Silly questions in the wake of Obama's killing, with nothing learned about US war policies. by GT Slade
(libertarian)
Sunday, May 8, 2011
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” — Lord Acton
This week, the great debates are over minutiae.
Last week, Osama bin Laden was felled by an American bullet. Case closed. Or not.
Some doubt whether he was, as the Administration proclaimed, “captured and killed” because of suspicious circumstances involving the body’s disposal. This wasn’t a mob hit, so the body need not have been disposed of immediately. Americans should take the government at their word, for they would never lie to us, surely not the President.
Then there is the oppressing question of releasing pictures of the alleged bullet-ridden body. Won’t a photo of Osama shot incite Mideast violence? Better to ask, "What will not incite Mideast violence?" Protesters gathered worldwide. Where were they on September 12, 2001?
Angering terrorists is never adviseable, only it is impossible to avoid. They are terrorists. It’s their job to hate the people they have targeted. So would displaying a snapshot be in poor taste? If you think that, don’t look. We wouldn’t be gloating exactly, just providing information, like Wikileaks.
Then there is concern for conspiracy theorists. Without photographic proof, they might question bin Laden’s demise. Why that possibility is even considered is amazing. Come on! They are conspiracy theorists. It’s their job to distrust everything and everyone.
Simplifying events to satisfy the chronically skeptical is impossible. If they write screeds questioning what happened, pop them into the nearest receptacle. Apparently, conspiracy theorists have greater faith in the government than I, if they believe big secrets can be kept, when government can’t even plug tiny leaks.
How ironic that Obama is being considered a warrior president now, after campaigning as a peacemaker. He has sold his plowshares for swords. Now he wants to sell GM.
Obama’s supporters put a happy face on his duplicity, with rationales like the Libya invasion being “humanitarian aid.” His Conservative opposition claim he gets more intelligence in the White House than in the Senate, so now he understands the war on terror is necessary.
As a libertarian, I have a better explanation. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Plus, there is no difference between the “two” parties.
I remember Lyndon Johnson blasting Barry Goldwater as a war-monger and worse in 1964, then turning around and escalating the Vietnam War. In LBJ’s case, Vietnam cost him a second term, but consider what it cost the United States.
Must I state my support killing for Osama? Okay. But I do not approve of America’s Mideast policies, such as they are. Whenever it is suggested that so-called Defense spending be cut, some hawk will say we must remain in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else the President decides to invade for his “War on Terror.”
Assuming that assertion is correct, for argument’s sake, what about the war in Germany? We have more troops in Germany than in Iraq. Whom are they fighting? There are US troops in at least 135 countries, maybe more. I’ll bet no one in the Administration can name those nations, much less explain our presence there.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of GT Slade only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
GT Slade is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
