Some Ohio conservatives think Romney responsible for Bin Laden’s death

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

A surprising amount of very conservative voters in Ohio apparently believe that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is more responsible for the death of Osama bin Laden than President Barack Obama.

Fifteen percent of those who described themselves as “very conservative” said Romney was more responsible for the demise of the terrorist leader, according to a survey released by Public Policy Polling (PDF). Another 51 percent said they were not sure. Only 34 percent said Obama deserved more credit.

In contrast, among those who described themselves as “somewhat conservative” only 6 percent said Romney was more responsible than Obama.

Overall, 63 percent of those questioned said that Obama was more responsible for the death of Bin Laden. Only six percent said Romney was more responsible, while 30 percent said they were not sure.

Bin Laden was killed last year after Obama ordered Navy SEALs to raid a compound in Pakistan where the terrorist leader was believed to be living.

Dylan Matthews of The Washington Postthinks the odd results of the poll could be the result of “psychological trickery.”

“[V]oters have trouble crediting politicians they don’t like for policy outcomes they do like,” he explained, citing research. “And killing bin Laden is a policy outcome they do like. And so partisan effects have led some Republicans to argue that Obama was not primarily responsible for killing bin Laden or, even more absurdly, that Romney was responsible.”

Way Back When "Politicizing" Terrorist Deaths Was OK

by Simon Maloy/Media Matters

Perusing the political media these days you can't help but notice the hand-wringing consensus that the Obama administration is running a risk by "politicizing" the death of Osama bin Laden. Foreign policy achievements, we're told, are somehow sacrosanct and shouldn't be sullied by the taint of electioneering.

The president, according to McClatchy, is in "a roiling dispute between his re-election campaign and Republicans, who accuse Obama of politicizing a unifying event by taking credit for ordering the raid that got bin Laden." The ever-eager Fox News reports that "President Obama faced mounting criticism Tuesday for allegedly politicizing the anniversary of Usama bin Laden's death, with Sen. John McCain scolding the commander-in-chief and former New York Gov. George Pataki going so far as to call on Obama to apologize."

It would be nice if the press, when wrestling with this narrative, could dive deep into their memories and travel all the way back to June 2006, when the government of Iraq announced that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, had been killed in an airstrike. The Bush White House and the Republican Congressional majority, facing terrible poll numbers and an angry electorate, were ecstaticat the news that one of the world's most wanted terrorists had met his end at American hands and immediately set to work politicizing his death.

The New York Times reported on June 13, 2006:

It came as Republicans began a new effort to use last week's events to turn the war to their political advantage after months of anxiety, and to sharpen attacks against Democrats. On Monday night, the president's top political strategist, Karl Rove, told supporters in New Hampshire that if the Democrats had their way, Iraq would fall to terrorists and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have been killed.

"When it gets tough, and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party's old pattern of cutting and running," Mr. Rove said at a state Republican Party gathering in Manchester.

Rove (who is now busily and dishonestly trying to diminish the Bin Laden raid) was delivering a message that synced nicely with the House Republican strategy (elucidated in a confidential memoprepared by John Boehner) to use Zarqawi's death to draw "a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to one of the most important political issues of our era."

Per the memo:

As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world.

Of course, even if there were no high-profile example of Republicans "spiking the football" over the death of a terrorist, are we really to believe they wouldn't have done exactly that had he been killed under Bush's watch?

So please: before we lend credence to all the pearl-clutching bluster over "politicizing" the death of a terrorist, let's pay due respect to recent history and common sense.

MSNBC's Ed Schultz Debunks Hannity's Claim That Obama Didn't Want Bin Laden Strike

The Roots Of Bin Laden Denialism

 by Simon Maloy/Media Matters

Sean Hannity is terribly vexed. In his mind, Democrats are weak on national security, for no other reason than they're Democrats. It's a foundational belief -- not just for him, but for a good portion of his and the rest of Fox News' conservative audience.

So how does he deal with the fact that Osama bin Laden met his end under a Democratic president? Denial.

The president's role in the hunt for Bin Laden has been well documented. The New Yorker published an exhaustive account of the raid on the Al Qaeda chief's compound in Abbottabad and the president's decision-making in the months leading up to the moment when he personally authorized it. More recently, Vice President Biden divulged that he had advised the president not to approve the mission, but was overruled. And yet, Hannity is insisting not just that Obama did not want Bin Laden killed, but that there exists taped evidence to prove it. The psychology at work here is fascinating.

The death of Bin Laden has proven to be an intractable problem for a conservative commentariat that relies upon facile and outdated stereotypes of the opposition. Say what you will about the Obama administration's expanded use of drone warfare and targeted assassinations, but it certainly does not comport with the flower-child caricature that has served as a foil for talk radio tough guys. And the death of the world's most prominent anti-American terrorist is not easily explained away.

So when Bin Laden met his end under a Democratic commander in chief, the right birthed an exotic array of explanations that attempted to square the circle. The most ambitious effort, of which there are undeniable echoes in Hannity's comments last night, was launched by an obscure right-wing blogger who (citing an unnamed and almost certainly imaginary White House "insider") claimed that the military had actually overruledObama's attempts to abort the Bin Laden raid.

Despite the obvious holes in the argument (i.e. treason), the "overruled" theory was picked up by more prominent right-wingers, including Atlas Shrugged blogger Pam Geller, who is a frequent guest on Hannity's television and radio programs. Geller promoted the story and stood by it even after it was pointed out that she was essentially accusing top military commanders of crimes punishable by death.

But that's the pathology. The assumed cowardliness and weakness of liberals and Democrats is integral to the worldview of Hannity other right-wing bombasts. So when a Democrat shows strength on national security, any alternate theory that keeps the delusion alive -- no matter how illogical or counterfactual -- is treated as more plausible than the truth.

Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff: Bush didn’t want to get bin Laden

By David Edwards

Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Wednesday that President George W. Bush wasn’t interested in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.

“I don’t think they really wanted to get bin Laden,” Wilkerson said.

“You could be very cynical and say he didn’t want to get him because once they got him the war was over and that left all the political advantage gone,” he added. “Or you could say that they knew that it was almost an impossibility to get him given what they had done to the intelligence and other aspects of the government that you needed to get him. They just about ruined it.”

Watch this video from MSNBC’s The Ed Show, broadcast May 11, 2011.

Right-Wing Media Still Hyping EITs, Ignoring Experts' Dispute

From Media Matters:

Since Osama bin Laden was killed in a successful U.S. raid last week, right-wing media have been hyping the Bush administration's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) and claim that key info about bin Laden was found by using EITs on detainees. In fact, many experts have questioned this claim, arguing that valuable intelligence has been and could have been gained more easily using other methods; additionally, there is considerable dispute as to whether the use of EITs yielded critical intelligence which led to bin Laden. 

EMBED

Right-Wing Media Hype Bush Admin. Officials' Claims About EITs

Wallace: "Enhanced Interrogation" Was "Such A Key Part Of This Raid." On the May 8 edition of Fox News' Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, "Why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper, while enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding, of a detainee under very strict controls and limits, why is that over the line?" He later said that this "interrogation" was "such a key part of this raid [that killed Osama bin Laden]." From the broadcast:

WALLACE: We'll stipulate - I think, we'll all stipulate that bin Laden was a monster. But why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper, while enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding, of a detainee under very strict controls and limits, why is that over the line?

DONILON: Well, let's get -- let me talk first about the first half of the statement you made. Again, the president met with the operators yesterday in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and here are the facts. We are at war with al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is the emir, or commander -- indeed, the only leader of al-Qaeda in its 22-year history. This was his residence and operational compound. Our forces entered that compound and were fired upon, in the pitch black. It's an organization that uses IEDs and suicide vests and booby traps and all manner of other kinds of destructive capabilities. Let me just finish what I'm saying here --

WALLACE: -- But let me just make my point. I'm not asking you why it was okay to shoot Osama bin Laden. I fully understand the threat. And I'm not second-guessing the SEALs.

DONILON: Right.

WALLACE: What I am second-guessing is, if that's okay, why can't you do waterboarding? Why can't you do enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was just as bad an operator as Osama bin Laden?

DONILON: Yeah, because, well our judgment is that it's not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary, in terms of getting the kind of intelligence we need.

WALLACE: But shooting bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values?

DONILON: It -- we are at war with Osama bin Laden.

WALLACE: We're at war with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

DONILON: It was a military operation, right? It was absolutely appropriate for the SEALs to take the action, and for the forces to take the action that they took in this military operation against a military target --

WALLACE: But why is it inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

DONILON: I didn't say it was inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

WALLACE: You said it was against our values.

DONILON: I think that the techniques are something that there's been a policy debate about, and our administration has made our views known on that. 

WALLACE: Let me ask you about one other aspect of this and we'll move on. The Obama Justice Department reopened an investigation of half dozen CIA agents who were involved in interrogation after 9/11, raising the question -- and this had been closed. This has been a closed investigation. It was reopened by your justice department on the issue of whether or not they were using undue force. We talked earlier with Vice President Cheney who says that investigation is an outrage. Question: with interrogation, and you certainly have agreed, however it came -- with interrogation such a key part of this raid, why not end that investigation?  [Fox News, Fox News Sunday, 5/8/11]

Fox & Friends Hosts A Parade Of Former Bush Administration Officials To Claim EITs Were "Key" In Finding Bin Laden. On the May 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, the co-hosts interviewed three former Bush administration officials to claim that EITs produced valuable information that led to Osama bin Laden.

• Perino: "I Trust ... [Those Who Say] Enhanced Techniques Save Lives." During the show, the co-hosts interviewed former White House Press Secretary and Fox News Contributor Dana Perino. Co-host Gretchen Carlson said that many people credit "President Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques ... with killing Osama bin Laden." Perino later said that she believes Bush officials who told her that "enhanced techniques save lives." From the broadcast:

GRETCHEN CARLSON: The only disappointing thing for me, Dana, on [President Obama's May 8 60 Minutes] interview, maybe Steve Kroft asked these questions and they were edited out, but they didn't seem to move the story forward, as far as what do we do about on the war on terror now moving forward. Was that deliberate so that the president wouldn't be in a jam to have to talk about the fact that he's gotten rid of President Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques that many people credit with killing Osama bin Laden?

PERINO: You know, possibly, though I have to say, having watched 60 Minutes this past year, President Obama is almost a permanent fixture on the program. So maybe next week --

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Co-host.

PERINO: -- he'll do another interview, and he'll be able to talk about that. It was actually the Sunday show hosts, and I would say including Chris Wallace, who pressed the National Security Advisor Tom Donilon on that very point. What are we going to be willing to do? And it's interesting to watch the left tie themselves up in knots and to rationalize that killing somebody is OK, because we're in a war with them, but enhanced interrogation techniques, which were legal, were not allowed because they're not consistent with our values. It doesn't make sense to us but I'm sure they rationalized it internally. 

[...]

DOOCY: And Dana, well, John Yoo was part of your administration. You've got Leon Panetta, who last Tuesday told Brian Williams that the enhanced interrogation techniques did lead to, you know, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed spilling the beans.

PERINO: Right, so it's a mosaic of information and it all comes together, and it takes very astute intelligence community officials looking at all of that intel, piecing it together and pulling those threads and making sure that they follow them through. My bottom line is, I trust General Hayden and Attorney General Mukasey. They say that enhanced techniques save lives, and we forget the most dangerous position in the world to hold over the last 10 years has been Osama bin Laden's number two. OK? We had that intelligence. We were able to get them. We finally got to him, and that is so symbolic. But we were able to prevent many attacks because of this intelligence, and I remember President Bush telling me, it didn't matter how unpopular he got, as long as the next president had what he needed to protect the country. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/9/11]

• Hayden: "[EITs] Allowed Us To Gain Information [And] Intelligence That Would Not Have Been Available To Us In Any Other Way." Later during the program, the co-hosts interviewed former CIA and NSA director General Michael Hayden (ret.). Hayden agreed with Carlson that EITs were "key," saying, "They allowed us to gain information, to gain intelligence that would not have been available to us in any other way. I mean, that's just a simple fact." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/9/11]
• Mukasey: "At The Time [EITs] Were Used, They Were Enormously Valuable." Later during the show, co-host Brian Kilmeade interviewed former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. From the broadcast:

KILMEADE: From what you know, and what I won't be able to know, because I didn't have your type of clearance, how valuable were the enhanced interrogation practices to the success of the war on terror and getting bin Laden?

MUKASEY: At the time they were used, they were enormously valuable. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who had a trove of information, cracked like a dam, and when that dam broke, he disclosed enormous amounts of information that stopped ongoing projects that they had, and that disclosed a lot of valuable information, including some information that was part of the trail that led eventually to bin Laden. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/9/11]

Briggs: "[W]as President Obama's Decision Not To Reconsider" EITs "Putting America At Future Risk?" On the May 8 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends Sunday, co-host Dave Briggs said that bin Laden's death has "reignited the debate over harsh interrogation techniques, like waterboarding." He asked, "So, is President Obama's decision not to reconsider these using these techniques putting America at future risk?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends Sunday, 5/8/11]

Bozell: "It Is Because Of Waterboarding That Osama Bin Laden Is Dead." On the May 6 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell claimed that following the raid which killed bin Laden, "you [could] hear the sound of thousands of people in Washington, DC peeling egg off their faces" because "enhanced interrogation techniques -- let's call it what it is. It's waterboarding, you know what, it is because of waterboarding that Osama bin Laden is dead, and everybody knows it." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/6/11]

Experts Dispute Claims That EITs Directly Led To Bin Laden

Former Interrogators And Intelligence Officials: "Torture Did Not Lead The U.S. To Bin Laden."In a May 4 statement, four former interrogators and intelligence officer issued the following statement regarding the use of EITs and the hunt for bin Laden:

Torture Did Not Lead the U.S. to bin Laden, It Almost Certainly Prolonged the Hunt

We are concerned about the suggestion by some that the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques led U.S. forces to Osama bin Laden's compound.

The use of waterboarding and other so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques almost certainly prolonged the hunt for Bin Laden and complicated the jobs of professional U.S. interrogators who were trying to develop useful information from unwilling sources like Khalid Sheik Muhammed.

Reports say that Khalid Sheik Muhammed and Abu Faraq al-Libi did not divulge the nom de guerre of a courier during torture, but rather several months later, when they were questioned by interrogators who did not use abusive techniques.

This is not surprising. Our experience is that torture is a poor way to develop useful, accurate information.

We know from experience that it is very difficult to elicit information from a detainee who has been abused. The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.

We believe that the U.S. would have learned more from Khalid Sheik Muhammed and other high value detainees if, from the beginning, professional interrogators had a chance to question them using the sophisticated, yet humane, approaches approved by U.S. law.

We are convinced that the record shows that abusive questioning techniques did not help, but only hindered, the United States' efforts to find bin Laden. [Huffington Post, 5/4/11]

HuffPo: Interrogators And Experts Argue That EITs "May Have Slowed Hunt For Bin Laden, Not Hastened It." In a May 6 Huffington Post article, Senior Washington Correspondent Dan Froomkin cited numerous experts and officials arguing that "bin Laden could have been caught much earlier had those detainees [subjected to EITs] been interrogated properly." From the May 6 article:

Defenders of the Bush administration's interrogation policies have claimed vindication from reports that bin Laden was tracked down in small part due to information received from brutalized detainees some six to eight years ago.

But that sequence of events -- even if true -- doesn't demonstrate the effectiveness of torture, these experts say. Rather, it indicates bin Laden could have been caught much earlier had those detainees been interrogated properly.

"I think that without a doubt, torture and enhanced interrogation techniques slowed down the hunt for bin Laden," said an Air Force interrogator who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander and located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in 2006.

It now appears likely that several detainees had information about a key al Qaeda courier -- information that might have led authorities directly to bin Laden years ago. But subjected to physical and psychological brutality, "they gave us the bare minimum amount of information they could get away with to get the pain to stop, or to mislead us," Alexander told The Huffington Post.

"We know that they didn't give us everything, because they didn't provide the real name, or the location, or somebody else who would know that information," he said.

In a 2006 study by the National Defense Intelligence College, trained interrogators found that traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches are extremely effective with even the most hardened detainees, whereas coercion consistently builds resistance and resentment.

"Had we handled some of these sources from the beginning, I would like to think that there's a good chance that we would have gotten this information or other information," said Steven Kleinman, a longtime military intelligence officer who has extensively researched, practiced and taught interrogation techniques.

"By making a detainee less likely to provide information, and making the information he does provide harder to evaluate, they hindered what we needed to accomplish," said Glenn L. Carle, a retired CIA officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002. [Huffington Post, 5/6/11]

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Feinstein: "To The Best Of Our Knowledge," None Of The Intelligence "Came As A Result Of Harsh Interrogation Practices." From a May 3 TPM Muckraker post:

More and more evidence suggests a key piece of intelligence -- the first link in the chain of information that led U.S. intelligence officials to Osama bin Laden -- wasn't tortured out of its source. And, indeed, that torture actually failed to produce it.

"To the best of our knowledge, based on a look, none of it came as a result of harsh interrogation practices," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in a wide-ranging press conference.

Moreover, Feinstein added, nothing about the sequence of events that culminated in Sunday's raid vindicates the Bush-era techniques, nor their use of black sites -- secret prisons, operated by the CIA.

"Absolutely not, I do not," Feinstein said. "I happen to know a good deal about how those interrogations were conducted, and in my view nothing justifies the kind of procedures that were used." [TPM Muckraker, 5/3/11]

NSC Dismissed Efficacy Of Torture In Developing Intel On Bin Laden. The New York Timesreported:

Glenn L. Carle, a retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002, said in a phone interview Tuesday, that coercive techniques "didn't provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information." He said that while some of his colleagues defended the measures, "everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work."

Obama administration officials, intent on celebrating Monday's successful raid, have tried to avoid reigniting a partisan battle over torture.

"The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003," said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council. "It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there." [The New York Times, 5/4/11]

The New Yorker: "This Timeline Doesn't Seem To Provide A Lot Of Support For The Pro-Torture Narrative." From a May 2 post to The New Yorker:

Many key details are still missing. But according to the New York Times, the turning point came when detainees being held in Guantánamo--not in the C.I.A.'s secret black-site prisons--revealed to American interrogators the pseudonym used by a key bin Laden courier, whom they also identified as a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Then, four years ago, American interrogators were able to learn the real name of the courier. It then took two more years, according to the Times, before American officials were able to piece together the geographic region in which he operated. They didn't succeed in tracking him to the suspicious compound, in which bin Laden resided, until last August.

This timeline doesn't seem to provide a lot of support for the pro-torture narrative. One would think that if so-called "enhanced interrogations" provided the magic silver bullet, and if the courier was a protégé of K.S.M.'s, then the C.I.A. might have wrapped this up back in 2003, while they were waterboarding the 9/11 mastermind a hundred and eighty-three times. Despite these contradictions and complications, the two sides on the torture debate are already off and running. [The New Yorker, 5/2/11]

Deputy National Security Advisor: Integral Intelligence Was Not Obtained By Waterboarding "To My Knowledge." From the May 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: So we've been talking about the different details and methods that led up to this moment, and obviously there is word out today that waterboarding played a very big role or a role in actually getting the information that was integral in finding Bin Laden. Is that the case?

JOHN BRENNAN: Not to my knowledge. The information that was acquired over the course of nine years or so came from many different sources: human sources, technical sources, as well as information that detainees provided. And it was something that as a result of the painstaking work that the analysts did, they pieced it all together that lead us to the Abbottabad compound last year and resulted in the very successful operation on Sunday. [MSNBC, Morning Joe, 5/3/11]

CIA Director Panetta: Whether Torture Was Needed To Track Bin Laden "Is Always Going To Be An Open Question." From the May 3 edition of NBC Nightly News:

LEON PANETTA: We had a multiple source -- a multiple series of sources -- that provided information with regards to this situation. Clearly, some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees. But we also had information from other sources as well. So, it's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Turned around the other way, are you denying that waterboarding was in part among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?

PANETTA: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question. [NBC, NBC Nightly News, 5/3/11, via RealClearPolitics]

TPM: Attorney General Said "He Didn't Know" If Information Obtained Through Torture Led US To Bin Laden. From a May 3 post on TPM Muckraker:

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he didn't know if any information obtained from detainees undergoing enhanced interrogation techniques lead to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

"There was a mosaic of sources that lead to the identification of the people" who lead to bin Laden, Holder told members of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Pressed by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) on whether any information used to find bin Laden came out during enhanced interrogation, Holder said he didn't know. [TPM Muckraker, 5/3/11]

Right-Wing Media Have Been Praising EIT Program Since Bin Laden's Death Announced

Right-Wing Media Tout Bin Laden Death As Victory For Torture, Ignore Dispute. Beginning May 2, the day after President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed in a U.S. military raid, right-wing media jumped to declare victory for former President Bush's EIT program. [Media Matters,5/4/11]

Limbaugh And Obama Dead-Enders Lash Out After Bin Laden's Death

by Eric Boehlert

As we proceed deeper into the Obama presidency, we’re getting a clearer picture of just how radical some of the president’s far-right adversaries are. We’re starting to understand the depths to which the partisan extremists in the media will stoop, to the point where many this week seemed incapable of celebrating the execution of Osama bin Laden or extending a job well done to the White House.

That’s pretty low.

The bin Laden story has provided a useful filter, or a demarcation line, within the right-wing media and has helped illustrate which strident Obama critics are still in touch with some strands of common sense and common decency, and which ones are not.  

The bin Laden story has provided the minimal bar for irrational Obama haters to hop over: Toast the news that bin Laden had been killed and toast the administration for being able to accomplish the long overdue task.  But it’s a low bar that lots of dead-enders can’t clear.  (Thankfully, some conservative pundits were willing to leap over it.)

Led by Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, portions of Fox News, and bloggers who write for Andrew Breitbart, the dead-enders have spent this week not only refusing to credit Obama, but have been parading their contempt around in full view. The dead-enders have been attacking Obama in every way possible, from relentlessly critiquing his bin-Laden-is-dead declaration, to raising hysterical objections to the president’s wreath-laying visit to Ground Zero.

A wreath-laying visit.

Phrases like ‘inappropriate’ barely begin to describe the oddity of watching the nasty Obama attacks unfold in response to the wonderful news about bin Laden’s death.

Writing about the segment on Eric Bolling’s Fox Business show where the host read a list of people his viewers want to see waterboarded—including President Obama—Heather Parton, the blogger known was Digby, wrote “I just don't know what to say about these people anymore." Adding, “Depravity apparently knows no bounds.”

So yes, the bin Laden story has acted as a filter, in much the same way the recent birther phenomena did, in that it provided Obama’s diehard opponents with the opportunity to decide just how far down the crazy path they were willing to chase their Democratic nemesis.  (Answer for some: Really, really far.)

It’s true that with each filtered layer, it seems fewer critics decide to pass through. But for the ones who went all in on the birther nonsense that have gone all in bashing Obama for killing bin Laden, they represent the most dedicated radicals. And they were the ones this week peddling the loopy fantasy about how it took a military coup inside the White House before the order to kill bin Laden was finally given. (Obama was cowering at the prospect, apparently.)  

Why concoct Situation Room scenarios like that? Because for the dead-enders, it’s inconceivable that Obama could function successfully as president. They’ve convinced themselves, as well as many of bitter followers, that Obama is a fraudulent and illegitimate president. When news breaks that shatters that image (i.e. Obama did what for seven years President Bush failed to do), the radical right has to shift into fantasy mode in order to make sense of their (deranged) world view.

And frankly, this is what happens once their signature, irrational hate gains so much momentum over months and years. It’s difficult for dead-enders to slow it down, even when news breaks that Osama bin laden’s finally been executed; even when it should be painfully obvious that the situation calls for dialing down the Obama hate. But the dead-enders can’t because they wouldn’t know what else to do. They’ve become fanatically dedicated to fermenting idiotic Obama claims and put-downs that it’s become like breathing to them: essential and automatic.

Like the birther charade, the bin Laden-related attacks likely stem from the very simple need to generate anti-Obama content within the far-right media.  That profitable hate engine demands constant fuel and this week partisans have been filling up and hitting the gas.

And yes, they filled up the hate tank by trying to demean the president in the most petty and pointless ways possible. The president had barely finished announcing the good news to world when the dead-enders started in on the small-minded theater criticism of his performance.

Completely unhinged Breitbart blogger Pam Geller accused Obama of  “shamelessly strut[ting] like [a] peacock” while announcing the big news.  (Days later she labeled the president was a “bastard.”) Eric Bolling emphatically demandedpeople not thank Obama for the bin Laden mission. Los Angeles Times ‘ Andrew Malcolm mocked Obama and his counterterrorism team’s long hours and hard work over the weekend: “Poor poor bureaucrats. Extra Tums all around. Did someone order dinner?”

And at the  Washington Times, editorial page editor Brett Decker moaned that Obama had been arrogant while breaking the bin Laden news:

The wording of his short statement made it clear that the campaign season for his 2012 reelection bid is fully underway. He used the words "I," "me" and "my" so many times it was hard to count for such a quick message.

Actually, it wasn’t that hard to keep count. During Obama’s entire 1,400-word address, he used “I,” “me,” and “my” approximately one dozen times. By contrast, Obama’s address used “we,” “us,” and “our” nearly seven dozen times Sunday night.

And then there were these twitter gems:

And

And

Remember, the president had just announced bin Laden was dead. Most everyone agreed that was good news. Yet where did the dead-enders point their barbs and arrows? At Obama, not bin Laden.  

That would have been like in 1981, when the rest of America was celebrating the release of the American hostages from Iran, if liberal pundits and columnists immediately lashed out in crude and hateful ways at President Reagan for being president at the time of the hostages’ release, instead of condemning the Ayatollah Khomeini for holding Americans for more than a year.  That kind of irrational partisan hatred would have been inconceivable then, and it ought to be now.

Then again, Obama dead-enders play by different rules.

Motor City Liberal Question: Why do conservatives hate this country by wanting Bin Laden to live? If  Bush had killed OBL and liberals pundits or bloggers start grumbling about shooting OBL unarmed or Bush taking time to visit ground zero to meet with victims families idiots like the Gateway Pundit ,Dana Loesch and others like them will take to their shitty blogs saying things like: "See Liberals and DemocRATS hate Bush so much they're defending a man that killed 3000 Americans" or accuse the American left with siding with the terrorist.
They know this is big and they know this pretty much crashed whomever the Republican nominee chances. So they're in full blown panic mode and they look desperate. 

Desperate: Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For Taking Time To Consider Bin Laden Options

From Media Matters

In the latest desperate attempt to criticize President Obama in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death, right-wing media are hyping a U.K. Daily Mail article to attack Obama for taking 16 hours to consider his decision regarding the assault on bin Laden--which reportedly had several potentially harmful consequences--by calling Obama "feckless" and "our sleepy president."

Daily Mail Claims Analysts "Confirmed Beyond Doubt" Bin Laden's Location; Obama "Stunned" Officials By Taking Time To Decide

Daily Mail: "Obama Took SIXTEEN HOURS To Make Up His Mind About Bin Laden Mission." In an unbylined May 3 article, the U.K. Daily Mail wrote that Obama "kept military commanders hanging by declaring he would 'sleep on it' before taking 16 hours to give the go-ahead to raid Bin Laden's compound." [Daily Mail, 5/3/11]

Daily Mail: "[A]nalysts Confirmed Beyond Doubt That Bin Laden Was In Busy Town Of Abbottabad." The Daily Mail further claimed:

The mission looked set to be given the all clear last Thursday when analysts confirmed beyond doubt that Bin Laden was in busy town [sic] of Abbottabad in northern Pakistan.

But the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think - and disappeared out of the room.

'I'm not going to tell you what my decision is now - I'm going to go back and think about it some more,' said Obama, according to the New York Times. He then added 'I'm going to make a decision soon.'

The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president's decision. [Daily Mail, 5/3/11]

In Fact, CIA Chief Said That Analysts Were Only 60-80% Sure Of Bin Laden's Location

Wash. Post: Panetta Said That Analysts Were "Only 60 Percent To 80 Percent Confident That Bin Laden Would Be Found" In Compound. Contrary to the Daily Mail claim that "analysts confirmed beyond doubt" that bin Laden was in Abbottabad, The Washington Post reported that CIA Director Leon Panetta said "analysts were only 60 percent to 80 percent confident that bin Laden would be found." From the Post:

CIA Director Leon Panetta, who supervised the operation, said in interviews that U.S. intelligence agencies never had photographs or other proof that bin Laden was living at the compound in Pakistan that was targeted. Panetta told Time magazine that analysts were only 60 percent to 80 percent confident that bin Laden would be found.

"We never had direct evidence that he in fact had ever been there or was located there," Panetta said in a separate interview with "PBS NewsHour." "The reality was that we could have gone in there and not found bin Laden at all."

President Obama nevertheless approved the operation, Panetta and other U.S. officials said, because there was little chance of obtaining more definitive intelligence on bin Laden's location, which had amounted to a guessing game for the better part of 10 years. [The Washington Post, 5/3/11]

NYT Article Quoted By Daily Mail Made No Mention That Officials Were "Stunned" By Obama Saying He Would Wait To Make Decision. In its May 3 article, the Daily Mail claimed that Obama "stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think." The Daily Mail then cited a New York Times article in which Obama is quoted as telling his advisers, "I'm going to go back and think about it some more." However, the Times article makes no mention that officials were "stunned" by Obama's comment, and the Daily Mail did not provide a source for its claim. Indeed, theTimes reported that Obama's "four top aides" were prepared to "brief the president" the next morning, but Obama had already decided on what course of action to take. From the Times:

Mr. Panetta told the group that the C.I.A. had "red-teamed" the case -- shared their intelligence with other analysts who weren't involved to see if they agreed that Bin Laden was probably in Abbottabad. They did. It was time to decide.

Around the table, the group went over and over the negative scenarios. There were long periods of silence, one aide said. And then, finally, Mr. Obama spoke: "I'm not going to tell you what my decision is now -- I'm going to go back and think about it some more." But he added, "I'm going to make a decision soon."

Sixteen hours later, he had made up his mind. Early the next morning, four top aides were summoned to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could brief the president, he cut them off. "It's a go," he said. The earliest the operation could take place was Saturday, but officials cautioned that cloud cover in the area meant that Sunday was much more likely. [The New York Times, 5/2/11]

Time: Some Obama Advisers Recommended Waiting On Bin Laden Assault In Order To Gather More Intelligence. On May 2, Time's Michael Scherer reported:

The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. The case was good, but circumstantial. The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios-the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President's senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.

Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault. [Time, 5/2/11, emphasis added]

Nonetheless, Right-Wing Media Hype Daily Mail Article To Attack Obama For Taking Time To Consider Decision

Hoft: "Good Grief. Obama Took 16 HOURS To Make Up His Mind To Get Osama Bin Laden." In a May 3 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft wrote cited the Daily Mail article and wrote, "Good Grief. Obama Took 16 HOURS To Make Up His Mind To Get Osama Bin Laden." Hoft later referred to Obama as "our sleepy president." [Gateway Pundit, 5/3/11, emphasis in original]

Ace Of Spades: "Seems Like A Very Cautious, Feckless, Indecisive Individual Delaying And Delaying On Critical Decisions." In a May 3 Ace of Spades post, blogger Ace cited the Daily Mailarticle to claim that Obama taking time to think about the decision "[s]eems like a very cautious, feckless, indecisive individual delaying and delaying on critical decisions and then attempting to sound heroic when he finally does what he's being paid to do." However, Ace further wrote, "To Be Honest: I don't begrudge a president some thinking time before a big decision." From Ace of Spades:

On the other hand, after Obama was told (most likely for the fifteenth time) that the CIA was really, really, really quite confident that Osama bin Ladin was at that compound in Abbottabad, he decided he needed to sleep on it.

Sixteen hours later (hours during which Osama might have fled-- bear in mind, his courier's name had just been outed by WikiLeaks), he made up his mind.

How does the media report this? Well, relying upon those in Obama's inner circle (that is to say, his political flunkies and spinners), we're told this:

"But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared 'It's a go'."

Why does it matter that he did this "before they could speak"? They had spoken already yesterday when they strongly, strongly urged the president to give the order, and he had decided to sleep on it.

They were only waiting on him, after all.

So, after 16 hours of vacillation, during which the operation might have been rendered a failure by intervening invents, he fist-bumps a piece of furniture and finally makes up his mind.

This is something to brag about? This is, in Howard Fineman's words, "almost Biblical"?

Seems like a very cautious, feckless, indecisive individual delaying and delaying on critical decisions and then attempting to sound heroic when he finally does what he's being paid to do.

Thanks to OCBill. This is from the Daily Mail, via Drudge.

To Be Honest: I don't begrudge a president some thinking time before a big decision.

But the media still hasn't explained to me which of the previous presidents and which of the potential/hypothetical future presidents wouldn't have ordered this. [Ace of Spades, 5/3/11, emphasis in the original]

Fox Nation: "Obama Took Sixteen Hours to Make Up His Mind About Bin Laden Mission." On May 3, the Fox Nation linked to the Daily Mail article under the headline, "Obama Took Sixteen Hours to Make Up His Mind About Bin Laden Mission." From the Fox Nation:

 

[Fox Nation, 5/3/11]

Drudge Promotes Daily Mail Article. On May 3, the Drudge Report promoted the Daily Mail story under the headlines, "Obama took 16 hours to make up mind about Bin Laden mission..." and "'Slept on it'..." From Drudge:

[Drudge Report, 5/3/11]

Right-Wing Media Have Resorted To Absurdities In Struggle To Attack Obama Following Bin Laden's Death

Drudge: "Bin Laden Announcement Came In The Middle Of Trump's 'Celebrity Apprentice.'"Beginning on May 1, the Drudge Report featured the headline, "BIN LADEN ANNOUNCEMENT CAME IN THE MIDDLE OF TRUMP'S 'CELEBRITY APPRENTICE.'"

[Drudge Report, 5/1/11]

CNN's Loesch Suggested Obama "Politicize[d] The Hell Out Of" Bin Laden Announcement. In a May 2 Twitter post, CNN contributor Dana Loesch wrote: "Geebus. All he had to do was walk out and fist pump. Not politicize the hell out of it."

[Twitter, 5/2/11]

Geller Accused Obama Of "Shamelessly Strut[ting] Like [A] Peacock." In a May 2 blog post, Pamela Geller wrote: "Gd bless our troops. Obama can puff himself and shamelessly strut like peacock [sic], but hats off to the US military that has been relentless, dogged and brave for ten years in their mission to kill that devout bastard." [Atlas Shrugs, 5/2/11]

Washington Times' Green Bizarrely Cites 2010 Photo Of Jay-Z At The White House To Attack Obama. In a May 3 column, assistant editorial page editor Anneke Green wrote:

While it's glorious that we finally delivered justice to Bin Laden, cowboy-style, it has been a little odd to see how eager President Obama is to take credit for it. Apart from the method of the military operation -- who knew he had it in him?-- his speech announcing the demise of the world's greatest villain was short on key details and sounded more like an extended pat on the back. 

Green further used a photograph from rapper Jay-Z's March 2010 visit to the White House to claim that "Mr. Obama has had to grow into his role as the head of state and occupant of the nation's most revered residence." [The Washington Times, 5/2/11]

Washington Times Complains Obama "Snub[bed] Bush," Showed "No Class" In Speech. In a May 2 editorial, The Washington Times complained that Obama "snub[bed] Bush" and "praise[d] himself" in his announcement that bin Laden had been killed. The editorial baselessly claimed "[b]in Laden assassination wasn't the result of Barack's strategic genius." The editorial continued:

Sunday's only mention of Mr. Bush came when Mr. Obama defended himself by quipping that even his predecessor insisted America isn't at war with Islam. Left unsaid was how Mr. Bush setting the groundwork for the conduct of the war on terrorism provided Mr. Obama with the tools to get this job done. The national unity, sense of purpose and offensive posture were largely the result of Mr. Bush's decisive action and strong leadership following national tragedy. Had Mr. Obama been in Mr. Bush's position on Sept. 11, 2001, bin Laden would still be alive today, and probably winning. [The Washington Times, 5/2/11]

Geller: "Would Bush Have Washed Bin Laden's Body?" In a May 2 post, Geller wrote:

John Brennan, in an ongoing press conference at the White House, was quite insistent that all "Islamic precepts" were respected and adhered to in the burial at sea of Osama bin Laden. The first priority of the Obama adminstration was the Islamic burial of the man Obama claimed was "not a leader of the Muslim world."

Bush disposed of the remains of Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by burying him in a secret location. Did our soldiers wash al-Zarqawi's body? I am going to puke.

I think this is outrageous and sick. Such respect we give, not only to a mass murderer of Americans in the name of Islam, but deference to the very ideology that has fueled this war on America. [Atlas Shrugs, 5/2/11]

Glenn Beck: "I Have A Real Problem With The Way This Thing Has Been Handled." "I Really Would Have Put [Bin Laden] In A Meat Grinder With A Pig." On May 2, Glenn Beck stated: "I have a real problem with the way this thing has been handled." He later added: "My problem with this is is that we gave this guy a dignified burial at sea. Or at least that's what they said. I really would have put [bin Laden] in a meat grinder with a pig, honestly." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 5/2/11]

NRO: "The President, In His Rush To Claim Credit, Made A Mistake In Delivering It Himself." A National Review Online post by Claudia Rosett on Obama's announcement declared: "Bin Laden's death is great news, but the president, in his rush to claim credit, made a mistake in delivering it himself." Rosett went on to write:

Osama bin Laden was a pied piper of mass murder, and every effort should be made to avoid in any way dignifying anything about him. Rather than using the presidential pulpit to break the news, President Obama should have left it to one of the U.S. military commanders or spy chiefs whose men took the real risks in this operation.

[...]

Obama should have then followed up by explaining the broader context of this war, and putting terrorists from Hamas to Hezbollah to Moammar Qaddafi on notice that anyone who attacks or even mortally threatens America, or America's allies, can expect the same fate. [National Review Online, 5/2/11]

Mark Steyn: News Should Have Been Announced By "Lowest-Level Official ... At The Department Of Nondescript Bureaucrats." In a National Review Online post, radio talk host and frequent Rush Limbaugh substitute Mark Steyn wrote that he "would have liked bin Laden's death to have been announced by whatever lowest-level official was manning the night desk at the Department of Nondescript Bureaucrats, preferably reading it off the back of an envelope." Steyn continued:

But, if you're going to put the head of state on TV to announce it himself, it would have been better to have been all brisk and businesslike -- "At 0800 hours American military assets entered an address at 27b Jihadist Gardens, etc" -- and finish off with a bit of Churchillian sober uplift about it not being the end or the beginning of the end but maybe the end of the beginning.

[...]

[The speech] managed to be both overwrought and generic -- all that telepromptered overload about cloudless Tuesday mornings was not only tackily over-prettified but came over as unfelt and hand-me-down, like a course exercise in some third-rate creative-writing school's Soaring Oratory class. Or, at any rate, as if they'd loaded up a first draft of September's tenth anniversary speech into the machine. The official announcement was delayed for all this? If ever there was a moment for the commander-in-chief to be real, plainspoken and off his glassy-eyed follow-the-bouncing-ball routine, this was it. It's as if nobody around him knows how to write except in the one tinny key.

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy to rally round the flag, and rally round the president, but rally round this speech? No thanks. [National Review Online, 5/2/11]