Now that would have been some marketing meeting!

By J. Thomas Duffy 

WOW!

If this marketing meeting had taken place, about the only thing that could rival it would be Lenny Bruce's "Religion Inc."

 

Seems the former Big Cheese of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, was fretting that his creation of terrorism and murder was losing its marketing punch.

Osama wanted new name for al-Qaida to repair image 

As Osama bin Laden watched his terrorist organization get picked apart, he lamented in his final writings that al-Qaida was suffering from a marketing problem. His group was killing too many Muslims and that was bad for business. The West was winning the public relations fight.

[snip]

The problem with the name al-Qaida, bin Laden wrote in a letter recovered from his compound in Pakistan, was that it lacked a religious element, something to convince Muslims worldwide that they are in a holy war with America.

Maybe something like Taifat al-Tawhed Wal-Jihad, meaning Monotheism and Jihad Group, would do the trick, he wrote. Or Jama'at I'Adat al-Khilafat al-Rashida, meaning Restoration of the Caliphate Group.

As bin Laden saw it, the problem was that the group's full name, al-Qaida al-Jihad, for The Base of Holy War, had become short-handed as simply al-Qaida. Lopping off the word "jihad," bin Laden wrote, allowed the West to "claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam." Maybe it was time for al-Qaida to bring back its original name.

I don't know.

Coca Cola didn't get very far with its "New Coke" efforts.

Then again, how would you like to be the young ad exec handling the account? 

But wait! ... There's more! 

OBL was also getting all Jack-Lemmon-Save-The-Tiger, bemoaning the younger generation:

In one letter sent to Zawahri within the past year or so, bin Laden said al-Qaida's image was suffering because of attacks that have killed Muslims, particularly in Iraq, officials said. In other journal entries and letters, they said, bin Laden wrote that he was frustrated that many of his trusted longtime comrades, whom he'd fought alongside in Afghanistan, had been killed or captured.

Using his courier system, bin Laden could still exercise some operational control over al-Qaida. But increasingly the men he was directing were younger and inexperienced. Frequently, the generals who had vouched for these young fighters were dead or in prison. And bin Laden, unable to leave his walled compound and with no phone or Internet access, was annoyed that he did not know so many people in his own organization.

Guess he didn't apply to be on Undercover Boss.

This ranks up there, before we get too derisive, with our own government labeling the killing of innocent civilians as "collateral damage."

Cue up "Que Sera Sera."

 

Bonus Riffs 

Spencer Ackerman: Contest: Pick al-Qaida’s New Name

Jeff Neumann: Osama Bin Laden Worried About Al Qaeda’s Image Problem 

Blackwater Going All Prince On Us (But You Can Pronounce The Name) 

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Disney drops plans to trademark "SEAL Team 6"

By Richard K. Barry

Just to close the loop on this one, having written about it earlier in the month, I'm pleased to report that the Walt Disney Company announced yesterday that it was going to withdraw its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be granted exclusive rights to use the term "SEAL Team 6" on a range of items that would include clothing and games.

SEAL Team 6 was of course the military outfit responsible for finding and killing Osama bin Laden. Just a couple of days after the raid some genius in the Disney marketing department thought it might be a fine idea to cheapen that name by putting it on merchandise.

The quote from Disney that accompanied their decision was that they pulled the application "out of deference to the Navy."

According to a Wall Street Journal report:

Navy officers privately expressed relief Wednesday that the company had chosen to retract its application, saving the organization from a long trademark battle.

The Navy first fired back at Disney with their own filing for trademarks on the phrases "SEAL Team" and "Navy SEALs," on May 13, several days after Disney's application.

I will say that I don't have a fancy MBA in marketing from one them there prestigious Ivy League schools, or from any school for that matter, but I kind of thought that this idea was a stinker from the moment I heard it. Seriously. The Disney organization has to be one of the greatest marketing success stories in the history of capitalism. How could they have been so tone deaf?

And the idea of doing battle in court with the Navy, after they emerged as national heroes for taking out bin Laden, that would have played really well in the press. I'm pretty sure Mickey would have been out of work in short order if something like that were to have happened.

Here's the topper:

Disney's intentions were misunderstood, according to a person familiar with the entertainment company's plans. Disney, which owns the ABC television network, is considering a TV show about an elite squad, similiar to other fictional drama about real-life arms of the military, such as "NCIS" and "JAG."

Yeah, right. Looks to me like this mess got handed from Disney's marketing department to its public relations department in a hurry. The whole thing is positively goofy. (Sorry for that one, but I had to).

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Cities of the plain

By Capt. Fogg

There are people who give free speech a bad name, people who use any freedom the government protects to undermine and destabilize and overthrow that government and exploit the population -- and all for personal (and corporate) gain.

Such are the shadowy entities behind the multi-headed beast pumped into a frenzy by unaccountable and uncountable millions they get for the purpose: entities like SOCYBERTY.COM, whose recent post was sent to me by a breathless Republican eager to impart the secret knowledge that, no, President Obama did not give the order to enter Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan because he is a dithering, indecisive coward and the reins of government have been pried from his trembling, black hands. You see, Leon Panetta had to "override" Obama with the help of Cabinet members and that eye-rolling minstrel show clown is too afraid now to tell the truth. Holdouts like Valerie Jarfett aren't telling us either because of the "investigation back in Chicago," but there was a silent coup and Obama is no longer in control:

What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound.

Of course, no news agency, not ABC or NBC or FOX or CNN or BBC or Deutsche Welle or al freakin' Jazeera knows about this, only SOCYBERTY.COM and all the other PAC-funded heads of the same hydra who are cutting and pasting and posting these stories. Google it and you'll see. They have secret sources in the Cabinet, you know, who will commit treason only for them.

Sure, we can see it as the desperate death throes of a humiliated racist party, a wicked witch melting and hissing on the floor, but I can't forgive it and I can't forgive the people who e-mail it around the country like some titillating photo of some stoned starlet getting out of a limousine in a short skirt. I can't forgive, I can't forget, and while old Yahweh was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of ten good citizens, no God worth his scriptures would forgive a country that contained ten such unpunished liars as these.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Top Ten Cloves: Possible Disney "Navy Seal Team 6" movies to be released

By J. Thomas Duffy 

Disney doesn't have to go far to exploit the killing of Osama bid Laden by the Navy Seal Team 6, it can just dip into the vast reservoir of its own film vault and rework storylines. 

News Item: Disney Trademarks "Seal Team 6" 

10. 101 Navy Seal Team 6's (Navy Seal Team 6 disrupts Al Qaeda suicide dog attack)

9. Song of the Seal Team 6 (Human interest pic of first African-American in Seal Team 6)

8. Terrorists in the Outfield (Summer 2012 - Al Qaeda targets Game 7 of World Series, but Navy Seal Team 6 swoops in, foils plot, and saves all the baseball players and fans)

7. That Darn Osama! (Navy Seal Team 6 adopts stray Islamic cat that leads them to Osama bin Laden)

6. The Shaggy Seal Team 6 (Navy Seal Team 6 shape-shifts into old English sheep dogs and herds all the terrorists into jail)

5. Honey, I Shrunk Osama Bin Laden (After accidentally shrinking Osama bid Laden, Navy Seal Team 6 gets shrunk to hunt down and kill him)

4. Who Framed Osama Bin Laden? (First animated Navy Seal Team 6 pic - Bob Hoskins returns as the private detective and helps Navy Seal Team 6 work through an army of Disney and other cartoon characters to track down Osama bin Laden and kill him)

3. The Absent-Minded Jihadist (With nod to original pic, Navy Seal Team 6 discovers old Pentagon Flubber files and develops Flubber Airplanes and other weapons to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden)

2. 20,000 Terrorists Under The Sea (Water adventure, borrowing from Pirates of the Caribbean - Disney sees multiple sequels with this)

1. The Navy Seal 6 King (Another animated pic, staying close to original, telling tale of young Navy Seal 6 team member destined to become team leader but having to deal with disgruntled team member, overcoming numerous plots to kill him before youngster beats him back and emerges victorious, with other Team 6 members bowing to him)

 

Richard K. Barry: Is Disney really going to trademark "SEAL Team 6"?

Daily Mail: Disney trademarks 'Seal Team 6' for toys, games, movies, snow globes and Christmas stockings TWO days after daring Bin Laden mission

John Cook: Disney Trademarks "SEAL Team 6"

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Thoughts on Osama bin Laden's porn stash and American freedom

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So pornography has been found on those computers taken from Osama bin Laden's hideout. Does this prove his hypocrisy? Yes, if it was his, but, even if it was, I'm not sure it's such a shocking revelation. Would we really be surprised to learn that Osama didn't always live up to his extremist ideals?

Sure, he criticized the West for its lax morals and open sexuality, but hypocrisy aside, was he wrong? Consider, without prejudice (if possible), what he once wrote to the American people:

Your nation exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools, calling upon customers to purchase them. You plaster your naked daughters across billboards in order to sell a product without any shame. You have brainwashed your daughters into believing they are liberated by wearing revealing clothes, yet in reality all they have liberated is your sexual desire.

I realize it's not a popular to defend anything about the man, but was he wrong about this? I remain committed to liberal principles and to a liberal way of life, including the liberation of sexual desire and freedom to express ourselves however we please, but I am also troubled by the exploitation of women and sexualization of children that are polluting our culture and interfering with the mature, reasoned expression of our liberty.

This is a far more important issue than Osama's alleged hypocrisy. But try telling that to the media, which prefer titillation to any sort of mature, rational discussion of sexuality and, more broadly, of American and Western culture.

Can he even pronounce the word "soufflé"?

By J. Thomas Duffy

One wonders if during the 2004 campaign against John Kerry The Commander Guy was chowing down on soufflés?

Then again, for that matter, can he even pronounce the word "soufflé"?

Anyways, the blogosphere is buzzing that Mr. Mission Accomplished was in a posh Dallas French restaurant eating a soufflé when he got the call that OBL was mown down.

Go read Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Guy for a great post on it.

And we have to give "line of the day" to Blue Texan over at Firedoglake:

Pretty easy to see why W. ditched his fake ranch out in the sticks for the poshy 'burbs of Dallas. It's so difficult to find decent French cuisine in Crawford these days.

Considering he gave up on capturing Bin Laden, did he even desire a phone call?

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Is Disney really going to trademark "SEAL Team 6"?

By Richard K. Barry 

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has a short mention today of the fact that Disney has trademarked Seal Team 6. He wisely introduces the story by indicating that it is not parody. It's real:

In a perfect example of a big media company looking to capitalize on current events, the Walt Disney Company has trademarked Seal Team 6, which happens to be the name of the elite special forces team that killed Osama bin Laden.

The trademark application came on May 3rd, two days after the operation that killed bin Laden and two days after Seal Team 6 was included in thousands of news articles and TV programs focusing on the operation.

Disney's trademark applications for Seal Team 6 covers clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games, entertainment and education services among other things. 

A couple days ago I wrote about being uncomfortable with the thought of grotesque pictures of bin Laden's body on T-shirts and in other public displays as a business proposition, had the pictures been released.

I want to be really careful here because I am not anti-soldier. I have said before that I think bin Laden had to be killed and that I am glad we had people trained to do the deed. Their bravery and resolve is to be lauded. Medals, commendations, our gratitude and respect. Absolutely.

There is just something about Disney, the standard in family entertainment, selling stuffed animals or whatever with a Seal Team 6 logo on it. There is nothing warm and cuddly about what had to be done. There is nothing clean and easy about it. Pretending that we don't compromise our humanity by committing or supporting violent acts is folly, no matter how necessary they may be. This was not a Disney moment and trying to make money off of it, especially by these people, is kind of sick.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Doing the right thing: Justice, law, and the killing of Osama bin Laden

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Times:

The adult sons of Osama bin Laden have lashed out at President Obama in their first public reaction to their father's death, accusing the United States of violating its basic legal principles by killing an unarmed man, shooting his family members and disposing of his body in the sea.

And?

Look, I realize that in a perfect world Osama would have been put on trial for his "alleged" crimes. But in a perfect world there never would have been the attacks of 9/11, and in the real world how would any such trial have been conducted to anyone's satisfaction?

I also realize that the question of whether or not Osama's assassination (for that is what is was, let's be clear) was legal is an open one. As Glenn Greenwald wrote the other day, we just don't know enough, specifically the details of the mission and how it was carried out, "to assess the justifiability (or legality) of what took place." He continued:

I think what's really going on here is that there are a large number of people who have adopted the view that bin Laden's death is an unadulterated Good, and it therefore simply does not matter how it happened (ends justify the means, roughly speaking). There are, I think, two broad groups adopting this mindset: (1) those, largely on the Right, who believe the U.S. is at War and anything we do to our Enemies is basically justifiable; and (2) those, mostly Democrats, who reject that view -- who genuinely believe in general in due process and adherence to ostensible Western norms of justice -- yet who view bin Laden as a figure of such singular Evil (whether in reality or as a symbol) that they're willing to make an exception in his case, willing to waive away their principles just for him: creating the Osama bin Laden Exception.

If I had to choose, I would put myself in the latter category, though I don't think Greenwald allows for enough nuance here. It's not so much an Osama "exception" that provides me with the justification for the killing but an understanding (I would like to think) that the world is a messy place and occasionally requires departures from our accepted standards of right and wrong, just and unjust, however flexible. In this case, I'm just not sure the alternative -- putting Osama on trial -- was workable. Ultimately, this, his killing, was the only way it could end.

I understand that we enter upon a slippery slope here. If killing Osama is okay, what about killing the next guy, and the next guy, and the next guy. If you make an exception here, what about there, there, and there? If it's all about some "greater good," where do you draw the line with respect to protecting that good? -- And suddenly we become torturers and executioners.

But allowing for a certain amount of flexibility, carefully monitored, also allows us to avoid absolutism. As Richard Barry wrote last week, "I would like to think we are the kind of people, with the kind of leadership, able to make hard choices, perhaps sometimes ugly choices, because it will lead to a better moral outcome." Again, it is easy to see this as the thin end of the wedge, and Richard acknowledges that. But I agree with him that in the real world we must make difficult moral choices, and I would add that absolutism (this is always right, this is always wrong) gives us an easy way out by making those choices for us regardless of context or nuance. This is why people gravitate towards absolutism. It's morally easier than the alternative, keeping in a state of infantile submission.

I'm not saying that Greenwald is an absolutist. I agree with much of his reaction to Osama's killing and, needless to say, he is a serious and profound thinker. But defending the killing (even while probing into what actually happened, which is what we should be doing) is not necessarily about making a singular exception, even if it may be to some, but rather, to some of us, about rejecting absolutism and making, or allowing others to make in our name (specifically our democratically-elected leaders) the challenging, sometimes gut-wrenching, moral choices that allow us to lead fully realized human lives. Do I feel good that a human being, however "evil," was killed? No, I don't. But given everything that had happened and taking into consideration the various options open to President Obama, I'm just not sure any alternative would have been any more just.

Obviously, though, this does not excuse anything and everything the U.S. did -- and, again, we don't yet know, and may never know, all the details. Were it to emerge that Osama was captured, tortured, and then executed, if, that is, we are being grossly lied to and what happened was even worse than a simple assassination, some re-evaluation would be in order. Which is to say, we should not close the door on this story. We do need to know more. But for now, assuming that what happened is more or less as we are being told, I do think it is acceptable to think that Osama's killing was justified given the circumstances.

Now, to get back to what Osama's sons, was it legal? I'm hardly an expert on international law, but it seems to me that this question will never be definitively answered. Some will say it was, some will say it wasn't. And so the question isn't really about law but about justice, and specifically about justice in a time of war. (And whatever we may think of the so-called "war on terror," there is no doubt that what has been going on since 9/11 amounts to war.) And, to me, and I say this with enormous reluctance, justice required this action.

"We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems," say Osama's sons. Maybe not, but this wasn't just some political problem. This was about tracking down and dealing with the world's leading terrorist, a man who declared war on the United States and its allies around the world, including much of the Muslim world (the parts that rejected his fundamentalist extremism). And while I certainly prefer that the U.S. adhere to its purported legal principles as absolutely as possible, sometimes justice, situational justice, requires flexibility with respect to the application of those principles.

No, America is not perfect, far from it, but neither is the world, and given the circumstances, given the tough moral choices that had to be made, I just don't think Osama's sons have much of a case, let alone much credibility.

Barack Obama is no Michael Dukakis or Jimmy Carter

By Richard K. Barry 

I have been thinking about the "bump" that President Obama received in his popularity numbers after it was reported that Osama bin Laden had been killed. I know some people don't think that we should even talk about the impact of such things on political popularity. They are wrong. Politics is, in great part, about how the public judges the actions of its leaders. We determine our support for them based on the things they do or even choose not to do and we consider every nuance of their behaviour in these decision making processes as we make our judgements. I'm not sure I see how it can be any other way.

I did think, in perhaps what is a somewhat roundabout way, that one of the reasons Obama benefited from the decision to order the mission is that it helped to address the concern that some people have that Obama is a bit too cool, a bit too emotionally detached from events around him. We have heard the "no drama Obama" thing and may have thought it was mostly a good thing that our president was in such control of his emotions. Some, however, might have been thinking that a bit more drama would be okay too, that it would be alright if our president showed that he was emotionally engaged and, let's call it what it is, pretty cold-blooded if the need arose, tough enough to get the job done.

Then I thought of Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debate with George H.W. Bush when Dukakis was asked if he would support the death penalty for someone who, hypothetically speaking, had raped and murdered his wife. His answer, which even he later regretted, helped to ensure that he would not win the presidency (his polling numbers actually dipped significantly after the debate). Rather than say that he would be out of his mind with anger and at least at first wish revenge, he immediately struck a professorial pose. Rather than react in any real way at all he launched immediately into his set speech about opposing capital punishment. No show of emotion. No proof that a human being resided therein. The question was obviously completely unfair. It was a set up, but it may have ended his campaign.

As for Obama, having the courage to send those Navy SEALS into that compound knowing that a failed mission would have been disastrous not just for the country but perhaps also for his own political career took some balls. In a political sense, a failed mission would have paired him with Jimmy Carter forever as a "failed president," not that we are supposed to think of things in such terms.

Anyway, something about the whole constellation of events that ended in the death of bin Laden showed Obama in an emotionally accessible way that had not previously been evident to a lot of people and it has perhaps made some of those people trust him a bit more. People can be funny that way. Ask Michael Dukakis.

For the sake of history, here is the clip of Dukakis dropping the ball:

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Osama bin Laden likely aided by "rogue" elements in Pakistan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ABC News:

A senior official in Pakistan's civilian government told ABC News, "Elements of Pakistan intelligence -- probably rogue or retired -- were involved in aiding, abetting and sheltering the leader of al Qaeda," the strongest public statement yet from the Pakistani government after the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound.

This is based on the government's judgment that the number of years bin Laden spent in Abbottabad -- and it now appears in a village outside the city of Haripur -- would have been impossible without help, possibly from someone in the middle tier of ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency, who grew up fighting alongside the mujahidin against the Soviets, said the official. 

Hard to believe.

Actually, it could be that this "official" is just trying to deflect attention away from the government itself, as well as current ISI officials, and towards "rogue" elements. It's pretty hard to believe that Osama wasn't helped at all by current government officials, that he managed to evade capture/death for so many years simply because rogue/retired officials sheltered him. Seriously, how credible is that?

It seems far more likely that active rogue elements in the ISI, operating with the tacit approval of extremely senior government officials (how senior may be open to question), were instrumental in keeping him alive and connected to his terrorist network. The government may claim ignorance, but it knew the ISI was full of al Qaeda supporters/sympathizers and surely there were senior officials who knew what was going on.

The Sweet Smell of Sour Grapes

by Distributorcap

I love the smell of racism sour grapes in May

 Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2003 - when President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"

Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011 - just before President Obama gave the order to invade his compound

Four months since the American population (well those that bothered to vote) opted to give the Teabag Republican party another chance to mess up America (after all 8 years of Bush, and 6 years of Congressional majorities was not enough) - it is quite apparent that the GOP (and their leaders patrons allies on the right like Fox, Rush, Koch Industries) have jumped right back to the future with same bag of one trick pony policies:

1. cut taxes for the rich
2. dismantle any social safety net for the not-so-rich

However, the brainiacs on the right have a new Prime Directive for their Federation of Nutjobs:

• 3) say anything and everything to disparage and ruin Obama.

As stupid as most Republican leaders are (and they are) - they are smart enough to realize that saying the most reprehensible, false and hateful things about President Obama is the one thing that will generate the most media attention.

In this short period of time - the lunatics Republicans in the House have managed to pass bills on abortion, eliminating Medicare, and subsidizing the insanely profitable oil companies. They have also managed to spend lots of money for an law firm to defend DOMA. What they haven't done of course is produce any sort of policy to help turn the economy around or set a path for job creation (but they do want to eliminate Unemployment - insurance that is, not real unemployment). On top of their complete ineffectiveness as a governing party and outright lies to the electorate, the lengths the Republicans will go to - to confirm their own self-aggrandized superior talent - is nothing short of incredible.

This includes some of the most utterly overtly disparaging and covertly racist things about Obama they can dream up or find in the Honolulu Hall of Records.

When President Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden last Sunday, it brought the soap opera known as the All My GOPs to a new low in American history.

The words and thoughts that have been coming out of the mouths of the GOP/Right this week reminds me of Hitler in the bunker - despite a world crashing around them from their own insane policies - they will fight to the end to justify their own past actions no matter how wrong they were or how much they have destroyed in their wake.

It didn't take long before the usual cast of characters began their blatant and not-so-subtle trashing of the President for doing exactly what their hero, President George W. Bush, only wished he could have done.

Let's start with the King of Insanity himself - Glenn Beck. Beck called Obama's trip to Ground Zero "slimy" and "disgusting" on his radio show. Beck of course said that the visit to the WTC site was "shameless" and nothing more than victory lap and a political stunt.

Of course walking around the rubble of the collapsed towers with a bullhorn shouting " I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" is a case study in subdued, classy behavior.

Next AT BAT is Andrew Card, Bush's former Chief of Staff. Card is a man obviously not playing with a full deck. Andy, who likes to give the appearance of moderation, thoughtfulness and integrity - proved this week that he is nothing more than Glenn Beck in a nicer suit.

In an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel, Card said that Obama has "pounded his chest" too much over the death of Osama bin Laden, particularly by going to Ground Zero earlier this week, the site of the 9/11 attacks. "He can take pride in it, but he does not need to show it so much."

Of course landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit and declaring "Mission Accomplished" in front a giant banner hanging on the ship (before the mission is accomplished) was really a solemn ceremony meant to honor the victims on 9/11, and had nothing to do with politics.

All of us - liberal, moderate, conservative, non-political should get down on our knees and starting thanking whichever-god-you-want that the GOP never exploited 911 for political gain.

Card is an ass^nth - I wonder why he didn't give this same interview to an American paper - a little cowardly methinks. Card further stepped into Barney's poo when he said his issue is not with anything Obama has said about his decision to launch the raid on bin Laden's compound, but rather with Obama's actions. Amazing.

Next up in murderer's row is John Yoo - the world's biggest cheerleader for torture. The man who somehow see things in the Constitution that us mere mortals could not see and decided that the President (Republican only, not Obama) has the right to do anything he wants - anything. Yoo-hoo said that Obama had made a serious mistake by not capturing bin Laden and milking him for information on potential future terror attacks.

Of course Yoo's main man - Bush - is the one who said "Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

That was just the tip of the iceberg.  Other reactions from the GOP, teabaggers and those on the Right, while less obvious on the hate, are just as nauseating in their tone.

Rick "Man on dog" Santorum said "9/11 families and everybody else in America should be furious at this president that he’s walking abound taking credit for, you know, getting Osama bin Laden. He didn’t get Osama bin Laden! The president of the United States simply said — courageous act, give him credit for saying yes — but that’s all he did, is say yes. He didn’t do the hard work. The people he’s going after did the hard work. And that is an outrage."

David "I never met a politician I couldn't buy" Koch gave Obama zero credit for the successful mission, telling reporters, “I don’t think he contributed much at all.” Koch called the president “a hardcore socialist” and minimized his role in the operation, explaining, “All that Obama did was say ‘yea’ or ‘nay.’”

Trent Franks said on Frank Gaffney’s (another fine example complete whack-o racist) Secure Freedom Radio show, said "President Obama is too concerned with exploiting the issue for political reasons to do what’s necessary to protect this country”

Not to be left out of the party - the Princess of the North Country Sarah Palin never mentioned President Obama by name, instead she said, ‘We thank President Bush for having made the right calls to set up this victory.”  Nothing like a little revisionism to pepper up the plotlines.

Former hack mouthpiece to Commander Codpiece himself, Ari Fleischer, was more "polite," saying “both presidents deserve credit.”

What's interesting about the words from entitled folks like Beck, Card, Yoo, Santorum, Koch, Franks, Palin and Fleischer (not leave out Trump, Limbaugh, Krauthammer, Ingraham, Malkkkin, and others) is that none of them have ever learned the meaning of "graciousness." Imagine being Andrew Card or David Koch, supposedly mature adults (Palin and Beck are most definitely not mature adults), who never ever have to admit they have made a mistake or apologize. They can make all the racial insinuations against the President they want and due to their stance or clout (or money) never have worry about being called out on their evil.

In the GOP's world, no Black [Muslim, Kenyan, Socialist] man was ever supposed to be elected to the job they own (the Presidency) and then - OMG - beat them at their own game, with his own rules. This is exactly what this whole post-Nov 2008 GOP meltdown has been all about. This is also why the Republicans simply can not handle the truth about the past week. Koch, Santorum, Beck, and Palin are fine with Jamaican nannies and NBA centers, but a Black president protecting the security of the country - that is just way too much for such simpletons to process.

I wish these clowns on the right would stop with the euphemisms and just call him the "N-word" already. You just know that they are biting their tongues not to let it slip out. It's killing them that the Black/Muslim/Kenyan/Socialist President can succeed so spectacularly where they have failed so miserably.

The jealousy we are witnessing before our very eyes is a great plot device for Erika on All My Children - but is such an ugly emotion when coming from a bunch of incompetent and evil nincompoops bent on leading the country. They gushed over President Bush when he carried out a plastic turkey to the troops fighting the war he lied his way into - but can not even thank President Obama for taking out the man that killed 3,000+ innocents - and gave their Dear Leader the excuse he needed to go to war.

Anyone with half a brain can see how incredibly childish the right wing and Republican leadership has become - and the elimination of Osama bin Laden was just the straw that broke the elephant's back. I can only hope the very people that voted for these clowns also see it.

Somehow I doubt it.

Reality bites (Rick Santorum in the ass)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

At Thursday night's GOP "presidential" "debate" in South Carolina, Rick Santorum said that President Obama deserves zero credit for killing Osama bin Laden:

9/11 families and everybody else in America should be furious at this president that he's walking abound taking credit for, you know, getting Osama bin Laden. He didn't get Osama bin Laden!

Basically, Obama just gave the order, which was easy enough to do (as if there were no question at all, as if the mission weren't risky at all -- clearly Santorum has no idea what it means to be president and to have to make decisions like this). It was Bush who did all the work. 

It's predictable enough that all five Republicans went after Obama and that Santorum in particular, who is so desperate to gain traction (but who really doesn't have much of a shot of actually winning), said something so ridiculously stupid, something that goes beyond even what most other conservatives are saying in response to the mission. This isn't just denying Obama full credit, or trying to share some of the credit, this is saying that Obama did virtually nothing and is shamelessly taking undeserved credit for something he knows he didn't do.

Aside from the facts that Obama was closely involved in the planning stage of the mission and was making the key decisions all along -- and, indeed, there were other options and things could have gone differently -- what Santorum gets wrong is just how differently Obama has approached the "war" on terror compared to Bush:

[A]s Michael Hirsch writes today in the National Journal, President Obama was sucessful in catching Bin Laden precisely because he broke with Bush's terror policies. The conservative "assessment couldn't be further from the truth," Hirsch writes. "Behind Obama's takedown of the Qaida leader this week lies a profound discontinuity between administrations — a major strategic shift in how to deal with terrorists," from Bush's bombastic and overly expansive "war on terror," to Obama's "covert, laserlike focus on al-Qaida and its spawn."

In other words, the mission to kill Osama bin Laden was planned and succeeded not in spite of Obama, or regardless of Obama, but because of Obama. This is not to say that another president wouldn't have made the same or similar decisions and wouldn't have similarly succeeded, but it's just plain wrong to suggest that Obama deserves none of the credit or even just some of the credit.

This is politics, I know, and the truth matters little to extremist partisan ideologues like Santorum. But it's yet another example of just how reality-denying the Republicans really are.

And it's only going to get worse.

(photo)

Rashard Mendenhall clarifies controversial Twitter remarks

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall, you've probably heard, posted some rather interesting tweets on the killing of Osama bin Laden. I wrote about them on Wednesday, defending Mendenhall but not excusing a couple of the more inexcusable tweets.

Presenting himself as a 9/11 Truther? Not so good.

Seeming to be an Osama apologist? Also not so good.

But saying that there's something wrong with celebrating death, with the lust for bloody vengeance, refusing to be a judge (which only his God can truly be), and encouraging thought instead of ignorance? What's so wrong with that?

While defending Mendenhall, to a point, I made sure to stress that he needed to clarify his remarks, to explain himself. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he appears to be thoughtful, peaceful man. I said that he should have been more careful, that Twitter isn't the best place to express such nuanced thoughts. I said that we shouldn't be too quick to judge. I admired him, in a way, but I was prepared to be more critical if he didn't 

Well, Mendenhall took to his blog (as reported by the Post-Gazette), a blog now with just a single post, for clarification. I encourage you to read his post in full. Here's some of it:

I appreciate those of you who have decided to read this letter and attain a greater understanding of my recent twitter posts. I see how they have gotten misconstrued, and wanted to use this outlet as a way to clear up all things that do not truthfully represent myself, what I stand for personally, and any organization that I am a part of.

First, I want people to understand that I am not in support of Bin Laden, or against the USA. I understand how devastating 9/11 was to this country and to the people whose families were affected. Not just in the US, but families all over the world who had relatives in the World Trade Centers. My heart goes out to the troops who fight for our freedoms everyday, not being certain if they will have the opportunity to return home, and the families who watch their loved ones bravely go off to war.

And he responded specifically to objections to one of his two objectionable tweets, the one in which he said that people shouldn't celebrate death but also in which he wondered how people could hate a man (Osama) they'd never even heard speak:

This controversial statement was something I said in response to the amount of joy I saw in the event of a murder. I don't believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one of religion, morality, and human ethics...

I wasn't questioning Bin Laden's evil acts. I believe that he will have to face God for what he has done. I was reflecting on our own hypocrisy. During 9/11 we watched in horror as parts of the world celebrated death on our soil. Earlier this week, parts of the world watched us in horror celebrating a man's death.

And then he apologized for anything that might have been misconstrued:

Nothing I said was meant to stir up controversy. It was my way to generate conversation. In looking at my timeline in its entirety, everything that I've said is with the intent of expressing a wide array of ideas and generating open and honest discussions, something I believe we as American citizens should be able to do. Most opinions will not be fully agreed upon and are not meant to be. However, I believe every opinion should be respected or at least given some thought. I apologize for the timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm. I apologize to anyone I unintentionally harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that was made and put in my name.

It was only meant to encourage anyone reading it to think.

With respect to the controversial tweet about hearing Osama's side, I think that Mendenhall wrote inartfully. In other words, he just didn't express himself well. His explanation helps, but obviously he should have been more careful with his words. Because, as it is, that tweet comes across not necessarily as pro-Osama but at least as deeply ignorant. (A lot of us heard Osama speak. A lot of us know the other side. But we still hated the man and were content, if not happy, to see him killed.)

Overall, Mendenhall's clarification, which according to the Post-Gazette he wrote himself, shows him, like his Twitter feed generally, to be an intelligent, humble, and thoughtful man. In a world full of knee-jerk jingoism, including some of what we saw in the aftermath of the killing Sunday night, such a nuanced sense both of self and of the world is truly admirable. (And, in a pro athlete, truly remarkable.) I was a fan of the athlete before. Now I'm a fan of the man.

The problem, though, is that Mendenhall did not address his 9/11 Truther tweet: "We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style." Does he really think that something else was going on, that, say, the U.S. government was behind it, or is he merely musing on a distantly remote possibility? I'd certainly like to know, as would his other fans, as would pretty much everyone else for that matter. He deleted that specific tweet, and so maybe he doesn't think he needs to explain it, but he must know that anything that goes public on a social networking site is likely to remain public no matter what, and that tweet remains out there regardless of whether or not it's in his feed.

So, Rashard, will you not take the time to clarify it? You seem to be a good and decent man. You say you want us all to think. Well, then, give us more than a single tweet about 9/11 and tell us what you really think. I, for one, am certainly open to having a conversation about it, and I suspect that many others are as well. I know you've encountered a lot of knee-jerk jingoism already, but not all of us are like that. And while I will disagree with you if you really are a 9/11 Truther, and while most others will too, you would do well not to let that tweet stand as your only statement on the matter. I suspect your views on that are much more nuanced. So what are they?

Birthers, Deathers, will the madness never end?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate certainly didn't silence the Birthers, but, regardless, there's room for many ridiculous conspiracy theories on the right -- not that Birtherism is a theory, it's more of a sickness of the mind -- and the killing of Osama bin Laden has produced a new one, Deatherism, with Deathers questioning the veracity of Osama's death.

(Sigh.)

Deatherism lies mainly on the right, where Obama's Republican opponents will do, say, and think anything that seems to discredit him, however insane, but it's not exclusively a right-wing phenomenon. Regardless, I doubt it will have much staying power, and certainly not nearly as much as Birtherism, largely because most of Obama's critics are criticizing him on other grounds -- a few on the left, like Michael Moore, criticizing him for acting illegally in "executing" Osama, many more on the right criticizing him for any number of ridiculous things, like being too slow to act, and/or, like David Koch, refusing to give him any credit at all.

I myself have been critical of the White House's handling of the post-killing spin, but on the basic fact of the incredibly risky, incredibly courageous action to raid Osama's hideout and, yes, kill the terrorist mastermind, Obama deserves enormous credit.

Not that the facts will do anything to convince those who prefer paranoia to reality.

The European view of the Osama bin Laden killing

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the NYT:

No European government has condemned or criticized the killing of Osama bin Laden by American commandos, but the questions raised about the changing details of his death sharpened considerably after the White House revealed that he did not fire a weapon, was not armed and did not use a woman as a protective shield.

Some are questioning whether "justice" in fact was done, as President Obama portrayed the killing, and whether the American troops made any effort to capture Bin Laden alive or whether they simply executed him. And some think that the scenes of celebrating Americans — whether at the White House or at ground zero — are inappropriate responses that are indecorous at the least and at worst could incite more terrorism.

The disquiet is mostly among those on the left and among the elite in the news media, but it is reminiscent of the atmosphere during the Bush administration and the war against Iraq, when the United States was criticized for unilateralism, arrogance, disrespect for international law, triumphalism and a resort to overwhelming military force.

To be fair, there is no monolithic European view. Opinions there are divided just as they everywhere else, though I suspect there is far more nuance there than, say, on Main Street America, where fist-pumping and flag-waving were, and remain, the order of the day.

There may be some "disquiet" on the left and in some parts of the media, but the Times is generalizing to the point of near-misrepresentation. Clearly not everyone on the European left, whatever that even means, is full of "disquiet." And, indeed, I suspect that the vast majority of Europeans, including those on the left, are on the American "side." Consider the outpouring of support after 9/11. We were all Americans then, were we not?

Besides, the concern isn't so much with what happened but how it happened. Which is to say, the concern is that the U.S. acted unilaterally and applied its own brand justice. That is a legitimate concern, given American tendencies to act unilaterally and without much regard for anyone else, including Europeans, and I would also suggest that the view, which we're not hearing much of from the U.S., that the U.S. should have taken Osama alive and subjected him to due process is similarly legitimate. And I share the view that some of the reaction to Osama's killing was indeed somewhat "indecorous," even if I understand the outpouring of patriotic glee and find little fault with it. I was not in a celebratory mood Sunday night, given the gravity of war, but that is not to say that Americans shouldn't have let off a little steam.

Now, I actually don't think that taking Osama alive would have made much sense, and I generally agree with what my friend Richard Barry wrote earlier today about this. I say this with great trepidation, but Osama had to be killed. That was really the only option. A trial and everything surrounding it would have been a circus.

But it would behoove Americans, and all those celebrating what happened, to take seriously the other side. No, not Osama's side, of course, but the side of those who are understandably experiencing some "disquiet" in the wake of what was, essentially, a state-ordered execution followed by some dishonest spin from the White House and its allies (Osama was living a life of luxury in a million-dollar mansion, Osama was armed and fought back, Osama used a woman as a human shield, etc.).

I remain convinced that it had to be done, though I find that spin unnecessary and counter-productive, as it undermines not the mythology of Osama bin Laden but American credibility. But, yes, "disquiet" is a good word for the certain nagging doubt that prevents me, and so many others, from fully celebrating what was a necessary act. A sense of justice was done. True justice, as ever, continues to elude us all.