Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

After several days of listening to the talking heads analyze and discuss the reasons and circumstances of Osama Bin Laden’s death, I have heard two main theories bandied about. First, some say that Osama’s death was the result of operational conditions, where his aggressive behavior precipitated the much quoted “double tap to the head.” Second, others say that his death was ordered by the administration to avoid any extreme backlash from angry Muslims.  To whit, Boortz posited that if we had taken him alive, then an American family would have immediately been taken hostage somewhere in the world and gruesome, tense ‘negotiations’ would have taken place.

Both theories make sense, but after looking at the now famous situation room photo (a room full of Democrats), one question began looping in my jaded noggin: What are the political implications of ‘kill’ versus ‘capture?’ Upon reflection, it is clear that capturing Osama would create a dichotomy in the value structure of liberals, resulting in a “lose-lose” political quagmire. However, killing him results in similar circumstances.

For example, if the Navy Seals had captured Osama then the ‘humanitarian’ bent of liberals would have been satisfied, but then the administration would also have to DO SOMETHING with him. Obviously, bringing him to US soil would have been political suicide because not even Eric Holder would advocate for local imprisonment and a civilian trial for this guy. Going on, the administration could not send him to one of our allies, because the sane ones wouldn’t even consider it and the insane ones would torture him–negating the ‘feel good’ nature of capture versus kill, and enraging the far left. Finally, Obama could not drop Bin Laden in Gitmo, because that would be the final nail in his ridiculous ‘close-Gitmo’ campaign promise and force him to publicly acknowledge the Bush administration’s rationale for using Gitmo in the first place. I think we all know the chances Obama will give Bush some credit are nil.

Now, let’s consider the ‘kill’ option.  At first glance, killing Osama would further diminish far left support.  However, this is an easy hurdle to jump,given Osama’s reputation.  Even the hippest of hippies can understand putting two bullets in THIS murderer’s head, which speaks to another, larger conversation about how liberal morals shift on a case-by-case basis.  All that is really needed is a valid excuse to kill him, and most people will shrug and say, “Well, they didn’t have much choice, so they HAD to kill him.”  The other political risks of the ‘kill’ option are obvious and well covered in the pund-o-sphere.  Burial-at-sea solves the issue of his grave site becoming  a shrine for other jihadists.  It also provides fuel for the firestorm of questions sure to come out of the conspiracy theory camps of every stripe, which gives the administration an ugly broad brush with which to paint every person who disagrees with them–exactly like the ‘birther’ issue.  (It seems obvious to me that Obama did not release his birth certificate because he could bash every conservative over the head with the issue as long as someone ‘out there’ was screaming about it.)

All other issues with the ‘kill’ option are similarly easy to navigate the dead man’s history, so it becomes apparent that killing Bin Laden is the least politically risky maneuver.  Now that we’ve established that other more disturbing questions come to mind.  If the administration chose the ‘kill’ option based on political expediency, do they have any morals whatsoever?  How big a step would need to be taken for them to choose the kill option against an American for the same reasons?  After all, Obama and Holder both agree that KSM deserves Habeas Corpus, even though he is not an American citizen, but that Al Awlaki (sp?) deserves to be killed on-sight, even though he IS an American citizen!  Can anyone who voted for Obama to take a stand against the Bush administrations ‘assaults on human rights’ still support Obama and be taken seriously?  Can Obama be taken seriously, given that he has seemingly abandoned every one of his core principles, each betrayal occurring for political expediency rather than an honest reassessment of those principles?  Finally, if Obama chooses to cross the ‘kill’ option threshold for political gain again, where does that leave free speech and dissidence in this country?

This is why I am a conservative.  The government’s job is to provide protection from abuse from other humans, and to do so within the limits of an extremely well defined constitution.  History has shown that as governments grow in size and power, they protect less and actually become the abuser.  However, if you’ve been abused by the government, who do you turn to?  Has anyone ever left an audit and felt more powerful, or that they actually have options to protect themselves?  Please, liberal friends, every small freedom that you give up in the name of ‘security’ does far more long term harm than short term good.  Every decision you make should be made from the perspective of your grandchildren, whether you have them yet or not.  To steal a phrase from the environmentalist wackos, ‘We did not inherit the Earth from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children.’  Thanks for listening.

Benjie