Lisa Fabrizio
How should conservatives view the Osama killing?
By Lisa Fabrizio
May 12, 2011

Now that the world's most infamous killer has been taken out of circulation, how should conservatives feel? I mean, apart from the pride in our military and intelligence personnel and the satisfaction that there is one less thug to direct the forces of evil against western civilization.

It's true that some questions remain, particularly with the White House's abominable handling of the facts in the case. One can't blame those who have doubts about many of the details surrounding the killing and disposal of bin Laden. Indeed, recent reports indicating that a deal may have been made between then-presidents Bush and Musharraf permitting U.S. missions to capture the Al Qaeda chief within Pakistani borders, would explain a lot.

But aside from these considerations, why are some conservatives feeling a bit queasy about the whole thing? Has our inveterate dislike for the policies of our president so hardened our hearts that we are no longer capable of giving credit where credit is due?

I don't think so. It has more to do with Obama's take on the killing and the reaction of his supporters to it.

Maybe it was the swooning and drooling that rolled across the print and airwaves of America like a tsunami in the aftermath of the killing. Chris Matthews summed up the dizzying exuberance of the media when he pronounced it "best week ever" for the country. This unrestrained glee over the death of bin Laden after ten years of pursuit was, shall we say, in sharp contrast to the left's reaction when George W. Bush issued his famous 'dead or alive' ultimatum while the rubble at Ground Zero was still smoking, which was dismissed as "wild west rhetoric."

But it is now Barack Obama and the powers behind his teleprompter who are now dishing out the gunslinger talk. In an interview Sunday on 60 Minutes, the president said, "[O]ne thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out. Justice was done." Added to this new portrayal of himself as a cool dispenser of vigilante justice was the role of courageous wartime leader. How do we know this? Because he was not too humble to deign to explain it all to his subjects. As he elaborated in his most Churchillian fashion for the CBS cameras:

    You know, every time I make a decision — about launching a missile, every time I make a decision about sending troops into battle — you know I understand that this will result in people being killed. And that is a sobering fact. But it is one that comes with the job.

Yet Obama does deserve credit for courage; especially in the face of his own base. This should answer any questions about the absolute certainty of his re-election chances. Now I'm not suggesting that the president acted on any other motive than a sincere desire to rid the world of our sworn enemy. No, it's the pose that he's chosen to employ in its wake that seems to imply that he needs to fire up the independents, or as they used to be known, Reagan Democrats.

The thing is, Obama's action against Osama — and the manner in which the intelligence for the mission was gleaned — doesn't square with the stated foreign policy objectives on which he campaigned. His past record can't help but make his opponents feel that the whole business carries with it a decided whiff of opportunism.

And maybe this is at the core of what disturbs conservatives about last week's events. George Bush fought two wars that he felt served the same end; defending an American way of life he strongly believed in, while asserting our right to act unilaterally in pursuit of same. There just isn't the same sense of conviction with Obama.

Maybe I'm wrong; I hope that I am. I want to believe that being in close proximity to the intelligence to which he is now privy has changed Obama into the sort of leader of which all Americans can be proud; one who has been transformed by witnessing the actions of those who are ready to give their lives for our country and its Constitution. If the rest of America can ever be convinced of that — and not just that he was the right man in the right place at the right time — he might indeed be a candidate to be reckoned with. But don't bet on it.

© Lisa Fabrizio


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Lisa Fabrizio

Lisa Fabrizio is a freelance columnist from Stamford, Connecticut. You may write her at


Receive future articles by Lisa Fabrizio: Click here

More by this author


Stephen Stone
HAPPY EASTER: A message to all who love our country and want to help save it

Stephen Stone
The most egregious lies Evan McMullin and the media have told about Sen. Mike Lee

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
FLASHBACK to 2020: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Jim Wagner
Islam for Dhimmis—Part II

Jerry Newcombe
Historical ignorance raises flags

Pete Riehm
Gloom and grift versus good and great

Cliff Kincaid
Honor victims of the U.S. government on Memorial Day

Linda Goudsmit
CHAPTER 20: In their own words: The sexual revolution begins in Kindergarten

Jim Wagner
Islam for Dhimmis—Part I

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Repeating history: Medicinal whiskey’s echoes in medical marijuana policy

Randy Engel
A documentary: Opus Dei and the Knights of Columbus – The anatomy of a takeover bid, Part VI

Jerry Newcombe
Electoral College dropout?

Curtis Dahlgren
The "Hand of History" writes its own reply to arrogance

Pete Riehm
Our fallen fought not just for freedom but truth

Linda Kimball
Christendom and Protestant America’s apostasy into paganism: A timeline
  More columns


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons


Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites