Over at Redstate, Melissa Clouthier points out that the liberal reaction to the death of Bin Laden proves that liberals don’t believe their own war on terror rhetoric.
When the rubber meets the road, liberals aren’t crying that:
* Intelligence gathered, probably via “enhanced interrogation” in a secret prison (or if you’re a liberal, torture), lead to Osama’s death.
* Justice meant a targeted assassination aka capital punishment
* A country’s boundaries were violated to achieve justice (how can we violate a sovereign nation?!!)
* Bullets were used
* Base impulses like “vengeance” were indulged
* Diplomacy didn’t achieve what 40 Navy Seals achieved.
We could go on and expand on that list..
For example, what about the “cycle of violence?” We’d be hearing about it non-stop if Bush had killed Bin Laden.
Then there’s our “unilateral” attack. Was NATO involved? Did the UN give permission? We didn’t even get the go ahead from Pakistan — I mean, who do we think we are?
And what about the lack of a trial? I thought this was about law enforcement, not the military. Should we have found a way to apprehend Bin Laden, read him his rights, and put him on trial in New York? Again, that would be the standard line if Bush had gotten him.
Also, let’s call this exactly what it was: An assassination. I don’t have a lot of qualms about putting down America’s enemies. But, liberals supposedly do. Shouldn’t they all be worrying that every other nation in the world will copy us by unilaterally killing their enemies?
We also can’t forget the endless claims that Bush was “politicizing 9/11?” Well, Barack Obama’s getting ready to take a purely political victory lap around Ground Zero. Shouldn’t they be complaining?
Is it unfair to bring all of this up? After all, this is what liberals said they believed when Bush was in office. They couldn’t have just said all those things for purely political reasons….could they?