Might this possibly have something to do with Bitsy's repeated statement that frequent torture of POWs is an excellent idea in EVERY war, and should be routinely allowed (presumably on the decision of one man by himself, whether a low-level interrogator or the guy in the Oval Office)? And his just-expressed belief that absolutely everyone in the Moslem world was a mortal enemy of all non-Moslems in the first plce, and that the revelation that we've been torturing our prisoners therefore makes no new serious enemies for us anywhere in the worldwide Moslem population?

He had plenty of opportunity to be a hero for his cause in Afghanistan, but he ran. You obviously have a higher opinion of the man than I do.

Not at all.

Reasons are simple enough; He's always been given the opportunity, by either chance or planning, or both, to 'carry on ths truggle' thereby being even more heroic. Again....It's always what he sees as "the struggle" that is the driver.

If someone figures it's more heroic and righteous to diein battle from an attacker's ordinance, they'll generally find a way to make it happen. Do not under-estimate the mental need on OBL's part to be a hero to the cause.

He had plenty of opportunity to be a hero for his cause in Afghanistan, but he ran. You obviously have a higher opinion of the man than I do.

We apparently 'read' the two men differently, then. Obama, by my read is still operating on the idea that what he's doing is what's right in the eyes of Allah, and that if killed in the line of that duty, he will be rewarded.

But that's a far cry from offing yourself because you don't want to be hanged. More likely OBL himself won't be armed when we catch up to him, but will have body guards who are.

Saddam did, I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to capture OBL alive.

We apparently 'read' the two men differently, then. Obama, by my read is still operating on the idea that what he's doing is what's right in the eyes of Allah, and that if killed in the line of that duty, he will be rewarded. He doesn't care about hanging onto his earthly life.
He won't allow himself to be captured.

Saddam meanwhile, in the end, was just a frightened old man, in the end, with a lot of hutzpah, but little more. His life in the end was all he had, and he didn't want to lose it. Rather like the innocents he killed.

Saddam killed to retain power. Obama killed because he figured he was doing God's will. Major difference.

First you assume he would allow himself to be taken alive. I think we can rule that out.

Saddam did, I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to capture OBL alive.

is health issues have precluded him being involved with much planning... a point which would seem to be confirmed by the ops we've seen recently from them, that smack of a lack of such planning as you'd expect from OBL. Either there's no planning going on , or the ones doing the planning aren't very good at it. Either way, OBL was not at the table when the plans were ebing laid.

Yes, but if he has even a vague idea of what others are planning, his capture would put all that in jeopardy. He would also know where most of AQ's better hideouts are, presumably having been there himself, and where (if not whom) the local contacts are that support their logistical operations.

It would matter from an intelligence perspective, and would also thoroughly upend AQ's logistical planning.

Doubtful on both points.
First you assume he would allow himself to be taken alive. I think we can rule that out.

Second is of a like with the first. His health issues have precluded him being involved with much planning... a point which would seem to be confirmed by the ops we've seen recently from them, that smack of a lack of such planning as you'd expect from OBL. Either there's no planning going on , or the ones doing the planning aren't very good at it. Either way, OBL was not at the table when the plans were ebing laid.

Interestingly, it's the anti-Bush screeds where you'll most often find reference to OBL still being at large... as if that mattered, beyond the level of feel-goodism.

It would matter from an intelligence perspective, and would also thoroughly upend AQ's logistical planning. Probably it would spark more violence, not less, but it would definitely harm AQ.

Well, it was Bush who put OBL's picture up with a "Wanted Dead or Live" caption under it, right?

Well, you tell ME... what would the left have said had OBL been ignored outright? And so, think; whose benefit was that caption for? It was for those who still think of this as some kind of criminal justice action.

Look, I for one have never suggested that ignoring OBL outright would be a benefit, but I've also said that focusing on him to the exclusion of the larger problem, partularly given the martyr complex, is at least counter- productive.

Interestingly, it's the anti-Bush screeds where you'll most often find reference to OBL still being at large

Well, it was Bush who put OBL's picture up with a "Wanted Dead or Live" caption under it, right?

Cheney does have some symbolic value as perhaps the key neocon. As such, I understand why Yglesias wrote what he did.

Heh. So, Cheney takes the place as the focal point. Funny, how that works.

I think the more harmful fantasy was 24. All too many people bought into torture being a viable information gathering tool. The war has been greatly prolonged because of such fantasies.

I doubt it. With a more civilized bunch, possibly. But with a bunch of willing 14th century throwbacks, such is the stock in trade, and I doubt it's made a dent either way.

I think the more harmful fantasy was 24. All too many people bought into torture being a viable information gathering tool. The war has been greatly prolonged because of such fantasies.

Steve

Vague statements like that can cause problems if you don’t use them consistent across your comparisons. If you are saying the Joker himself then yes. If you are saying the Joker’s organization and those that support him then no. Same can be said about Saddam. Although I will agree that fiction at least gives a appearance of “wrapping” things up.

“My point was that the tech is used once to apprehend the Joker and then is destroyed.”

I’m not sure if that solves the issue. If it was fine to use once for the Joker then how about the Riddler or someone even more dangerous? If the machine can be built once it can be rebuild again. If you destroyed it every time would it be O.K.?

I read a great deal of comic books up to 7th grade. Many obvious bad guys and some characters who weren’t obvious and others who were questionable. Yes fiction is usually neater than life.

Your last paragraph is an overstatement. Both left and right have areas that they think in black and white while grays in other areas.