Everything our president does has political motivations. That seems somewhat intuitive because he is, after all, a political figure.
But when I say that, what I mean is that he doesn’t do things just for their inherent good, only their inherent benefit to him.
Furthermore, no topic, no matter how crass or tasteless, can be used to score political points.
We saw this in President Obama’s latest campaign ad, which poses a question as to whether or not Mitt Romney would have given the go-ahead to the mission which lead to the death of Osama bin Laden, the most famous terrorist in modern history.
The intestinal fortitude it takes to make a claim like this not withstanding, the heart of the message is troubling to say the least.
Even the vile, ultra-liberal (former conservative) Arianna Huffington took to the national media to criticize the president’s attack ad.
Of course, the left has defended the president and when I say “the left” I mean the media as a whole.
Both the above linked article to Mediaite and the president himself defended their strategy by insisting people go back and listen to what Mitt Romney has said on the issue.
What Mitt Romney said was he didn’t advocate going into an ally country unannounced and unauthorized.
Even Bill Clinton admitted that had Osama bin Laden not been where the Navy SEALS thought he was, the repercussions could have been serious.
This is what liberals have a problem with. They rarely see the big picture, just the left picture. We got the bastard so it’s fine.
Ummm…that’s not how it works guys.
We have laws, rules, and international agreements that ensure this type of thing doesn’t happen. How would we feel if Pakistan came in and started shooting up a mansion in the Hampton’s because they thought a terrorist lived there?
Look, I’m not saying it’s not a boon for the world that Osama bin Laden is dead. Furthermore, I’m not saying what we did was wrong.
What I’m saying is it’s impossible to compare what Mitt Romney said and what President Obama did because the two made a decision based on different information.
Presumably, Mr. Obama had credible, actionable information, or he wouldn’t have moved forward.
All Romney had was a principle, and a good one at that: We don’t go into an ally country and wage our own mini-war.
But accusing Romney of refusing to take action against bin Laden is absurd because there’s no way to know if, given the same information, Romney would have acted differently.
More than that though, the ad implies Romney is a coward, a man lacking the gumption to make the tough calls.
Implying, if he were president, the most evil man walking the planet would still be alive.
That’s fear-mongering at it’s pinnacle.
What President Obama did in killing Osama bin Laden is nothing short of laudable. Historic even.
If there was one great accomplishment in the rubble of Obama’s presidency, it was that moment. At no other time since his election was the country more unified around one another.
Yet our president has decided to use the murder of someone (frankly, it doesn’t matter who it is) to puff out his chest and proclaim his superiority over another man. That, frankly, is sickening.
The death of one of history’s most infamous people, the person responsible for the death of thousands, is not a political chess piece. To think otherwise is disrespectful on a level that is utterly unconscionable.
It’s as crass as crass gets, far beneath the dignity of the most powerful man in the world.
But our president doesn’t care. He doesn’t respect the office as anything more than a vehicle to harden his own legacy. Anything is fair game for him, even if it means taking a unifying moment and using it to divide our country.
That’s the true legacy of our soon-to-be-former president: taking an opportunity to unite and choosing instead to divide.