Filed under: Uncategorized
This pseudo debate over whether a President Romney ‘would have made the same call’ as President Obama did, the one which ultimately led to the assassination of Osama bin Laden, has been mind-boggling. As are the side debates over whether President Obama ‘gets credit’ for it, or is ‘spiking the football’, or whatever.
It occurs to me there may be a mismatch between my and others’ mental models of what it means for a President to decide such a thing – as in, what it actually entailed, physically.
Here’s how I think it went down, more or less, and feel free to fill in any details you think you have more insight into:
A general or similar high ranking military type called, contacted, or met with the President. He said 1. We think we now know where OBL is, 2. We have a contingency plan we could trigger to get him, 3. Shall we, then, proceed, sir?
And here’s the momentous, tough-call decision that President Obama made:
(Again, anyone who somehow believes President Obama’s involvement in or planning of the OBL operation was significantly deeper than this, feel free to elaborate, I’d be fascinated.)
Anywa, so what the current debate involves is, a bunch of people pretending to believe Mitt Romney would have said “Naw” instead of “Ok”. Right? That’s what people are asserting.
Which is hilarious. I just don’t know which is more hilarious, the idea that Mitt Romney wouldn’t be able to (know how to?) say “Ok”, or the implication that Obama’s saying “Ok” was some sort of gigantic accomplishment. Actually, the latter is really more sad and pathetic than it is hilarious.
6 Comments so far
Leave a comment