Obama's Speech on Bin Laden a Silent Rebuke to Bush

May 2, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (55)

In a measured East Room address late yesterday, President Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden and took a somber look back at Sept. 11, 2001, a tragically beautiful day on the East Coast. A "cloudless sky" set the scene for nearly three thousand deaths and two fallen towers by the time it was done.

[See photos of reactions to Osama bin Laden's death.]

Listening for what the president didn't say in speaking to the nation, I came away impressed with his choice of words. He deftly left out three of them: "war on terror." Cutting that phrase out of the political lexicon is a graceful, silent rebuke to its authors. Never has that been seen in a clearer light as last night. It's far from just semantic.

[See a slide show of six potential terrorist targets.]

Even in his winning mode, Obama disowned that particular dog of war—and did not let "terror" bark. Good for him, good for the nation, good for the world. President George W. Bush and his dark side, Dick Cheney, used this vague construct constantly and carelessly from day one, while the ruins of September 11 were still smoking.

Waging a "war on terror" made the American people estranged from each other and made the whole world seem like a more dangerous place. Our initial unity after the September 11 attacks dissolved in a sea of stress and anxiety. The "war on terror" ran counter to our can-do spirit because, we heard, there was nothing we could do to fight terrorism, but go shopping. So much for sacrifices. Lots of dark acts were committed in the name of the "war on terror," often literally in the dark and far from where we live.

[See a slide show of 15 major post-Cold War uprisings.]

As citizens, we have no full reckoning of what the "war on terror" was used to justify, no receipt for its cost in lives, U.S. treasury dollars, and our fallen place in the world community. Sunday's late-night speech indicated Obama has given this matter serious thought and its fair due. He's sending out signals to friends and foes alike that the Wild West doesn't live at the White House anymore, not even on a day when he achieved Bush's fondest dream as president. In more specific language, he simply spoke of our "war against al-Qaeda." How sweet it was to watch and to hear his well-chosen words that steered clear of "with us or against us," "dead or alive," or bragging about being the greatest nation. Gloating does not become a president.

Speaking of Bush, his official statement indicated he knew "war on terror" is no longer acceptable in policy parleys, so he changed it to "fight against terrorism." Do they have enough crow down there in Texas for him?

Save some for the prince of darkness, too.

Tags:
Dick Cheney,
George W. Bush,
national security terrorism and the military,
Barack Obama,
White House

Reader Comments Read all comments (55)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Finally, a leader with brains. And heart. And resolve. Let's all celebrate.

Amarillo of CO 9:51PM May 04, 2011

My comments regarding President Obama must be evaluated in the proper context--he was addressing the American people as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to inform of success in a long sought after military objective, the same objective his predecessor tried for many years to accomplish and whose efforts probably increased the likelihood of final success. I find it unseemly for a sitting president in wartime to be openly critical of other Americans who have served their best. But I suppose you are right in calling me silly, because when I saw Barak Obama addressing the nation I saw him as President of the United States, not as Head Politician of the Democratic Party. Perhaps Obama's critics are right in saying that he is in permanent, self-promoting campaign mode.

sipaco of OH 12:31AM May 04, 2011

"2. Weapons of Mass Destruction"

I don't think that qualifies as fear mongering, but rather incorrect intel, believed and pushed by both parties.

Actually, from what I hear, we DID find WMDs but couldn't go public because it would make certain people look bad, who we didn't want to look bad (namely, the US that was likely holding the receipts.) No way I can verify that, though, so it's just something from the rumor mill. Maybe that was the real point of the war; to cover our own tracks for doing something we shouldn't have been doing.

"3. Obama is a foreign, socialist, Muslim who wants to destroy America"

There's certainly a fringe element saying those things, but they aren't from the GOP proper or even conservatives in general. That's like claiming the 9/11 Truthers are representative of Democrats. It's just not true.

That isn't to say there aren't plentiful legitimate examples of GOP or conservative fear mongering; the "jack booted thugs" letter from the NRA back in the '90's comes to mind. My point being that BOTH parties engage in it, and failure to acknowledge that is to prove oneself blindly partisan.

Rich of CO 11:41PM May 03, 2011

Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Stiehm is a weekly Creators Syndicate columnist. Her op-eds on politics, culture, and history have appeared in newspapers across the nation, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. She previously worked as a reporter at the Baltimore Sun and The Hill. Jamie's first journalism job was as an assignment editor at the CBS News bureau in London.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement