Rightbloggers Explain How Killing Osama Was Bad for Obama, America

tomt200.jpg Last Sunday, right after President Obama announced the death of Osama Bin Laden, we did a quick scan of rightblogger responses to the event. The brethren basically felt Obama had nothing to do with it and if he did, it wasn't worth doing.

A week has passed. Which means rightbloggers have had time to think about their reactions, and to offer more thoughtful writing on the subject.

And what they thoughtfully wrote was that the death of Bin Laden was a disaster for the Obama Administration, and maybe for us all.

National Review's Victor Davis Hanson revisited an old rightblogger chestnut and complained that Obama used the word "I" too often in his announcement of Bin Laden's death. "Most of these first-person pronouns could have been replaced by either the first-person plural (our, we) or proper nouns (the United States, America)," explained Hanson. "But they reflect a now well-known Obama trait of personalizing the presidency." This English lesson eventually cited Animal Farm and 1984, believe it or not, in relation to "Barack Obama's radical transformation" and "the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left." An egomaniacal socialist -- they're the worst kind!

Hanson's colleague Claudia Rossett said Obama erred even in delivering the announcement, because "every effort should be made to avoid in any way dignifying anything about [Bin Laden]... (Recall how President Bush, rather than grabbing the center stage, and thus dignifying the ex-tyrant of Iraq, left it to Paul Bremer to announce the capture of Saddam Hussein.)" See? That publicity hound Obama just dignified Bin Laden by having him shot and dumped in the drink, and then bragging about it. America will pay!

Don Surber of the Charleston (WV) Daily Mail quoted "Democratic Senator Barack Obama on Osama bin Laden: 'as president, [I would] order a trial that observed international standards of due process.' Well, the Navy SEALs captured Laden and killed same... But Barack Obama in 2007 insisted on a trial, didn't he? Once again, our president has shown he has no morals -- no scruples -- no principles."

Of course in another, much-reposted statement, candidate Obama said in 2008 that "if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden." But what's important is that he changed his mind, i.e. vacillated. And now Bin Laden is dead -- another casualty of Obama's indecisiveness.

We're surprised no one thought of using "under the bus." Oh wait -- a few have. ("Is the Obama administration setting up to toss the SEALs under the bus?" Questions remain!)

Heh, heh, heh.
The poll bounce Obama enjoyed after the killing was disputed by Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit, who headlined, "More Bad News For Libs... American Public Not Fooled By Media - Remember Obama's Far Left Antiwar Past." The "American Public," the body copy reveals, was actually "a Frank Luntz focus group of conservatives." (Hoft added, "This was just horrible news for democrats," leading us to suspect, not for the first time, that Hoft is actually a double agent, planted to give life to stereotypes about conservatives.)

Rightbloggers generally refused Obama any credit for the killing. "Obama got bin Laden just like Nixon reached the moon," bannered The Washington Times, raising a cheer from the brethren. National Review's Jim Geraghty posted a "motivational poster" about President Bush's "vindication," which was similarly enjoyed.

William Teach John Hawkins of Right Wing News explained (with a pictograph, which we're sure his audience appreciated) that Bush actually did the Osama killing, for which Obama falsely claimed credit, just as Reagan actually took down the Berlin Wall, credit for which has been misattributed to that other socialist fraud, George H.W. Bush.

Many thought that if the credit belonged anywhere, it was with their old favorite, torture.

"Well, it has come out that key information from Khalid Sheikh Muhhamad that led to the hiding place of Osama Bin Ladin and his demise at the hands of our fantastic Navy SEALs, came only after we water boarded him," claimed Michael Beck. "Bush was right!"

"For years, the left argued that... [torture] was ineffective, and further that it was evil and something that America should never use," said Christopher Taylor at the Washington Examiner. Taylor, of course, knew all along that torture is Jack Baueriffic: "The truth is," he wrote, "the Bush administration's tireless efforts to fight terrorism worldwide in the face of unbelievable opposition and pressure by the left was so effective and so right that now, even hard left former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had to recently thank President Bush."

He rests his case! This has now become a mainstream rightwing talking point as well. The Obama Administration and others dispute it, but we can see the appeal for a certain kind of person in the this argument. Plus, if they ever go on trial at The Hague, they can just say they were misquoted.

Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times found the story behind the story that suggested Obama doesn't really give a shit about America. "The CIA developed a plan to obliterate the [Osama] compound with a salutory March flyover," Malcolm revealed, but Obama vetoed it because "without a body, how could President Obama prove that he was The One who brought Osama sudden justice without the burden of time-consuming civil trials involving Eric Holder's former law partners as high-paid public defenders?"

At the same time, said Malcolm, Obama would probably never release the photo evidence, despite his previously-noted, desperate need to use Bin Laden for publicity, because "a ghastly dead OBL photo could offend the 'sensitivities' of Osama's insane supporters..." Politics is politics but appeasing America's enemies comes first, apparently.

Of course, when Obama confirmed that he wouldn't release the gruesome pictures, Malcolm sneered that Obama "once bragged that his administration would be the most transparent in American history" and yet he won't even let us see the smashed skull of Mr. 9/11 that Obama himself had worked so hard to get. (Malcolm's column was illustrated with a photo of a 9/11 casualty, presumably to signal that, should the Bin Laden gore-porn be unsealed, the LA Times would he happy to run it.)

Repair_Man_Jack of RedState found it absurd that "after shooting Osama Bin Ladin, [Obama] has an aversion to spiking the football" with photos -- after all, Obama "spent over $100 million on his inaugural bacchanalia." And if he'd killed Bin Laden on his first afternoon in office, we bet he wouldn't have featured the corpse at the Inaugural Luncheon, either.

"Obama Allows Photos of Dead US Soldiers But Not Dead Terrorist," roared Jim Hoft (for whom "coffin" is apparently a synonym for dead soldiers -- okay, now we're convinced he's a plant).

Sponsor Content

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault