It is ever so odd that I was just considering things in a similar light. 0bama is cold-hearted. Senator 0bama in 2007 said he would go after Pakistan and the terrorist it harbored. Consider that for a bit in light of recent events.
0bama is getting bolder though and in some regards that is concerning.
As to his liberal left base? Odd, I just finished last night a debate online and the jist of whole matter was...
“It’s all about hating Obama? That’s the Republican strategy? What about The Bush’s obsession with Iraq? Was that all legal? Get over it. President Obama used one of his prerogatives as elected President of the United States of America. So what were we supposed to do? Let Bin Laden live on in hog heaven? Bring him to Gitmo? Don’t waste your energy worrying about it,” said the liberal.
I would caution that in the liberal mind...the ‘bad dude,’ isn’t subject to all the rights and privileges that a victim is. They are more apt to approve of the use of expediency for the sake of the collective, rather than to secure the rights of the individual.
It is what makes them so dangerous. The more that mentality takes hold, the easier it becomes for them to ‘group people’ into deserving and undeserving.
It's the same mentality that lets Salafist hijackers party in strip clubs. It was necessary to maintain their cover for the greater good of the jihad, so it was not just permissible, but mandatory. For a less pious citizen, cavorting with semi-naked heathens with alcohol and pork would be a severe offense.
Liberals might not believe in waterboarding Islamists, but precious few would complain if Obama needed to waterboard a 'domestic terrorist'.
They don't care that he uses drones to assassinate suspects instead of capturing them.
They don't care that Gitmo is open. It's the lesser of two evils with Obama. It was for the fun of torture for Bush.
They don't care about the Patriot Act, wiretapping, or TSA full body probes. Bush did it because he's a tyrant, Obama because he's concerned about your safety.
His 'surge' in Afghanistan was bold leadership, Bush's was warmongering.
UBLs death was a daring, gutsy call that highlights his strategic vision and tenacious nerves. Had Bush done it, it would have been a cowardly, extra judicial murder, basically an organized criminal hit job, no better than the Mafia whacking an informant.
You get the idea. I understand that Bush and Obama both faced bad options, and as any leader must, you make the best of them. Liberals don't understand that. Everything is either righteous or reprehensible. Justified or inexcusable. Serving the greater cause, or ... treasonous. Treasonous in word, in deed, in spirit.
Serving the greater cause, though? All tools available are not only permitted, but required. To do less is, in itself, a hated betrayal.