Coaches aren’t on the field, but they get credit for success.  Why the double standard from the Right?

If you’re wondering why America is no longer able to make even the most basic, common-sense decisions, there are two simple answers: extreme partisanship and willful hypocrisy.

Forget the desire to seek truth.  Many on the Right and Left are simply incapable of seeing the real picture, even if it’s smacking them in the face.  And those rare souls who do rise above partisanship to tell the truth are viciously discredited by their own, branded “traitors” and “sellouts.”

The incessant calls for “bipartisanship” are nothing more than pure campaign posturing. Once the election is over, the personal attacks begin anew, demonizing adversaries for miniscule partisan advantage.

Nowhere is this more apparent that the Right’s nonstop barrage against President Obama for his “politicizing” the killing of Osama bin Laden --- an attack, by the way, that will backfire as it repels swing voters from the GOP and pushes the Prez closer to re-election.

There are countless articles, commentaries and videos (including a particularly apalling one from Veterans For  A Stronger Future) that bash Obama on everything related to the bin Laden raid.  Outside of throwing red meat to the far Right (who obviously aren’t voting for Obama anyway), this misguided strategy is destroying whatever credibility the Right may have had. Some common themes we are hearing include:

-Obama deserves absolutely no credit for the raid that killed bin Laden;

-It is George W. Bush who really should be praised for nailing bin Laden (as Obama did nothing at all to contribute to the hunt --- he was just a lucky guy who happened to be on watch when the terrorist was located);

- It is the Navy SEAL’s who deserve one hundred percent of the credit, as they are the “real heroes” who did the job (see Point One);

-The President never thanked the SEALs or the intelligence community, instead taking all the accolades for himself because he used the word “I” in a few sentences;

-A Republican would never politicize anything about high-profile killings, war, or terrorism --- especially in front of a foreign leader.

Yeah, good thing George Bush never politicized Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror, the capture of Saddam Hussein, WMD’s, or anything related to national security.  And not to throw a bone to the conspiracy theorists, but since national security/war on terror was, literally, the only issue in which Bush and the Republicans held an advantage over the Democrats (after 2004), didn’t it seem like there was a “non-specific color-coded heightened terror alert” every other week, especially right before elections? 

Of course Bush politicized security matters. How many videos do you need to show the truth?  Just Google it.  And, for the record, Bush even politicized the terror issue in front of a foreign leader (the Iraqi Prime Minister).  But to those on the Right, those things are simply not acknowledged, conveniently overlooked, or hypocritically justified.  Which is why they can’t make inroads winning the hearts and minds of The Great American Middle.

Speaking of hypocrisy, please explain how Bush should be credited with the bin Laden killing (he put the intel apparatus in place, we are told), but Obama should not. A) Most intelligence analysts uniformly agree that the search for bin Laden actually decreased under Bush, as assets were pulled from that mission and re-directed to Iraq, Afghanistan and the general war on terror. B) Obama made the search for bin Laden a priority.  C) He ordered the raid. D) He is Commander-in-Chief. Bush had eight years to get the job done, and didn’t.  Obama did. What am I missing?

And because The President wasn’t physically carrying a machine gun into the compound means that he had nothing to do with the raid? So a coach should get no credit when he guides his team to a Super Bowl because he isn’t on the field? Parents don’t deserve recognition for their children’s academic performance because they aren’t in the classroom taking the test? CEO’s shouldn’t be lauded when profits are up because they weren’t on the widget line?

And would the same “Obama wasn’t physically there” litmus test be used if Bush had been in office when bin Laden was killed? Not a chance.

Make no mistake about one thing. If U.S. personnel were killed or captured, or the helicopters crashed into a Pakistani house, you can bet the ranch the President would have been crucified by the Right for incompetence.  You can’t have it both ways.  He either owns the mission or he doesn’t.

Were the SEALs courageous and competent? As always, yes. Are they unknown heroes?  You bet.  But let’s keep the emotion in check here.  We don’t live in a military dictatorship. We are led by a civilian president elected by the people; the military --- even the elite SEALs --- work for him. Period. The SEALs didn’t go in until expressly authorized by the President, and, while that decision now seems like a no-brainer, it was infinitely more complicated and risky than the general public will ever know. The nation (and civilized world) owes a debt a gratitude to the SEALs, and they deserve high honors for their precision work.  But without question, the bulk of the credit must go to their leader. 

And the President did, in fact, congratulate and heap praise not just on the SEALs, but on everyone who helped make the mission a success. Let’s not forget that the SEALs didn’t find bin Laden; without good intelligence agents, there wouldn’t have been a raid.

And for a President who doesn’t deserve credit, here’s a pretty big irony.  Barack Obama and his family will, for the rest of their lives, have a literal target on their backs from bin Laden supporters.  Paybacks are a bitch, and as we have learned firsthand, Muslim fanatics redefine “patience.” Obama will always wonder if his house will be car-bombed, or a person at a speaking engagement (post presidency) has a bomb strapped to his chest.  Or if his children and grandchildren are safe. For all the dangers the SEALs faced, they will never have those worries. When their missions end, they’re done.  Not so for the President.

For a guy whom the Right tags as anti-American and in bed with the Muslim community, ordering the assassination of radical Muslims’ ultimate hero doesn’t exactly fit that mold. 

                                                                                     *****

Obviously, the Right does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy.  It’s just more pronounced because Obama currently occupies the Big Prize.  It was no different when Bush was in charge, as the Left refused to give him credit when the Fort Dix Six were captured, avoiding a mass killing spree.

I was a consistent critic of W. (and by no means am I on the Left), yet I gave him total credit for that security victory, since it happened on his watch. Only fair, even though Bush did not physically participate in the operation.
Archive link: http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/home/item/222-the-“fort-dix-six”-is-all-about-illegal-immigration

Mitt Romney should, but won’t, have the guts to chide those who are attacking Obama for something that any President would do --- take credit for removing the most dangerous thug in the world from the living. Regardless of Obama’s stances on any other issues, the decapitation of al-Queda by whacking bin Laden stands as a mammoth achievement.

As Commander-in-Chief in the world’s most public job, Barack Obama will be receive the greatest amount of credit, and deservedly so.  And for anyone who doesn’t like that, one basic question: Would you rather have bin Laden still walking among us?

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

After ten long years, the wait is finally over. 

Osama bin Laden --- Public Enemy Number One --- had eluded capture for over a decade, casting doubt that justice would ever be served.  It was only natural to think he either died anonymously or blended so well into his surroundings that his fate would never be realized, and that America’s most painful wound would never fully heal.

But all that changed after a gutsy operation inside Pakistan led to his demise.  The massive celebrations around the nation left tears of joy in the eyes of millions, as unity once again took hold across America.  Notch a huge win for the good guys.

But at risk of putting a damper on the euphoria, it is clear that U.S. still is not wholly committed to winning the War on Terror. A glaring example is the debate over whether waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” should be used on terrorists hell-bent on destroying us.

There are conflicting reports as to whether the waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided information about an al-Queda courier, who ultimately led the U.S. to bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout.

One question: who cares?  Common sense tells us that waterboarding works, and has no doubt saved lives by obtaining intelligence that would have otherwise not been uncovered.  Whether that method was directly responsible for extracting the courier information may never be known, but debating that point misses the big picture entirely.

We are at war.  And when at war, you pull out all stops until victory is achieved --- Vietnam was supposed to teach us that. When you fight not to lose, the enemy becomes emboldened. 

Where we are right now is a perfect example of the adage “we have met the enemy, and it is us.”
We have allowed our security to be unnecessarily compromised, and, despite bin Laden’s death, the threat against the Western world remains high.

And it’s all done in the name of political correctness.

The blame cannot be directed just at President Obama, who officially discontinued waterboarding in 2009.  Under the Bush Administration, both the CIA and the military had effectively ended the practice years earlier.  And it was Republican John McCain who offered an Amendment prohibiting the U.S. from engaging in humiliating or degrading treatment of captured terrorists.

By way of explanation, waterboarding is when water is poured over the face of an enemy combatant, simulating the feeling of drowning.  If you're waiting for the rest of the description, you'll be sorely disappointed, because that's it.  Don't misunderstand---it's very effective, but derives its success due to psychological stress rather than physical harm.  No one gets hurt, and no one dies. 

But somehow that’s degrading, so despite its effectiveness, we stopped it outright. Does anyone really believe that if we politely ask our detainees for sensitive information, like their financial network, comrades' whereabouts, and the battle-plans to kill Americans, they will just tell us?

If the goal is to ensure that terrorists feel comfortable, then we were right to ban waterboarding.  But if we want to be seriously engaged in a global war against those who aggressively advocate our destruction, we must reconsider how we handle detainees, (who, incidentally, are afforded fantastic medical care, food reflective of their ethnicity, and prayer time).

Maybe we should ask the survivors and victims’ families of the 9/11 massacre, the Madrid train attacks, the London subway bombings, and a host of other atrocities if they care whether a prisoner, with possible knowledge of an impending attack (potentially nuclear, chemical or biological), has some water poured on his face, or feels humiliated.

Cutting through the PC, does the average American, or European for that matter, really believe such interrogation methods should be banned, putting the prisoner's well-being ahead of their own?  Are they really willing to jeopardize their children's future because a combatant's “dignity” is affected?

When Americans are captured, the enemy doesn’t feel compelled to reciprocate that dignity. Need a quick refresher?  Just look at the videos of Americans --- civilians and military --- being decapitated, dragged through the streets, burned, dismembered and hung from bridges.

Because we coddle prisoners, refuse to profile, won’t construct a border wall and tie our troops' hands behind their backs because of PC politics, we have become a paper tiger.  And the sigh of despair you hear?  That's the silent majority of Europeans who live on the front lines, too scared to publicly support anti-PC measures because their cultures have become the embodiment of appeasement.  They used to nod in admiration that at least one country still had the guts to take it to the enemy. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

We should use every means necessary to extract information that could save lives, and waterboarding is clearly one of them.  Just as Americans call for domestic drilling only after gas hits $4 per gallon, there will undoubtedly be loud calls to bring back enhanced interrogation techniques --- after the next attack.

But by then, it will be too late.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it