Skip to main content

The "swiftboating" of Barack Obama began today as a Republican-centric group called OpSec began airing a 22-minute film criticizing the president for -- well, when you get right down to it, for the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

As numerous pundits already have noted, this is another GOP implementation of the Karl Rove technique that seeks to turn a political opponent's greatest strengths into liabilities, through lies and innuendo. But not to worry; success against John Kerry in 2004 notwithstanding, this time the swift-boating attack is so over the top only low-information voters and/or morons are likely to believe it.

OpSec is staffed by known GOP operatives, although its donors remain anonymous. It rants that Obama's simple, brief, dignified TV address from the White House announcing the raid that killed Bin Laden was nothing other than political grandstanding. I guess maybe if you're Republican it indeed would have been better had this stunning news come from, say, the assistant deputy secretary of agriculture or the PR guy at Chick-Fil-A. Or maybe just a short, printed news release from the History Channel. Or better yet, maybe Obama should have rung up George W. Bush and asked him to tell everybody.

OpSec's other complaint is that the Obama White House released too much information about the raid -- some of it classified, or so OpSec suggests. Not that any American citizen was interested in all those details, of course. Or that outfits like OpSec wouldn't have wanted to peruse even more information, had the raid failed.

You see, in the wingnut-o-verse, the president of the United States is out of bounds because he had absolutely no role in the operation to assault Bin Laden's compound. Which is odd, because, in 1979, when Jimmy Carter ordered a special assault mission to rescue the US hostages in Iran, the mission's failure was laid right at Carter's feet, by those same Republicans, and they ran with it all the way to the White House (and let's not forget evidence that the Reagan campaign sought to delay the return of the hostages for political gain).

In short, these kinds of military operations are, obviously, all the president's fault when they fail, or not to his credit when they succeed. The important exception being that when they succeed and the president is a Republican, he's our bold, decisive commander-in-chief and there's no amount of grandstanding that could be called out. Because it is, as Dick Cheney said, their due.

And while OpSec frets over alleged if not entirely imagined leaks of classified information, you'll not find Republicans who were upset with the Bush administration for illegally outing clandestine CIA agent Valerie Plame and putting her overseas network of foreign operatives at risk for their lives. Nope, Plame was "fair game" after her diplomat husband told the truth about the Cheney-arranged, fake reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium.

Furthermore, you won't be able to identify a single one of these OpSec dudes or their Republican pals, or right-wingers in general, ever getting upset when George W. Bush prematurely announced the "end" of the Iraq war with a "Mission accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier flight deck, wearing an aviator's suit. Nor will you recall any of them shying from claiming that Ronald Reagan "won" the cold war against the USSR. Nope, in the wingnut mindset, only GOP presidents make decisions whether to send troops into harm's way. It's their universe; Democrats are just along for the ride.

In any case, this particular swiftboating -- complete with a STFU epithet aimed at Obama -- is one huge jumping of the shark. So over-the-top huge it's unlikely to gain any traction with anyone who isn't already in the GOP's declining base. But they couldn't help themselves. It's just too galling to consider that Democrats often enough produce budget surpluses, successfully send strike teams after the nation's most wanted enemies and otherwise generally get things done. They disloyal GOP opposition simply can't abide that sort of thing.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Campaign page: (2+ / 0-)


    bye, snorkle snorkle.

    Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.
    * Join: OBAMA'S TRUTH TEAM *

    by greenbird on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:19:09 PM PDT

  •  i don't get this (0+ / 0-)
    you'll not find Republicans who were upset with the Bush administration for illegally outing clandestine CIA
    If the leaking was illegal, why was Richard Armitage never charged with a crime?
    •  One word (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      means are the ends


      Bush commuted Mr. Libby's sentence after his conviction in the matter; presumably, prosecutors expected Mr. Armitage would receive similar benefits. In any case, the language of the law protecting covert agents is explicit. Plame ran a secret network of informers whose lives were jeopardized by her outing. So the outing didn't just ruin her career and her cover; it ruined sensitive US intelligence operations.

      •  no good (0+ / 0-)

        Plame was outed 7/14/2003
        Armitage told the FBI it was him in 10/2003
        Libby was not convicted until 3/2007
        Libby was commuted in 7/2007

        So they had almost 4 years to press charges against the admitted target of the investigation but never bothered to do so before Libby was commuted.

        •  This is mere distraction (0+ / 0-)

          My blog focuses on the silliness and hubris of the OpSec swiftboat operation, which only serves to remind the public that under Obama, and based on his decision, which no less than an admiral called gutsy, the federal government finally got Osama Bin Laden. All the rest is posturing.

          As for Armitage: He allegedly mentioned Ms. Wilson's CIA role to columnist Robert Novak in a 2003 interview after learning about her status from a State Department memo that made no reference to her undercover status. Reporter Michael Isikoff wrote that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Armitage's role "aggressively" but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward." Hardly evidence that no crime was committed. But who issued that State Dept. memo? And why?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site