On the politics of the event, the irony is that Obama will come out as having gotten bin Laden and will erase a general public negative that he and his supporters have had in opposing the things that made the event possible. As for the contribution of waterboarding, I would refer the reader to Brian Williams' interview with the head of the CIA. Righteous indignation does not make something ineffective. And somehow for those that are most offended by Bush's policies, targeted executions are OK - not only this one, but many drone attacks in Pakistan which violate their sovereignty with lots of collateral damage.
There is no question that this killing was well conceived and executed, and that Obama made the right choice on the approach. There are a number of discussions on the Internet about the roles that Hillary, Panetta, Jarrett, and Obama had in the decision. When the "insider stories" are eventually published it will be fascinating to see how true that is. But my article isn't about that - it is about the role that Bush's actions had in making this possible and the total inconsistency of being offended by harsh interrogation in the heat of battle and cheering the execution of an unarmed opponent. Deny the contribution of one; ignore the other.

Comments

[Rich Robinson]

Enhanced interrogation had as much to do with getting bin Laden as "Tang" had on the moon landing. The irony is that the Bush apologists, having decided that they were "unconcerned" with him and shutting down the unit to "get him", now want a slice of the credit by justifying torture--which in all likelihood delayed our ability to obtain real information. Chuzpah my friend, shear chuzpah.