I did not celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden.
Nor did I previously celebrate the hanging of Saddam Hussein in a kangaroo court, or the strange death in a prison cell of Slobodan Milosevic before his "war crimes" trial.
And I won't celebrate if and when Barack Obama finally murders Qadaffi himself, instead of Qadaffi's children and grandchildren.
For I have little reason to trust the words of this or past Presidents. My presumption is that Bin Laden was killed on May 1; I don't have evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, I don't have much reason to trust the government either.
For instance, our last three Presidents: Obama, W. Bush, and Clinton, never once provide any reason to go to war against Libya, Iraq, or Yugoslavia. They made allegations - about massive civilian slaughters, WMDs, and genocide – but never provided evidence. Moreover, that evidence never existed in the first place; you'll find mass graves in Yugoslavia or Libya just as quickly as you'll find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Finally, even if their allegations were true, they never made a persuasive argument that only war was the answer.
On the most important issue, war, the last three Presidents proved to be untrustworthy. They are either
1. Lying, evil men
2. Ignorant, stupid men, or at best ideological fanatics who are blind to the plain facts before them
3. Pawns (or perhaps at best a rook, bishop, or knight) who are taking orders from someone else, and who perhaps are being fed misinformation
If a President's justification for war is false, why should I believe him regarding the death of an alleged terrorist such as Osama Bin Laden?
Bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed, indicating hecould have been captured.
And that leads to the most disturbing aspect of this case: the fact that so many Americans cheered the killing of Bin Laden.
Of course, on one level, this is understandable. Most Americans believe Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That's what the government told them. Again, I don't know that it isn't true, and presume that it is.
And yet President Obama ordered this killing. He won't even release pictures of the body. And, the body itself was thrown into the ocean.
This looks like a cover-up. Just like Milosevic and Hussein, the West couldn't afford to try him in a legitimate court. These men knew too much. The dirty laundry of U.S. foreign policy couldn't be aired to the American public.
And Obama will likely get away with it. Just as G.W. Bush led many Americans to applaud the use of torture, so now Obama has made the disturbing, covert use of the Presidential Death Squad mainstream.
The most amazing aspect of this is how, in the post-9/11 world, so many are willing to believe the President (whoever he is) on issues of "national security" and terrorism. They will claim the President is personally unethical and lies all the time, but, when a "national security" incident related to 9/11 comes up, they will believe the President's claims.
I don't recall this before 9/11. Most wars had vocal critics and strong partisan opposition. Today, Presidents get a bi-partisan free pass.
I understand that any Bin Laden who was captured and tried would be viewed by some conspiracy theorists as a charade. Any photos, public viewing of the dead body, etc. would also rouse suspicions.
This has happened with release of Obama's birth certificate: some people claim it has been faked.
This will always happen. The State will never persuade everybody.
But in the death of Osama bin Laden, the Obama Administration didn't even try to produce evidence.
Why should Americans who disbelieve Obama on everything else, believe him this one time?
The American people should hold the President accountable in matters of "national security." If you don't trust the President when it comes to the budget or healthcare, there's no reason to give him a free pass in war on foreign policy.