The idea that a single individual has access to a set of nuclear codes that could effectively end life as we know it is something that would keep me up at night.
It would keep me up at night, if I did not have incredible trust in the individual possessing these codes.
Much ado has been made in recent weeks of the President’s decision to make the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden a campaign talking point in his bid for re-election. Senator McCain, the President’s opponent of a bygone day, went so far as to release a press statement yesterday saying, among other things:
Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad. This is the same President who once criticized Hillary Clinton for invoking bin Laden ‘to score political points.’ This is the same President who said, after bin Laden was dead, that we shouldn’t ‘spike the ball’ after the touchdown. And now Barack Obama is not only trying to score political points by invoking Osama bin Laden, he is doing a shameless end-zone dance to help himself get reelected.
And make a political talking point has he ever. Along with Vice President Biden suggesting Thursday that the bumper sticker for the campaign ought to be “Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” the President’s campaign has released an attack ad suggesting Romney may not have made the same decision had he been in the situation of the President. The video features none other than the President’s most valuable surrogate: former President Clinton.
However, I for one, and I am sure many fellow supporters of President Obama would agree, do not find any problem with him trumpeting the targeted killing for political gain. In fact, I think it might just be the most relevant conversation of the presidential campaign yet. That’s because the Oval Office requires a leader with more than just strong economic plans or a coherent foreign policy doctrine. Indeed, these elements ought to be prerequisites for the job, but the role of the president requires greater skills than legislative or diplomatic dexterity. The president, as our sitting president and his team have elucidated so carefully in campaign rhetoric, must be an exceptional individual who, when faced with enormous pressure and awesome responsibility, makes the tough decisions that he feels will make our nation a greater one.
There is no decision in recent memory that has tested the fortitude of a sitting president more than the one President Obama faced leading up to the May 2 raid of bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad. Indeed, recent interviews with those officials involved reveal that President Obama faced a room of skepticism, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta the only advisor encouraging the raid. But rather than be shaken by this lack of confidence, the President put his political future, and chances of re-election, on the line and made the executive decision to authorize the raid.
The aftermath of that decision reveals that, in a time of unparalleled stress, the President made the right call. Had he been more worried about his political future or more susceptible to the phenomenon of groupthink, history may have told us an entirely different story. But time and time again – whether it’s sticking to his guns on healthcare, preventing a collapse of the American auto industry, or pursuing achievement of the Democratic values of fairness and equality – the President has demonstrated that he is a man who acts out of conviction, not political convenience.
The same cannot be said of Mitt Romney. Rather than acting out of conviction or basing his decisions on deeply ingrained values, Romney has repeatedly shown the only consideration he makes when confronted with a decision is what route ensures the greatest gain of political capital. As a Senate candidate in 1994, Romney tried to “out-Kennedy Kennedy,” taking liberal stances on a gamut of social issues. While governor of Massachusetts, Romney passed historic health care, from which he has since tried desperately to distance himself. And just this week, as he emerges as the only viable candidate left in the Republican primary, Romney has already begun to “soften his tone federal student loan aid and illegal immigrants.”
Whoever is elected president in November will face a host of serious domestic and global issues. From a Social Security program that needs immediate attention, to a North Korean regime whose nuclear tests compound the risk of technology getting into the wrong hands, the president’s fortitude will inevitably be tested again and again.
That is why whoever is occupying the Oval Office come January 21, 2013, must be someone whose intentions the American people can trust. He must be someone whose decisions are based on what he regards best enables our nation to prosper, not his personal political legacy. By emphasizing his decision-making during the Abbottabad raid, President Obama is highlighting an issue that ought to be considered of the utmost importance by the American people, and that distinguishes him from his politically opportunistic opponent.
