What President Obama did last weekend, by his order and authorization put the hit on a notorious terrorist and mass murderer, is to be lauded and cheered. In my opinion, he just earned his Noble Peace Prize by busting a cap on Bin Laden. But I didn't expect any left wing liberals to cheer. In fact, some are mourning Bin Laden's "execution." But one liberal surprised heck out of me. All I can say is "go Mo'."
Yup, it was the redheaded colleen, Maureen Dowd of the NY Times who set the tone in her most recent opinion piece:
I don’t want closure. There is no closure after tragedy. I want memory, and justice, and revenge.
When you’re dealing with a mass murderer who bragged about incinerating thousands of Americans and planned to kill countless more, that seems like the only civilized and morally sound response.
The Great Doubt, er Dowd, wasn't finished, sharpening her rapier even more, slapping down weak-kneed pacifists:
The really insane assumption behind some of the second-guessing is that killing Osama somehow makes us like Osama, as if all killing is the same.
Only fools or knaves would argue that we could fight Al Qaeda’s violence non-violently.
President Obama was prepared to take a life not only to avenge American lives already taken but to deter the same killer from taking any more. Aside from Bin Laden’s plotting, his survival and his legend were inspirations for more murder.
Wow, and that from a persistent critic of President Obama! Apparently, some liberals can be objective. And to those who sobbed for poor Osama because he wasn't armed when he took a bullet, Maureen has some righteous truth:
If stealth bombers had dropped dozens of 2,000-pound bombs and wiped out everyone, no one would have been debating whether Osama was armed.
Dowd then presented the best counter argument yet to the Obama-hating Bush Loving, Republithugs who can't stand the idea of Cool Hand Barack getting credit for being a REAL leader:
There was the bad comedy of solipsistic Republicans with wounded egos trying to make it about how right they were and whinging that George W. Bush was due more credit. Their attempt to renew the debate about torture is itself torture.
W. preferred to sulk in his Dallas tent rather than join President Obama at ground zero in a duet that would have certainly united the country.
Whereas the intelligence work that led to the destruction of Bin Laden was begun in the Bush administration, the cache of schemes taken from Osama’s Pakistan house debunked the fanciful narrative that the Bush crew pushed: that Osama was stuck in a cave unable to communicate, increasingly irrelevant and a mere symbol, rather than operational. Osama, in fact, was at the helm, spending his days whipping up bloody schemes to kill more Americans.
The Tiger Lady wrapped up her column with a couple of "nuff said" type sentences that should leave the pacifists hiding in shame:
Unlike Osama, the Navy Seals took great care not to harm civilians — they shot Bin Laden’s youngest wife in the leg and carried two young girls out of harm’s way before killing Osama.
Morally and operationally, this was counterterrorism at its finest.
We have nothing to apologize for.
Amen Sister! You go, Girl!