The Obama campaign released an ad the other day - an entirely factual one.
Believe it or not, the freakish Right aren't the only people up in arms about this and insanely jealous of the president for getting bin Laden. Arianna Huffington - Professional Left media profiteer and Mitt Romney's soulmate in screwing poor people of jobs - is showing her Republican face again. She described the Obama campaign's ad featuring the president's decisive action to take out Osama bin Laden as "despicable." Here's a clip of it from Politico:
Furthermore, she went on to say this:
There is no way to know whether Romney would’ve been as decisive. And to actually speculate that he wouldn’t be is, to me, not the way to run campaigns on either side.This is a demonstrable lie, as the Obama campaign ad clearly shows.
Tell you what, Arianna. I could sit here and try to reason with you. I could sit here and try to explain to you that the President's ad is about his crowning achievement as commander in chief: killing the man who is responsible for 9-11. I could sit here and say that everything in the Obama campaign ad is factually true, and that Mitt Romney absolutely beat up on then-candidate Obama for saying he would do precisely the things it took doing in order to get bin Laden - namely, going into Pakistan when the Pakistani government was unwilling or unable to do so, and spending a whole lot of resources tracking down bin Laden. That is fact, even if Arianna Huffington insists that there was no way we could have known what Romney would have done.
I could have told you, therefore, that it is your comment that it's wrong to cast doubt on what Romney would have done (when the doubt is cast by Romney's own words) that is out of bounds, not the ad's truthful portrayal of both President Obama's resolve and Mr. Romney's demonstrated resistance to the same methods and strategy it took to hunt down and kill bin Laden. I could tell you that you can't claim "of course so and so would have found it" if so and so has demonstrated a taste counter to looking for said thing.
I could say all of that, and all of that would be correct. But I suspect that Arianna Huffington is already well aware that the Obama campaign ad is factually unassailable. Which is why she takes a two-fold approach to discrediting President Obama's campaign: first, she flat out lies when she says that there could be no legitimate questions (except Mr. Romney's recent words) as to whether he would be able to get bin Laden. Second, she gets on a self-righteous high horse and proclaims that such a watershed moment should be off limits for a presidential campaign.
Bull. Campaigns are about reminding voters about what has been accomplished, and who stood where on the most critical decisions about this country. The killing of bin Laden is no more or less subject to that lens with respect to the president's accomplishments as commander-in-chief than is the auto-industry-rescue with respect to the president's stewardship of the economy. If criticisms of foreign policy are fair issues in campaign debates - and I don't think anyone disputes that they are - then so are the successes.
I do not think Arianna Huffington's concern is that President Obama's highlighting of his crowning foreign policy achievement is somehow petty and political and unpresidential. Ms. Huffington's motives can be explained much more easily. Simply put: Arianna Huffington and the Huffington Post's most influential political writers agrees with Mitt Romney on the specific idea that Barack Obama's method of getting bin Laden was wrong. The Huffington Post and Mitt Romney seem to agree that President Obama should not hit terrorists in another country.
I don't think Arianna Huffington is going after the president's reminder to the country about bin Laden's death because she's got a genuine, heartfelt concern about it. She's going after it because the ad not only contrast Barack Obama's certitude in pursuing this goal, even on foreign land, it also contrasts the Professional Left's ideological opposition to those same methods. The only difference may be that Romney's opposition was borne out of the political need in his party to oppose Barack Obama on everything and the Professional Left's opposition to those policies are borne out of their own ideological stridency.
I suspect that Ms. Huffington fears that should Americans grow more accepting of the use of targeted, most deeply and soberly considered use of force on the basis of necessity, a sensible paradigm in foreign policy in the age of terrorism will take place. A paradigm that neither uses knee-jerk cowboy foreign policy to use force without consideration nor rejects in a knee-jerk manner the need to use targeted force to fight a modern, stateless enemy. Should that paradigm take hold as the new American foreign policy paradigm, it is going to be harmful to the endless cowboy-vs.-hippie debate that serves to fill the corners of the main-scream media, but not much else.
That - the acknowledgment that policy resides often in a gray area rather than in black and white - could be devastating for the screaming heads future of our media culture, at least in this one aspect. The entire "new" Professional Left media (along with their Professional Right counterparts) - lead by the Huffington Post - depends on the cowboy-vs.-hippie scream-fest. Keeping that in place is beneficial for the peddlers of that myth on both sides. You can't have the Obama campaign screwing with that that nicely constructed business model now, can you?