Obama The Acquiescent Meets Osama bin Laden
I've read several attempts, or struggles, actually, at trying to understand what may, or may not have happened in and around the Situation Room the night some combination of Intelligence and Military personnel took down Osama bin Laden for the Obama administration. The latest one here via the American Thinker.
Left to his own counsel, would Obama have loaded the weapon let alone pulled the trigger? Was this an authentic act of extinguishing evil or mere political expropriation? The answers to such questions are perhaps less important than that such questions can be asked. And not a single answer, so far, makes any sense.
As for some of the conspiracy theories – Hillary, or Panetta, or whomever made the call, I dismissed them early on and continue to. No matter how much I may disagree with them politically, I refuse to believe any of them would risk initiating what could be seen as an act of war with a nuclear power, however modest, un-Constitutionally.
The first night I Tweeted, Obama may be the only person who could ruin the success for America of taking down Osama bin Laden, as far as the ensuing narrative and press coverage. But, true to form, he has done mostly that. But just as with any decision to kill bin Laden, it isn't because of what others did, or may have done. It was because of his ideology and intellectualism, one that also compelled him to so often vote present in the past, performing precisely as one might expect under the circumstances.
Obama found himself with no other choice. However, I don't believe for a minute he wanted to have bin Laden killed. Everything he represents suggests he would never do that. This is a man who wanted to close Guantanamo, try terrorists as criminals in New York City, a man whose Progressive moral equivalence causes him to see the taking of a life in such manner as an illegal act. But in the end, circumstances left him no other choice – politically.
When Panetta came out and said a death picture was coming, I believe he thought Obama agreed and supported that decision. Unfortunately, anyone who talks to Obama long enough about most anything will likely come away believing Obama somehow agrees with them. In reality, I suspect Obama gives that impression, with or without meaning to, all the while shifting and sorting his cards close to his vest. If Bush was the decider, Obama is the undecider – until his hand is forced, that is.
That's precisely how I gather the operation to take down bin Laden played out. No one set it up without his agreement, though it was likely more with his acquiescence, than agreement, that permitted them to act lawfully while doing it.
Of course, in the end, he was forced by circumstances to make a choice. Given his belief system, combined with his ambition and political realities, what else could he do? Various states and even New York City refused to have even lesser terrorists in their midst back when he tried to make them do that by closing Guantanamo.
If they took bin Laden alive, what was Obama supposed to do with him? Put him in Guantanamo, thereby forcing an even brighter spotlight on one of Obama's earliest and most significant failures – to close it? No, he couldn't do that – not politically, anyway. And no other country would ever consider taking him.
And there you have it. Various agencies, agents and entities did their jobs just as they were supposed to do, creating a set of circumstances in which Obama had no other choice politically. They couldn't simply let him go! So, he did what he always does under those circumstances, the same thing he had done to create them – he acquiesced.
In the end, other than whomever actually pulled the trigger, a bodyguard following instructions, or a brave member of SEAL Team Six that, one or the other of them acting as trained and instucted under their own circumstances, no one actually decided to kill Osama bin Laden – it was circumstances.
In some ways, no one killed Osama bin Laden. But then, who, or what, other than no one, or some unknown figure, has Obama appeared to be to most Americans since they closed the campaign down in 2008? He's precisely what an adivser recently said he is – someone who leads from behind, if it can be said he leads at all.
Ironically enough, one might just as easily conclude that it was former President Bush who killed Osama bin Laden in the end. He was, after all, the individual who created the circumstances, despite Obama's failed steps to prevent or subvert them, that painted Obama into the corner in which he found himself the night he acquiesced and bin Laden took a bullet in the head for reasons and circumstances created around Obama, as opposed to by his hand.
Hell, maybe the best answer is, America killed Osama bin Laden, regardless of who the serving President happened to be at the time.
Finally, it's also likely that because Obama doesn't quite feel that his hands are entirely clean in the killing that we're now seeing such a clusterf*ck of a media whirl in the after math. It's often been noted that presidencies age most men quickly. I'd wager Obama is learning the truth of that phenomenon, more than anything, from the circumstances he finds himself in now.