DISCONCERTING — VERY DISCONCERTING!

By Edwin Cooney

As President Ford observed during his first address to Congress back on Monday, August 12th, 1974, “confession is good for the soul!” (Jerry, whose message to Congress was the necessity for budget cutting, publicly confessed to Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma that he — as a member of Congress — had often been willing to spend tax-payer money for worthy projects in Michigan while opposing wasteful spending in Oklahoma.) My confession is that some of my joy last May the 1st — as President Obama announced the capture, execution and burial at sea of Osama bin Laden — was partisan. The Republicans would be “green with envy,” as indeed they were, and still are! However, what it all means is far more important than political point scoring!

Back in 2004 when young Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention, much of the power of his appeal was due to his opposition to the Iraqi war. He’d come out against an invasion of Iraq as early as September 2002 — six months before its March 19th, 2003 “shock and awe” outset. Obama’s meteoric rise was due to his articulate and even dynamic opposition to the Iraqi war, and many progressives easily and conveniently believed he opposed all war. Hence, it appeared we had a potential President with anti-war sentiments equal to George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Jimmy Carter. During the campaign when he insisted that he’d vigorously pursue al-Qaeda, few took him seriously. I certainly didn’t.

There is a parallel in our political history to this shift in likely presidential leadership. Between the end of World War II and 1971 there was little the Republican Party considered a higher priority than the unleashing of Chang Kai-Shek against Red China and the return of democracy to the Chinese mainland. Yet, it was Richard Nixon — one of the GOP’s staunchest anti-Communists of the 1950s — who, as President, gleefully announced his impending 1972 visit to the People’s Republic of China. Even more amazing, Republicans proudly campaigned on RMN’s “historic breakthrough” during the succeeding presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, back to twenty-first century politics! In late 2009 came the news that the President was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Next, came the shocking news of that Sunday night when news blared across the nation that a force of Navy Seals under the direction of President Barack Hussein Obama, had cornered and ruthlessly killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan housing compound. What was most disturbing to many Obama supporters was that the president was almost as gleeful as George Walker Bush and Rush Limbaugh would have been had this deed been carried out before January 20th, 2009 — even more preferably during October of 2004.

Throughout his subsequent Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, not once was the President at all reflective about either the legality or the possible consequences of his actions. Many Democrats, me included, were saddened and even embarrassed that President Obama didn’t do a bit of public reflecting about such concepts as: the sanctity of international borders, the sovereignty of nations, rights of the accused, and above all — the regretability of gun-barrel justice.

Still, if it was necessary that Osama bin Laden be eliminated by order of an American President — and I believe it was — I’m generally glad that it was President Obama who gave the order.

Of course, the vast majority of Americans of all parties are glad that bin Laden is gone. Still, with every action there is not only a reaction, but there is often created precedence for an increasingly deadlier reaction to events than was previously the case.

Might President Obama’s decision to eliminate bin Laden in the way he did set a dangerous precedent? Might a future sitting or former American President be more subject to capture or elimination once our opponents become sufficiently capable of carrying out such ventures? On the other hand, the possibility of world peace might be strengthened if world leaders were a little more vulnerable than they currently are to international “justice.”

Throughout the “watch” of President Barack Hussein Obama — and Presidents ultimately catch both praise and blame for what occurs on their “watches” — we’ve witnessed the elimination of more hostile leaders than any President since FDR, who was largely responsible for the elimination of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.

Not even President Reagan’s record matches Barack Hussein Obama’s record of eliminating terrorist-oriented leaders. Specifically there are Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (the man behind the 2009 Christmas bomber and the quashed New York Times Square bombing.) Then, there’s Muammar Gaddafi — whom President Reagan sought to and barely missed destroying.

The scary part of all this is, what’s next? Just as: President Reagan didn'’t anticipate the future significance of the Taliban when he aided Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviets; just as President Reagan didn’t anticipate trouble with Saddam Hussein when he sold him lethal weapons to use on the outlaw state of Iran; just as Presidents Clinton and G. W. Bush didn’t anticipate the cost of an Iraqi war; what hasn’t President Obama anticipated that could be vital to our future security?

Disconcerting — very disconcerting isn’t it how often we think we’re being intelligent and patriotic when we’re really being partisan!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY