"You wouldn't support this if Bush did it."

[Robb]

It struck me today, albeit reluctantly, that perhaps the argument "You wouldn't support this if Bush did it!" is more salient than I suspected. Hear me out, if you will -- both sides, please.

In my heart, yes, I'd have supported killing either of those guys under any administration. I'm well-known as an admitted hawk on all matters al-Qaeda, for deeply personal reasons. But I certainly wouldn't have spent any time defending Bush when anyone else complained about it.

Think about that for a second. Support the outcome internally, but zero action to defend it in public.

Had Bush ramped up the UAV program the way Obama has, again, I wouldn't have complained; but I wouldn't have given him any credit for it, and of course zero support. And I'm sure I'm not alone... and if the hawks won't get in your corner on something, well, it's not going to play well in Peoria, as they say.

Now, Obama does it, and I feel license to defend it with vigor. And others do, too. And more still think poorly of the idea, but won't spend any time fighting it. And the right-wingers, who are hawks on all things anytime, mostly, won't give Obama any credit but they won't really criticize him for it.

Whether the killing of either of these guys was necessary is certainly debatable -- not for me, but for plenty of other reasonable people. But imagine for a moment it's not open for debate, that, as someone else put it, they really "needed killing." For our own self-interest. The jaguar that finally the hunting party goes after to protect the village, or some such silly metaphor.

If that's the case, then there's no way anyone but Obama could've done it. And yes, it's because more people trust him than don't -- you can choose to dismiss it with the standard "cult of personality" nonsense, perhaps, or consider it's something more substantial. But it amounts to the same thing: no one but Obama could've prosecuted these actions against al-Qaeda, and "lived," in the political sense. And he had plenty of opportunity to lose -- a single American killed going after OBL, for example, and he wouldn't have seen 1600 as his address a second term, period. It was a risk, but he had the chance of coming out the other side that a Republican president wouldn't have.

If, as I believe, these actions needed doing, we're fortunate -- because the other guys would never have taken the risk of not getting elected again. If you don't believe this, however, things probably have never looked darker.

[MH1]

1. Good, thoughtful post.

Not sure I agree 100%, but I like the reasoned approach and the way you wrote it. Rec'd (for all the good that'll do :) )

[Supersedeas]

6. Yep, some precise analysis

[JoePhilly]

2. If I agreed with a Bush policy I supported it.

When Clinton was trying to kill OBL, I was not surprised that the GOP was against it. They were too concerned with a BJ, and their effort to over-throw our elected government.

When Bush invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, I supported it. And, while I did not vote for him, I praised him publically. Not just anonymously on some web site, but to family and friends, where it matters far more.

When Bush shifted focus to Iraq, I complained, again not just on the web, but in my real life. I felt he was taking his eye off the target and diverting resources.

As a candidate, Obama said he would return the focus to the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where this all started, and then also target Al-Qaeda leaders where ever else they were found. I supported that.

If Bush had stayed focused on the real threats, and their origins, I would have supported him, just as I did in the initial response after 9/11. Bush changed course, making Iraq the focus, which made zero sense.

In my view, Obama returned the focus to where it should have remained all along.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. Nicely done!!! Thank you!! n/t

[JoePhilly]

24. thanks

[polmaven]

17. I wish there was a "recommend"

button for your thread. I am in exactly the same place with you all the way. :thumbsup:

[JoePhilly]

23. thanks

[ClassWarrior]

31. Oh I'm sure you did. Why don't you start a thread with this as the subject. Then all...

...the rest of the Bush** lovers here can rec it to the top of the Greatest Page.

NGU.

[Enrique]

3. you make an excellent point, it doesn't get made a lot

The key word is trust. I think a lot of the issues around Obama are about trust.

I'm not against anyone trusting Obama, I'm really not, that's up to them. I don't see it as foolish or naive, I see it as a judgement call.

What really bugs me however, what I think is total bullshit, is people that expect everyone to trust him, and attribute lack of trust to something nefarious.

What you don't mention in your very good OP is anything about laws. We need them, and I don't like seeing any president undermining them. We cannot get to a place where if a president is trusted enough he can do anything. And despite a lot of things, we're not at that place yet. Presidents are still accountable to laws to some extent.

[joshcryer]

4. I understand that completely, but for me, defending Obama isn't just about that.

It's about integrity. Obama has been picked on in my experience, over either outright lies or purposeful misrepresentation. I personally am against targeted killing, full stop, wholesale. But I'm also against people saying crap like "it's illegal" and using spurious reasoning to back it up, in that instance Obama deserves, fully deserves defense.

As far as Obama is concerned, he's far better at getting the job done the American way than Bush ever was. I disagree with the way it's done in many respects, and by the same token, I reserve the right to not defend him as you might have done Bush when there's an issue that I simply cannot agree with him on. If the discussion was "is targeted killing immoral" I would likely stay out of such discussions (they never come up that I've seen).

When the Osama thing happened I didn't spend much time on it, likewise I didn't spend much time on al-Awlaki, because deep down I don't really think this kind of targeted killing is moral or ethical. But that does not mean it is illegal, and if you look at my past posts on them, you'll see where I do respond it has little to do with defending Obama, it's more about defending integrity.

If you're going to be critical of Obama, at least be genuine about it.

[pmorlan1]

5. Interesting Post

I'm not a pacifist but if Bush did it or Obama did it I'd be against it because it was extra Constitutional. I don't understand why people can't understand that. We get accused of hating Obama when our criticism is because of principle. We support the rule of law. We can't afford to ignore laws just because it's convenient for a politician, whether it's Bush or Obama. When you start making exceptions because you're guy is in the WH then you no longer support principle but merely support winning.

[SwampG8r]

8. i see what you are saying

and i understand your trust analysis yet i still object
what we have is a precedent and you do not get to pick now, how or when it will be used. or by who.
this is not a good day once you look past the rah rah feeling of dropping a drone on someone we all can agree was a turd.
no one here has ever defended(that i have seen with my own eyes and i dont read everything)this lowly scumbag
what has been critically noted is the setting of this horrible horrible precedent and the unnatural ease that we rounded the intentions of the constitution
i worry about who the next "decider"is more than this one and what he will perceive as worthy targets

[Honeycombe8]

9. Good post. But I couldn't be more different from you. I ALWAYS speak up, when I think

the right thing was done, regardless of who did it.

I wouldn't say I'm hawkish about AQ. I view it similar to the "shoot to kill" the "armed and dangerous" mobsters from the depression era thru the '40s. Bonnie & Clyde, Capone, Dillinger. I wish Dillinger & Bonnie & Clyde hadn't been killed the way they were, but I understand why it was done that way. They were admitted, proud killers, who were wanted by the police, and on the run (or should I say "on the lamb"?). The FBI's and officers' main goal was to get them, and for no others to get hurt or killed in the process. The best way to do that was to shoot them from a distance. As it turned out, they all were, indeed, found to be armed, after they were shot. There's no perfect way to get people like this. But I understand why this is the way often chosen.

[Bloke 32]

10. Only Nixon could go to China

Effective statecraft is often based upon the literal definition of antithesis.

[TheKentuckian]

11. The unchecked power is to the Presidency not a particular holder of the office.

Trusting Obama is immaterial when I have no way to know if I will trust future administrations and certainly have not trusted prior ones.

In fact, it is impossible as the law is written to know if your trust was deserved. What seems trustworthy in one case may seem much more dubious in some or even the majority of ones that are and will remain secret. There will be no crowing about debacles, if any. Or even enough second guessing to know an error was made.

[SwampG8r]

19. what is trustworthy now

could be part of what isnt trustworthy tommorrow

[TheKentuckian]

21. Absolutely correct.

[Lyric]

12. I can buy the argument that OBL needed to be killed.

Frankly, taking him prisoner would have left his fervent followers with nothing to lose. They KNOW we'd have executed him in the end. Any trial would have been for show. And because they know that, his imprisonment would have become a rallying cry for every one of his murderous followers to kill as many "Westerners" as they could, all in the name of fighting for his release. In addition, he was not a US citizen and he was not apprehended on US soil. He was not under the protection of the Constitution at the time he was killed. Some argue that he was under other protections--international law--but that's a debate to have in international circles. It has no little or no bearing on US domestic civil liberties.

However, the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki is NOTHING like OBL. Like it or not, the man was a US citizen. It doesn't matter if he was a terrorist. It doesn't matter if he was a "bad guy". Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist and a bad guy too. He got a trial, not a summary military execution, and that's exactly how it SHOULD be. We don't assassinate US citizens who are crime suspects unless it's a situation in which the suspect in question has been given a chance to surrender and has willfully refused. We don't hunt them from the air and kill them with bombs and missiles, not even when they've fled overseas.

Ordinarily I am of the belief that there are exceptions to almost any rule. I am certainly no moral absolutist. But when it comes to the Constitution, I have NO qualms about drawing a rigid ethical line. I firmly believe that you are either FOR the Constitution or you are NOT. There is no mushy middle ground when it comes to our civil rights, and thank goodness for that, because if there WERE, then We The People would be SOL.

The Constitution exists for the primary purpose of protecting US from the Government juggernaut. Considering the extreme power gap between the citizenry and our militaristic government, we NEED that shield standing between us and the Government, and we need it to be inviolable. Obama's assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki might seem like a tiny, insignificant dent in that shield, but even a tiny dent can have catastrophic consequences; just ask the families of the astronauts who died when Columbia fell. One little crack, one little splinter...that's all it takes to lead to a horrific end for the vulnerable people that the shield is protecting. Maybe you think that the risk was worth it--to YOU--but you are not the only person at risk here. It's awfully easy to take a stance like yours when you're a white American with an Anglo-Saxon name, living on American soil. Think about how many Arab-Americans were falsely detained and/or accused after 9-11--about how EASY it is to make mistakes when we're reacting with emotions instead of logic. Imagine the terror that Arab-Americans overseas are feeling right now. Their own government has now set a precedent for killing them without even bothering with an arrest attempt, much less a trial!

You are entitled to your opinion, but with all due respect, I firmly believe that your opinion on this matter is ill-considered, narrow, and flat-out destructive to the institution of American civil liberties. You say that you have "personal reasons" for being a "hawk" about Al-Qaeda, and I interpret that as, "I lost someone in 9-11". On a human level, I feel for you if that's the case--I truly do. But if you already know ahead of time that your thinking on these matters is skewed and irrational, why on EARTH would you still insist on trying to justify your views in the wider debate? We need rational, sober thinkers right now--people who can evaluate these matters without enormous personal bias. We don't need people who are reactionary and proud of it.

[Robb]

15. That's hypocritical on it's face.

Should anyone emotionally invested in an issue be disqualified from the public discourse on it? Have you never advocated a position on an issue you "feel" one way or another on? Finally, is an emotional reaction automatically the wrong one? You expended a lot of words to say "You're just not being rational."

I'll only add that no, I didn't "lose" anyone on 9/11.

[boppers]

29. "given a chance to surrender and has willfully refused."?

Uhm, are you positing that the guy didn't *know* that surrender was his only way of avoiding remote execution? That he was ignorant of an international manhunt?

[quaker bill]

13. I expected it to be done

More so under Obama than Bush, but in either case. We are not ever extracting our military from this region until these guys are captured or dead. The "dead" condition seems to have been chosen as most optimal. (it avoids the military tribunal to firing squad bit of drama, with the same final result)

When I voted for Obama, I fully expected him to double and then re-double this effort and in fact be successful. This was not the reason I supported his run to any extent, but I was completely sure it was part of the package. I saw no other way for a Democratic Party President to unravel our war effort in the ME. It is the only way he could actually claim "mission accomplished" politically and bring this to an end.

Again, it is not that I support or approve of it, I am just not shocked by it. As far as approaches are concerned, this is far less brutal than the carpet bombing and land invasions Bush used to pursue the reported same goals.

[KoKo]

27. It is far worse that even the terrible "carpet bombings and land envasions."

This is using "silent, concealed weapons" to go in an target a person (with collateral damage) based on intelligence (that may and probably is faulty..since the same folks who trumped up Iraq Invasion of WMD/Chem/Bio are still there in power with their 'Think Tanks') and there are now "gamers" who sit in Seattle or other cities being told by "voice in their ear" to target while they are drinking their "hot juice" and then going out for a smoke or toke after they've done the dead. It's nothing to them. But, a "ground invasion" is something that involved a lot of people and the collateral damage on both sides is something not fogotten.

The pragmatic/high tech lover President Obama feels comfortable with "drones" and guys or gals sitting in comfy rooms in the USA doing GAMING FOR DEATH!

[Kahuna]

14. Actually, I would have supported it if bush did it. He didn't take out

enough terrorists for my taste.

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. I both agree and disagree

Regarding OBL, I agree that it was a gamble. He could have won big (and he did), or he could have lost big. And, Bush did have the opportunity to get OBL, but chose not to.

But, regarding the American (Al-Whoee) I think Obama took the safe road. His critics on the right have claimed that he is soft on terror. Arresting the guy, instead of shooting him would be more fodder for that (wrong) right-wing mantra. Instead, he chose to anger those who still fully support the Constitution (us weaklings). He can take our criticism, what choice do we have in November? He chose superficial feeling over thinking. It was politically safe.

[whatchamacallit]

18. All I know is we've killed hundreds of thousands to protect ourselves from potential terror

A fact pathologically lost to self-absorbed Americans.

[SwampG8r]

20. an irony in and of itself

the irony of that is totally lost

[stevenleser]

22. I wrote many times while Bush was in office how I supported Afghanistan but not Iraq

I just don't see it that way (the way you phrased things in your OP) and I don't know anyone who operates that way.

I think the charge of "You wouldn't have supported it if Bush did it" is just a lazy argument made by those who cannot think of a better one to support their position. And THAT is a strong indicator of how wrong those folks are about things in general.

[JoePhilly]

25. +1, same here

[KoKo]

26. Robb...you and I have been on this site a long time...

I have to tell you this post of yours is very conflicted...and it makes me sad to my core to read this.

Just think...If Bush had done this...would you have felt the same. You mention this but then make excuses because you say only a Democratic President could have had success to doing this.

We don't know what motivated them...and without a fair trial where both sides were aired...we will never know.

I feel it sad that those here who fought since 2000 SELECTION are now giving powers to Obama that we fought against with Bush I and Reagan and Bush II. But, Bush I, Reagan and Bush II would have never had the audacity to ASSASSINATE people with DRONES that fly into Sovereign States Air Space and KILL without TRIAL!

I'm sorry Robb...there are just differences.... I thought your argument was misguided and halting... as if you are trying to convince yourself that something that is wrong is justified because you support the person (this time) who is executing the action.

Peace...

KoKo

[Robb]

30. You said upthread you think UAV strikes are worse than carpet bombing.

Perhaps you might examine what logic led you to that.

[Major Hogwash]

28. Al Queda is a terrorist organization. They attacked the Twin Towers in NYC in1993.

And in 1998 or so President Clinton used missiles to go after them.
So, the use of drones is just a higher level of technology that is a tool for the President to use to go after Al Queda.

Did anyone expect President Obama to still use missiles when drones are more effective and more accurate?
Are there people who expect that since 10 years have passed since the attacks on the Twin Towers have occurred that we are not going to continue to go after Al Queda?

The fact of the matter is, the United States has been fighting against terrorism for over 3 decades in the Middle East. First in Lebanon in the early 1980s, and now in Afghanistan and Pakistan.