Oh, so *what* if Obama’s backtracking on having bin Laden killed be our highest priority?

(Links via Legal Insurrection, via Instapundit) Just because Obama said it back in October:

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act & we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

and is now saying something completely different:

Barack Obama last night suggested that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America’s security goals could be achieved by merely keeping al-Qaeda “on the run”.

“My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him,” he said. “But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”

…you can’t really hold it against him, right?  After all, he’s a Democratic politician, and everybody knows that their most lofty goal when doing national security issues is to sound almost as tough as the Republican; actually trying to sound tougher is a self-evident absurdity.  So everybody that mattered knew all along that Obama was just lying, like any other politician: the ploy was of the sort that can be easily seen through by anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

After all, you’re not this guy, right?

No, of course you aren’t.