Valuing Dot-Connecting

     There is some debate concerning the extent to which water boarding yielded information that led to the finding of Osama bin Laden.  Some Republicans want give water boarding considerable weight; others give it 0-2% 

     But two things are certain, though:  First, whereas, the Bush Administration failed to connect the dots that could have prevented 9/11, the Obama Administration put together the dots that led to bin Laden's capture within two years.   And, second, all of the information that Obama used--even if it included some evidence obtained through torture--was either known or available to be known during G. W. Bush's presidency.  Again, however, Republicans were not able to recognize and collect dots that could have been connected. 

     But two things are certain:  First, whereas, the Bush Administration failed to connect the dots that could have prevented 9/11, the Obama Administration put together the dots that led to bin Laden's capture.  And second all of the information that Obama used--even if it included some evidence obtained through torture--was either known or available to be known during Bush's presidency.  Again, however, they were not able to recognize or collect relevant dots to connect. 

     Republicans are eager to give Bush much of the credit for finding bin Laden--even as they insist on giving Obama full blame for the Bush-induced recession.  But it was Obama who announced that, if he had actionable information about the location of bin Laden in Pakistan, he would not seek Pakistan's permission to get him.  Although he seemed to lose interest later during his presidency--likely born of frustration--Bush did say he "wanted bin Laden Dead or Alive."  Obama delivered him dead, and buried him at sea with a dignity that was consistent with his faith, though consistent not with his deeds.

     As speculation rises concerning the possible role of Pakistan in harboring bin Laden, or in not having the vigilance to discover that he was around, questions are being raised about the circumstances surrounding bin Laden's death:  Was it necessary?  Was he armed?  Was he attempting to defend himself?  Was he going for a weapon?  All of these questions are being raised by people who are concerned that he may have been killed without being given as opportunity to surrender and be brought back for trial.

     This is because among the great diversity among Americans--we are diverse by race, religion, color, national origin, language, ideology, gender and sexual orientation to mention a few--significant diversity exist within Americans themselves concerning when life is to be valued and when death is appropriate.  

     Many liberals vigorously defend a woman's right to terminate the life of her unborn child even as they argue just as vigorously against death penalty.  Many conservatives defend just as vigorously the right of a baby to be born even as they defend a state's right to take the lives of those accused of killing others, despite the frequency of the convicted eventually being found innocent, .  Each group has within its own value system a conflict concerning when life it to be valued.   A discussion about that conflict, within our moral and legal systems of justice, is natural now that Osama bin Laden has been found, and perhaps executed. 

      Let's continue the discussion by examining the circumstances surrounding this mission--assuming what is being reported so far is correct.  A plan to either capture or kill bin Laden had been thoroughly practiced, and when considered ready to be executed still was given only a 60-80% chance of succeeding. 

     Suppose, then, the plan had been to capture bin Laden.  Wrapped in that 20-40% chance of failure would have been the possibility of his eventual escape  or rescue.  Unanticipated and uncontrolled circumstances could have resulted in a captured bin Laden being on the loose again.  (It has also been suggested that bin Laden might have had a self-detonating bomb strapped to himself, potentially endangering the lives of American captors.)

     In either case, most Americans of all political persuasions would have been insisting that bin Laden should have been killed, and his possible escape not risked.  Republicans would have been claiming that they would have delivered him dead.  And Obama's defeat in next years election likely would have been signed, sealed and delivered regardless of what the economy did. 

     Osama bin Laden was a special criminal:  He was a deadly international enemy.  The circumstances leading to his capture were among the riskiest for several reasons, and the odds were against his ever being found again.  Still, despite bin Laden's death being necessary--and given the circumstances perhaps preferred by him--some concern about the means will linger. 

     President Obama was successful in capturing bin Laden because he did not need Republican help to do it.  Can you imagine what would have happened had Obama asked Congress' permission to get him?  We'd still be debating whether we could afford it.

     Barack Obama was elected president because of his integrity, wisdom, intelligence and determination to solve difficult national problems .  It took him less than three years to catch bin Laden, because he had time to do it.  And he'll solve our other problems, too, if we give him time and some help.

     It's not likely that the party that did not know how to keep this country and the world out of the Great Recession, did not recognize the symptoms of the pending catastrophe, and did not suggest measures that could have prevented it would know how to solve present  problems and prevent others.  

     Republicans  have been inept at recognizing and connecting dots related to the nation's security and prosperity.  And few Americans believe that Obama's becoming president, somehow miraculously made them smart.