And now, a word from a guy the left has wanted to prosecute and attempted to professionally ruin, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:
From Guantanamo to Abbottabad
Mr. Obama deserves credit for ordering the mission that killed bin Laden. But he should also recognize that he succeeded despite his urge to disavow Bush administration policies. Perhaps one day he will acknowledge his predecessor’s role in making this week’s dramatic success possible. More importantly, he should end the criminal investigation of CIA agents and restart the interrogation program that helped lead us to bin Laden.
That guy is John Yoo, who “is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.”
He has also been the target of “vigilante stalkers” who “have decided on their own that John Yoo is guilty of a crime and needs to be punished.”
Yoo also wrote the following at Ricochet on Monday:
The majority of the credit for the operation that killed Osama bin Laden goes to the Obama administration. But it is also a vindication of the Bush administration’s terrorism policies and shows that success comes from the continuity of policy, not its rejection (as Obama has tried for the last two years).
… Imagine what would have happened if the Obama administration had been running things back in 2002-08. It would have given Miranda warnings and lawyers to KSM and other al Qaeda leaders, no Gitmo, no military commissions — instead civilian trials on US soil with all of the Bill of Rights benefits for terrorist defendants. There would have been no enhanced interrogation program, no terrorist surveillance program, and hence no intelligence mosaic that could have given us the information that produced today’s success. In the war on terror, it is much easier to pull the trigger — the truly hard task is to figure out where to aim. Obama can take credit, rightfully, for the success today, but he owes it to the tough decisions taken by the Bush administration.
Game, set, match. Even the New York Times (“It wasn’t until after 2002, when the agency began rounding up Qaeda operatives — and subjecting them to hours of brutal interrogation sessions in secret overseas prisons — that they finally began filling in the gaps about the foot soldiers, couriers and money men Bin Laden relied on”) and the Associated Press have had to report — surely while gritting their teeth — that enhanced interrogation-obtained info was important.
The left was enraged a few weeks ago when Obama’s Department of (Arbitrary and Selective) Justice begged off on prosecuting Yoo: “The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned a statement by the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicating that it will not prosecute two lawyers who helped develop the Bush-era … program.”
Update: You want bipartisanship? I’ll give you bipartisanship, from Jim Treacher at the Daily Caller’s DC Trawler –
- Headline, supported by the content: “If you’re determined to believe waterboarding had nothing to do with tracking down Bin Laden, don’t listen to Leon Panetta”
- From post-scripted content at Treacher’s post — “Donald Rumsfeld to Sean Hannity: ‘Anyone who suggests that waterboarding did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence just isn’t facing the truth.’”
Next thing you know, they’ll be holding hands and singing “Kumbay-Osama.”
Glenn Reynolds’ reaction to the Jerusalem imam’s vow to to take revenge on Obama for taking out OBL (“You should know that soon you’ll hang together with Bush Junior”) starts with sarcasm and ends with a warning:
Okay, first, any talk of hanging is just plain racist. Stupid racist imam.
… if this dumbass keeps talking, people might get the idea that we’re at war with Islam or something. And trust me, your Imam-ness, you don’t want Americans to decide that.
Questions of the day: How many “months” did the Navy Seals really need to prepare for the operation that took out OBL? For how many “months” prior to the operation did the Seals consider themselves ready to conduct it? How many “months” did Obama know beyond reasonable doubt that OBL was where he was?
Reason for the questions: “Several media outlets identified the courier Monday as Maulawi Abd Khaliq Jan based on a U.S. military assessment file on Libbi (Abu Faraj Libbi, another captured Al Qaeda leader) that was released by WikiLeaks last week. An administration official said that name was incorrect. Officials have so far declined to identify him.”
Leading to the ultimate question: Was Obama, who dithered at crunch time, sitting on the “go” decision for a lot longer than currently portrayed, and pushed into it?
From the “Being a Jerk Has Consequences” Dept. (“Bush declines Obama invite to Thursday’s Ground Zero event”) –
Only two possibilities. One: Bush recognizes that this is, more or less, an Obama campaign commercial and would rather not be part of it. Two: Bush doesn’t want to encroach on the singular role that Obama, as president, should rightly have in leading the ceremonies marking Bin Laden’s demise. Given how gracious Dubya has been in retirement, does anyone doubt that the second explanation is correct?
Assuming that Number 2 is fundamentally correct, there’s still this overhang, noted by Michelle Malkin: “Given how Paul Ryan was treated upon his Obama unity invitation, you could hardly blame him.” Add to that how the Supremes were publicly dressed down by Obama at his 2010 State of the Union Address for having the nerve to rule as they did in the Citizens United case.
Obama has proven by his own actions that you can never predict when what looks like an outreached hand is really an invitation to an ambush. Acting like a petulant punk has its consequences.