President Trump telling the nation, telling the world the very good news that the leader of the Islamic state is no more. These days in our incredibly polarized political climate. There are very few moments, very few opportunities when you would expect there to be a true bipartisan coming together. But I remember, and the parallels between these two incidents will be a theme as we discuss this today. I remember when under the Obama administration, Osama bin Laden was killed, and I remember that announcement seeing on TV jubilant reporters, seeing people dancing in the streets chanting USA, USA, and understandably, there was a greater psychological attachment or a greater sense of justice delivered when UBL was killed because he was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks that killed almost 3000 of our fellow Americans. But there was an understanding that this was a good thing that justice had been delivered and there was something of a respite from the nasty partisan politics that define almost everything in the news these days. You would think that when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is taken out by us special operators, people keep saying special forces, I've seen it reported as a Delta force, but when this happens, shouldn't we have a pause in the partisan warfare? Shouldn't we have a moment where we say enough is enough with all of that? This was a good thing. First line of credit goes to our military, goes to those in the special operations community who very clearly put their lives on the line for this raid and for many other raids and just in the day to day national security protection of this country, but the credit does make it's way up to those who gave the order. The credit also filters through the intelligence community, which I think these days could certainly use quite a bit more public confidence and respect given the way that it has been shamelessly politicized against president Trump.
But simply put my friends, this is a big win. It's a win for America, for Trump, for special operations, for the intelligence community, and for Syria, the middle East, the world human decency, basic human rights, any sense of justice? This guy was a monster. This individual was a rapist, a mass murderer, a torturer, a sadist. And yet the way that the press reported on him was such a window into what they really care about and what they really think. Astonishing stuff, hard to believe. And I truly mean that. Over the weekend I was at Politicon in Nashville, which was a fun event. It was mostly fun for me to see some members of Team Buck who showed up. And thank you so much for those of you who did. But also to seeing some of my media peers, I have to tell you, this headline, which has gotten so much attention from the Washington Post was so bizarre. It's hard to explain how anyone could think this way, but the Washington post initially called Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi a terrorist and chief. I responded on Twitter yesterday to this because they changed that headline to the following. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic state dies at 48. Yeah, austere. You could say he was pretty strict. He would saw your head off if you didn't do what he wanted. So I guess one description of him. Austere religious scholar. The post had to walk this back, change the headline right away. But that was not the only place I would note where there were very strange descriptions in what was a Washington Post obituary of a butcher of men, women and children in the Middle East doing so under the mantle of Islam, bringing tens of thousands of recruits. I know in this country, if you have a white nationalist rally somewhere with 10 morons who show up, we're told that they're about to overthrow the country. Meanwhile, when you're looking at the Islamic state, you actually had a jihadist, who brought together, tens of thousands of recruits from all over the world. Took over an area that rained over at least three or 4 million inhabitants and required a multinational coalition led of course by the United States, but also with some very good ground finding from our friends, the Kurds on the ground, but as terrible a human being as you're going to find anywhere. And the Washington Post in its obituary of this, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi referred to him, quote, mr Baghdadi maintained a canny pragmatism end quote, Hmm, I guess enslavement, genocide, mass murder. Some people would find a way to describe that as pragmatic if you're a psychopath. Another quote from the obituary. Acquaintances would remember him as a shy, nearsighted youth who liked soccer, but preferred to spend his free time at the local mosque now ed quote, you could tell me that Buck, come on. They're doing an obituary. They're trying to give a full picture of who this monster was. They understand that as I read through this obituary, I could not help but think that if the Washington Post was writing an obituary of say, Brett Kavanaugh, there would've been more acid tongued attacks. There would've been more nasty undermining viciousness about a future Kavanaugh obituary for example. Then you would see in this piece about a mass murderer, not about an entirely decent and brilliant family man who is the worst nightmare of liberals. Precisely because of his intellect, his morality and his decency. No, no. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. They can find another way to look at him. If you think that that's the only case, by the way, I would bring you the way that Bloomberg, another major news outlet, you know, multibillion dollar. These are huge news outlets. Employ thousands of journalists, tremendous resources. How about just terrorist mastermind killed? Congrats special operations, congrats US military and the Trump white house, sorry. They get credit for this. The same way that Obama did his whole walk out in front of a microphone and look what I did Bin Laden's gone. I'm amazing now. That covered up for a tremendous amount of incompetence in the counter terrorism fight from the Obama administration. In fact, it was reported that some of the seals that were apart of that raid on Bin Laden's compound set afterwards, we just got Obama reelected by taking out Osama and I think that there was some degree of truth to that. I don't think it was wholly the case that that was why Obama got reelected, but a major line of attack on foreign policy matters would have been the ineptitude and the inability of the Obama administration to even see who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
It was a way to shut down that criticism at a key moment for the Obama administration. They shut it down by saying, Oh, I'm sorry, Obama, the guy who killed bin Laden isn't tough enough on terrorists. Well, no, actually turned out he wasn't tough enough on terrorists. Do you remember all the mass casualty attacks that were happening abroad and here at home, jihadist attacks inspired by the Islamic state? No, I don't think he was tough enough on terrorism. They always pointed also to his usage of drones. Well, that was because we were being told that drones were a precision tactic and that that was all that was needed. Of course, that wasn't all that was needed. Drones are not a strategy and drones come with their own collateral damage and issues. But Bloomberg tweeted out the following ,Islamic state leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi transformed himself from a little known teacher of Quranic recitation into the self-proclaimed ruler of an entity that covered swaths of Syria and Iraq. Wow. I wonder what his favorite color was. Did he have a cat? What was the cat's name? This is how they talk about as vicious a terrorist mastermind as you would find anywhere. As vicious as Bin Laden just didn't manage to get in a sneak attack on us before we knew we were at war, but as vicious as Osama bin Laden. In fact, the Islamic state use tactics that were so severe, so extreme that there were even Al Qaeda members who reportedly felt that it might be too much. It might turn some members of the Ooma, the Islamic community against the Islamic state, and yet here we have reporters in more than one instance and also, and I'm about to get into the, this is just the way they report on Baghdadi. I will transfer this into how did they factor Trump into all this and then we'll discuss what does this mean about Syria? Wasn't it just a week ago? We were being told that Trump had no idea what he was doing in Syria. He's ruined everything. He's left all the Kurds to die. The whole region is up in flames now because of Trump. All of this hysteria from so-called foreign policy experts. I would note my, my dear friends and colleagues here in the freedom hut with me, did we take that position where we in hysterics about how the counter terrorism fight is over because of Trump's decision, how everything has fallen apart. We've lost all of our gains. We've abandoned the Kurds for all eternity. We've handed over all of our credibility to the Turks and the Russians. Who looks foolish this week? Not us, not in here. A lot of other people though. Perhaps it's because some of us actually worked on these issues and have an understanding of the underlying dynamics and also have some interest in the history, not just of the region, but of US actions in the region and what comes as a result of them in the immediate and long term. Make no mistake about it. This was a big win for America, for civilization. Really. It does not end the fight against terrorism. It does not even end the fight against the Islamic state, but it is an important moral and psychological victory in a battle that is largely moral and psychological, but the media wasn't really necessarily sure what team they were on sometimes. How do we report on this? Don't want this to be too much of a win for Trump. Let's focus on that for a moment. How does Trump factor in to what is the single biggest takeout of a terrorist since bin Laden? And it certainly on the same plane as the mission against Osama bin Laden, but what do they think of Trump in this whole thing?
Hear the entirety of the Buck Sexton Show by subscribing to The Buck Sexton Show on IHeartRadio, ITunes or your favorite podcast app!