President Obama deserves full credit for Sunday’s mission. There’s no question that it was a gutsy move for the President; the most courageous decision he has ever made. It was a make-it or break-it judgment. Had it failed, he would’ve gotten all the blame; he would’ve had to put up with Pakistani officials demanding an apology and most definitely lose re-election.
The chilling account of the operation proves the point. While the President, surrounded by high-level administration officials along with his national security team in the White House Situation Room, was watching the strike, the ambiance was tense. The aura in the room was similar to the atmosphere in the very same room on April 16, 1980 when President Carter signed off Operation Eagle Claw. They were both daring plans; one succeeded and one didn’t. Indeed, President Obama promised that he would kill Osama Bin Laden, and he fulfilled his promise.
However, credit must be given when it is due. President Obama acknowledged it when he told the American public about the demise of Bin Laden. Yet, he failed to practice it. He made sure to mention the risks that he was taking while authorizing the attack. He made sure that he mentioned the political risk he took when the mission took place at his direction.
He deserves credit for the mission but deserves absolutely no credit for his speech.
While he rightfully called for unity in such times, he didn’t take note of his own words. He decided to make it a partisan, political accomplishment. It didn’t sound like a victory speech of a nation, rather a triumphant stump speech on a campaign trail. It sounded as if it was his priority to bring terrorists to justice; as if he took the risks that others did not.
It was President Bush’s “controversial” interrogation methods that led to Bin Laden’s capture. It was also the “harsh interrogation methods” and “inhumane detention centers” that made President Bush’s ratings submerge. President Bush took the risk to lead the nation to war against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. It was his courageous and brave call that enabled Bin Laden’s death. We didn’t go to war in Afghanistan, Bush did. A President that once stated “we are not a red America, we are not a blue America, we are the United States of America,” should’ve known better.
The speech was also dispassionate and unemotional for a president announcing such a major achievement. It was egoistic, self-centered and insensitive. Also lacking was adequate thankfulness and appreciation for the armed forces and SEALs who carried out the operation. Granted, he gave them tribute, but it was merely passable and sufficient. He mentioned himself more than he mentioned these heroic individuals. He took a risk, but he took the risk to be ousted from the White House, but they risked their lives.
President Bush indeed failed to capture Bin Laden during his presidency, but he succeeded in constantly giving ample praise to those who put their lives on the line for us. He demonstrated that he can put politics and self-interests aside when claiming victory for the nation. President Obama undeniably gets the credit for Bin Laden’s downfall but should be taken to task for his dispassionate speech.
Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached at [email protected]
NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
15 Responses
I don’t see the “gutsy” decision. He had NO choice. Imagine what the country and world would have said had he had OBL in the crosshairs and done nothing???
GW Bush was a mensch by the time he arrived at the White House and remained one. BH Obama, well he faces a steep learning curve in this area, as many other ones. The best thing for him (and for the rest of us) to happen is if he lost the 2012 re-elections. Not for nothing did Rabi Akiva say: chavivim issurim.
Sorry people – Bin Laden getting it at last – great . However , I don’t believe this thing transpired as we’re told . Obama would seem to me the last person to singly decide to go for a special forces op – totally out of line with his track record .
I am strongly tempted to refrain from commenting on this op-ed piece, because the author got one thing right, which is far better than usual. But then I thought: these 10,000 monkeys with typewriters who are published under the pseudonum “Dave Hirsch” need my help. So here it is (and don’t stop me if you’ve heard this before).
This piece is so wrong in so many ways, I do not know where to begin, but I’ll begin anyway.
First of all, the US President just ok’d a daring and risky raid that accomplished what his predecessor could not accomplish in 7 years, notwithstanding the Republican belief – supported by a big Republican lie – that Republicans are better at protecting the US than Democrats (or DemocRATS, if you prefer). And Dave Hirsch, after giving credit where credit it due, complains about the President’s speech. When did Mr. Hirsch add “drama critic” and “rhetoric maven” to his resume? And why does he care about a speech under these circumstances?
Consider, especially, this “political analysis: “President Bush … can put politics and self-interests aside when claiming victory for the nation. What victories did President Bush ever claim? The “Mission Accomplished” victory, which accomplished nothing? What was so humble about President Bush’s prancing around in a jump suit on an aircraft carrier? American taxpayers paid a lot of money to teach that rich kid how to fly a plane, but he went AWOL when there was a risk he might have to fly in combat. Did he thank us taxpayers for the flying lessons that he squandered?
When the Iraq war was going badly and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was criticised for going to war with an underprepared army, his response was “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.” Is that support of the troops, giving credit where credit is due? Not hardly.
Whether or not intelligence obtained by illegal torture played a role in the success of this mission is question that must await a thorough examination of all the facts in the record, which is not currently available to us. When that information becomes available, serious scholars and journalists will evaluate it and form reasoned, fact-based conclusions, but I do not expect anything helpful from drama critic Dave Hirsch.
This is as out of line as Rep. Ackerman’s slam at President Bush. There has been too much political posturing on both sides. The facts are simply that good US intelligence found Bin Laden, and a risky operation was authorized by President Obama and carried out by brave US soldiers. Period.
nfgo3…
And IF, after YOUR thorough investigation, it IS concluded that this mission was only made possible because of information obtained through waterboarding or other “illegal torture”, THEN will you say these methods were correct?
OR… are you like the PETA nuts who say the life of even one rat should not be sacrificed even if we know it would lead to a cure for cancer?
charliehall…
well said!
Good Morning Ideological Diehards – Read and weep these excerpts from a long NY Times story about GOP praise for Obama 🙂
WASHINGTON — President Obama drew praise from unlikely quarters on Monday for pursuing a risky and clandestine mission to kill Osama bin Laden, a successful operation that interrupted the withering Republican criticism about his foreign policy, world view and his grasp of the office.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney declared, “The administration clearly deserves credit for the success of the operation.” New York’s former mayor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, said, “I admire the courage of the president.” And Donald J. Trump declared, “I want to personally congratulate President Obama.”
“The president deserves and will receive credit for Bin Laden being killed on his watch,” said Mike DuHaime, a Republican strategist who advised Mr. Giuliani’s 2008 presidential bid. “Like Sept. 11 and its aftermath, this is a moment that transcends politics.”
John Ullyot, a former Marine intelligence officer who served as a Republican spokesman on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the operation was “a gutsy call because so much could have gone wrong.”
“Had it failed, he would’ve gotten all the blame.”
Wrong. Bush would’ve gotten all the blame. After all, Obama “inherited” Osama from “the previous administration”. Now of course he’d never admit that he “inherited” the ultimately successful manhunt, the CIA and SEAL teams, from “the previous administration”.
Gutsy? Leaving everything in place is gutsy? Disassembling the team, stopping the operation – THAT would be gutsy, in an evil way. B”H Obama is not THAT evil.
Now of course he’d never admit that he “inherited” the ultimately successful manhunt, the CIA and SEAL teams, from “the previous administration”.
CORRECTION:
Unless it failed.
I listened to the speech and I didn’t feel that way. I’m no expert on language and speeches, I judge a speech by what I feel when I listen to it. Also I’m a Republican so I tend to have negative opinions of Pres. Obama when I listen to him. However, I didn’t feel any of that when I heard that speech. I felt that he was speaking for the nation, not just himself.
However, I wonder that since he took a risk and succeeded should he judge him based on the success or based on the action he took? America would be just as safe if Osama was killed by a missile strike or a Special Ops team, the difference would be that we would not have the satisfaction and morale boost and Obama would not have the political benefits if we didn’t know Osama was dead. Was that worth risking the lives of Navy SEALs? I think the answer is that the risk is worth it for the huge morale benefits to the troops. The question we have to decide when judging Obama is was that decision right and did he make it for the right reasons.
Read and weep msseeker…don’t have a tantrum! :-O
No. 7: I agree with you.
No. 6: I never said I would conduct an investigation, but I would read a report on an investigation and draw my own conclusions. If the record shows that the key intelligence in this operation was obtained by illegal torture, then I would propose to punish the torturers. That their crimes did some good for the rest of the world would be a reasonable mitigating consideration at their sentencing hearing. I do not consider myself a PETA nut (we Jews know Hashem gave us animals to eat and told us how to kill them), but I might be a US constitution nut or a Geneva convention nut. And if I knew more Torah, I might be a Torah nut, too.
nfgo3…
…and if, chas v’chalila, someone in YOUR family was in serious danger at the hands of a terrorist, and they could be saved by torturing a captured terrorist, I suppose you then might feel that “would be a reasonable mitigating consideration at” the sentencing hearing of those that did the torturing??? – or perhaps not…
No. 14: The reason we have courts – secular and religious – is in part so that we do not leave matters of justice in the hands of those most emotionally affected by a crime. Judges are required to judge the facts and law objectively. Family members of crime victims may understandably be too upset to judge the alleged perpetrator fairly, and that is why our religious and secular justice systems do not rely on “family feuds” or retribution to find and punish wrongdoers. If c”v a member of my family were a crime victim, of course I could not be objective in meting out justice. That’s why Hashem gave us Torah and judges, and why secular legal systems of the civilized world follow (not exactly) the Torah model of justice. Justice is divine, not personal.