movement then they are to lead it.
Let’s not forget the criticism here isn’t “Osama shouldn’t have been shot.” the criticism here is “President Obama shouldn’t be using a specific person’s death as a campaign issue.”
“I suppose there is now regret in the White House that they decide to forgo the taxidermist option in favor of the ocean disposal.” JT——————–
—————————–
With both houses with him, he might get Bin Laden approved for a monument on the Mall, a token of all the evil we have vanquished. As it is, Bin Laden is a poster child now for the terror war. Wonder when we get a domestic replacement to poster-up for that part? Any volunteers? ID707
———————————
“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden. I assume that people meant what they said when they said it.” Obama
—————————-
Of course Big O. has never contradicted or changed his mind, even backpedaled. Both of them are playing the military’s game ID707
—————————–
“The use of the killing of Bin Laden as a campaign trophy is as unfair to Romney, unseemly of Obama, and unbecoming to the presidency. The President’s remarks this afternoon should be condemned by every citizen regardless of party affiliation.” JT———————————-
Where do I climb on the righteous bandwagon. Obama’s was certainly the smallest flag I’ve seen waven, so far. That it was full of holes shows his campaign manager is not so smart, and neither is he.
But how irrelevant can you be, if you expect seemliness in a man fighting for office against the most evil corporotacracy in this world.
ID707
Written before viewing the comments above.
Blouise, The democrats are predicted to lose or go 50- 50 in the Senate. If Obama loses, the republicans will have full control. I got an email from Brown’s campaign and I am going to send a contribution right now. The Koch Bros are attempting to buy back the Senate with help from some Texas billionaires among others. They want even lower tax rates on the very wealthy and the right to pollute without much restriction, and Romney has promised that. Plus, the catholic bishops will get their way on contraception with Romney and a republican Senate. It is amazing that when we formerly talked about the right to chose, we meant abortion. Now the bar has been moved so far back that we are discussing the right to contraception.
“To suggest that any president wouldn’t have went with this is amatuer”.
Jeff Metz,
It’s good to see a comment from someone as objective as yourself. However,
GW Bush didn’t order this and even said he did’t care about Bin Laden. That could be of course because of his family’s being Saudi serfs. I seem to remember that G.H.W. Bush spent the day of 9/11 watching TV with Bin Laden’s older brother. I also remember that though the perpetrators were almost all Saudi’s, a special plane carrying prominent Saudi’s left the U.S. (on a no-fly day) before anyone could be questioned. This was a rather curious thing to do, but then a serf must protect its master. Now in your case is it that you forget history because of a short attention span, or you ignore it because facts only upset your pre-judgments?
SwM,
Re your link to the Hill piece … it is no exaggeration. The third party money started flowing into Ohio a few months ago and they are after Brown’s seat with a vengeance. We are prepared to fight them but it’s going to be one hell of a battle.
bron, glad you enjoyed… no hard feelings..
on the other hand, clearly jm has no sense of humor – or reality.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/224671-gop-money-floods-into-senates-battlegrounds
izb1:
that was funny. thanks for the laugh.
I’m sticking with Krugman…we’re doomed.
This is simply a campaign mistake. The call to go for bin Laden was easy. Intelligence and SEAL Team 6 did the work. To suggest that any president wouldn’t have went with this is amatuer. The President’s true problem lies with the fact that he has virtually nothing else to claim as progress. His first 4 years have been a disaster by all accounts.
Jeff Metz
http://www.mostly-right.com