It Wasn't "Self Defense, it Was "National Self Defense"

There is a difference as John at Powerline points out as he discusses the various versions of the bin Laden killing story coming from the White House:

"All of these narratives -- apart from the disadvantage, in some instances, of being untrue -- share a common defect. They assume that the SEALs are in the dock as accused murderers, and need to be seen as acting in self-defense. This is ridiculous. The SEALs may have acted in 'national self defense,' the doctrine that Eric Holder articulated to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But in the immediate context of the raid on bin Laden's compound, the SEALs were not defending themselves. They were on the attack, as they needed to be to carry out their orders. Whether bin Laden was shooting at them, reaching for a gun, clothed or naked, or in the same room with a weapon is irrelevant. The SEALs went into Pakistan to kill bin Laden, and succeeded brilliantly. The administration needs to forget about self-defense and stand behind the orders it gave the military."

Standing behind the military will have to be an acquired skill for this White House. They certainly don't come by it naturally.

And Mark Steyn has some thoughts on how America looked both strong and weak in the same moment (from the Daily Caller):

“I think this is strong horse-weak horse all in one. If you want highly trained, superbly equipped warriors on a precise, targeted mission, to go in and do what they’re supposed to do, then this is a brilliant operation,” Steyn said. “I think when you look at everything surrounding it, including the reaction in Washington, and the facts on the ground in Abbottabad, then I think it’s, we’re deep in weak horse territory, in part because our so-called ally feels it can in effect, de facto officially shelter Osama bin Laden, his three wives, and his 13 children – as the Senator said on your show the other day. And they know, the Pakistanis know they will pay no price for it. That’s real weak horse stuff. That’s serious weak horse stuff.”

Steyn also condemned the Obama administration’s decision not to release the bin Laden photograph and the way it handled his body in deference to Islamic customs.

“Well, I think in the normal course of events, if you kill some guy, a proper modicum of respect, even for a criminal, would say well, we don’t release the photograph,” Steyn said. “But the danger here is not releasing the photograph will be seen as part of the disastrous appeasement of Islam that has characterized Obama’s reaction to this. So it’s seen as part and parcel of the Muslim burial service, 45-minute Muslim burial service he was accorded, or funeral service and Obama’s prostrations, you know, and insistence America is not at war with Islam in his speech, which is true. We’re not at war with Islam. But in that case, why do you go to such lengths to demonstrate respect for Osama bin Laden as an observant Muslim? So I think the argument for releasing the picture is to show that, ‘Hey, we don’t care, this guy was a guy who attacked the United States, and here’s his corpse.’ There’s an element of the Mussolini from the lamppost thing that this whole episode could use.”

Yep.