Osama Death Contradiction

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Neurotic Tom usually doesn't deserve any attention. His obsession with my site is hilarious. The fact that in this latest stab he pulled together posts over a year apart is incredible. Tommy? I'm a happily married man (to a woman). Does your boyfriend John know you have such an obsessive infatuation with me?

Anyway, the Political Pistachio resident criticizer put out an interesting one lately:

Doug Gibbs;

But as much of a dirtball as that killer was, by simply being human, he deserved a trial. All people deserve at least that much. Otherwise, we become no better than the enemy.

Doug Gibbs;

Then, a crack team of American Special Operations need to go to Yemen and kill the one cleric that seem to be the primary problem in the war on terror at this moment, Anwar al-Awlaki.

Did I contradict myself? Did I claim at one moment we should kill those bastards, and then when a Democrat killed Osama suddenly demand due process when before I didn't?

Not necessarily.

From a personal point of view I am happy as hell that Osama bin Laden is fish food. There is little more gratifying than knowing that the murderer of three thousand Americans is dead. Any Muslim that takes Islam to such a violent conclusion deserves the same.

I do not like the fact that Obama is patting himself on the back like he is. The Obama administration's success in the operation to bring down Osama bin Laden was because the operation was conducted based on policies that had been put in place by the "much hated by liberals" President George W. Bush.

When Osama's death is viewed through the lens of historical context, and America's character, despite the joy that the notorious mastermind of terror has met his demise, a number of questions arise. Even the Bush administration did not elect to put a bullet through the brain of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the planner of 9/11. Instead, the Bush administration decided to hold the terrorist at Guantanamo Bay Prison, and give him a trial (some day down the road) by military tribunal.

I am in agreement with what I said last year in Tom's link to my site that we should be actively pursuing these terrorists, and if the enemy is killed during the operation to apprehend him, so be it. Fine with me. Such is the reality of war.

The problem with the operation to get Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, however, was that it was not an operation designed to apprehend the notorious terrorist. The American personnel went in there with the intent to take Osama out. Evidence is piling up that it was the Democrat's intention to kill Osama. It is looking more and more like the operation was not a "seek and take into custody" kind of mission. The Navy SEALS were acting upon an assassination order by the President of the United States.

The Democrats knew better than to take Osama alive, considering their demands for civilian trials for terrorists, and all.

Under Obama's orders, the American military had been instructed to put a bullet in Osama bin Laden's brain. They were to kill him whether he was armed, or not. They were to kill him whether he was advancing, or retreating. President Obama issued a kill order, and now the liberal media is dancing around proclaiming Obama to be a shoe-in in 2012 because the squirrelly, big eared, coward put out a hit on Osama bin Laden.

Let us not forget, too, that the policies that Obama and the Democrats used to locate Osama bin Laden were Bush's policies - the same policies the leftists railed against during the campaign season, and during the Bush presidency. The rhetoric even got to the point that the Democrats were calling the Republicans "War Criminals," and they were calling for Bush and his staff to be arrested, and be tried for war crimes.

What about Obama, who ordered an assassination? Do you want him facing war crime accusations too?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary