Another take on Bin Ladin's death

Sometimes things are not what they seem to be. Smart people learn not to point such things out as it can aggravate other people. But I am not smart. I am a trouble-maker. So here I go.
As I read about the killing of Osama bin Laden it was clear that the soldiers were there to kill him and not capture him. The way I heard it was to shoot him unless there was no possibility he could engage in violence. Since he could have hidden explosives on himself the only way they could be sure that he would not engage in violence is if they caught him naked. hmmmm. That is an image I do not want to see. But I digress. This may have been a capture or kill assignment but it was much more on the kill than on the capture.
It did not have to be that way. When the U.S. went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), care was taken to capture him instead of killing him. It is possible to capture these terrorist. But President Obama did not focus on capturing Bin Laden. He gave orders that almost assured his death.
Now does this bother me. No. But here is what is interesting. Bush was president when KSM was captured. I believe Bush wanted him captured while Obama wanted Bin Laden killed. I believe that if Bush was president Bin Laden there would have been more of an emphasis on capturing him than killing him. Why?
Bush had no problems using what some call "enhanced interrogation" and other call torture on terrorist to gain information. A captured terrorist had value for Bush. That terrorist can provide information that Bush hoped to use against the terrorist's organization. A capture terrorist has no value for Obama. That means questions of trials and civil liberties come into play. Would we have tried Bin Laden in New York or at a military base. How do we get information from Bin Laden if we do not use enhanced interrogations. I believe that the Obama administration did not want to deal with those hot potato political questions. A Bin Laden with a bullet hole in the head is much better for Obama than a live one in a cell.
Here is the irony. In one way Obama has not been very progressive. He is definitely not a pacifist. He has emphasized killing terrorist with drone missiles rather than capturing them. Bush had no qualms about killing terrorist but he wanted to capture them more than killing them. If you are a terrorist your life expectancy is shorter under an Obama administration than a Bush one.
I am not picking sides in whether it is better to capture or to kill terrorist. Someone like Bin Laden or KSM has to be either capture or killed. We can not reason with such vermin. But our assumptions that the Democrat administration is softer on terrorist does not comport to reality. Political motivations to keep terrorist out of jails has ironically made Obama more bloodthirsty to terrorist than Bush. Go figure.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker