Most viewed: Is Pope John Paul II fit for sainthood?

In writing about Pope John Paul II’s legacy, columnist Tim Rutten quotes dissident Swiss theologian Hans Kung:

"John Paul II is universally praised as someone who fought for peace and human rights. But his preaching to the outside world was in total contrast with the way he ran the church from inside, with an authoritarian pontificate which suppressed the rights of both women and theologians.... Wojtyla and Ratzinger are the people most responsible for the chronic sickness of today's Catholic Church."

And Rutten concludes:

John Paul II's legacy is, for many Catholics, best summed up by one of his own favorite phrases: "a sign of contradiction."

Most commented: California budget: Sticking it to the GOP

Two prominent Democrats say that if Republican lawmakers insist on spending cuts instead of tax hikes, their districts should suffer the most severe spending cuts. It would turn the California budget plan from a statewide initiative to a district-to-district and case-by-case plan. Aside from being messy, the editorial board says, "threatening to concentrate the pain in the dissenters' turf is ham-fisted and wrong."

Says reader TimBowman:

This only reinforces that Democrats in charge (I won't use the word leadership) are more interested in petty politics and having their way rather than responsible governance.  Nonetheless, if they are likewise willing to raise taxes in their own districts with no appreciable cuts or increases in service, I'm willing to go along.  Let's see who cries foul first.

Most shared: Turkey's neighborhood troubles

Henri J. Barkey outlines a game plan for Turkey to follow, so as to minimize fallout with its neighbor Syria. Here's an excerpt:

Erdogan might be sorry to see his "brother Bashar" leave, but he must also understand that a Rubicon was crossed when Syrian tanks invaded civilian neighborhoods. It is in the interest of Turkey and the United States that an orderly transition to a post-Assad era begin soon. The White House's measured statements on Syria indicate that the Obama administration is worried that a bloodbath may follow any sudden collapse of the regime.

This is where Turkey can potentially play a crucial role by working closely with the West, and the U.S. in particular. There already are some signs of that. It is not a coincidence perhaps that Erdogan's first, though still muted, personal criticism of Assad came after a telephone conversation with President Obama.

ALSO TRENDING:

L.A.'s population drop

Cynicism over Osama bin Laden's death

The cost of illegal aliens, firefighters and schools

Budget and 'birther' battles

 Same-sex marriage and tax increases: Rethinking our decision-makers

--Alexandra Le Tellier

There are 16 candidates in the race for former Rep. Jane Harman's seat in California's 36th Congressional District. But only a few contenders rise to the top.

In Wednesday's Los Angeles Times, Jean Merl outlines the race, pointing readers to the three to watch: L.A. City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, Secretary of State Debra Bowen and antiwar activist Marcy Winograd. In it, she offers the candidates' stats (age, history, accolades). All are more liberal than Harman, who dubbed herself "the best Republican in the Democratic Party."

The editorial board took a similar view, but added Mike Gin, the liberal Republican mayor of Redondo Beach, to the list. Of the four, the board gave its endorsement to Hahn, for her energy, passion and effectiveness. Here's an excerpt:

Even Hahn's critics acknowledge her passion for the communities she serves and for the issues she champions. Charismatic and tough, she is a stalwart environmentalist (she supported the port's controversial Clean Truck Program, which has mandated new rules on vehicles to clean up the air in the region), an ardent advocate for the poor (she supported efforts to use city power to unionize private hotels) and a forceful fighter for jobs (she led the push for modernization of Los Angeles International Airport, in part because it is expected to generate 39,000 jobs). In this race, she enjoys the support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and a number of the members of Congress she seeks to join in Washington.

Readers who commented on the endorsement tended not to agree, many of them throwing their support to Winogard. Here are two such comments, with spelling corrected for clarity.

From johnadriatico:

I've had the pleasure of meeting with Janice Hahn and Debra Bowen and agree with the Times' characterization of both as fine candidates.

However, I believe that the current problems facing our community and our nation demand a fresh perspective and genuine leadership. We have the chance to elect a genuine reformer with Marcy Winograd.

Marcy Winograd:

• Is the only candidate to refuse all lobbyist and corporate donations
• Is the only candidate who has pledged to not vote for any more money or TARP-like schemes for the financial industry
• Is the only candidate who has constitutionally stood against involvement in the current Libyan military conflict, which was made without congressional approval
• Will demand congressional hearings on how GE and other large corporations were able to get away with not paying income tax
• Focuses on the urgent issues facing our community, such as preventing foreclosures, and using the infrastructure as well as the great resources of technology and skilled workers that the 36th is blessed with to create the jobs of the future in green energy and clean power.

After all is said and done, it comes down to who will stand on principle and who we can trust two and even ten years from now. Marcy is running a campaign based on ideas and listening to all voices in the community. I know she'll do our community proud.

From achurg:

It is a great pity that the Times dismisses Marcy Winograd's anti-war activism and her refusal to take corporate campaign donations.  The US federal budget allocates about $900 billion to the military, and about $300 billion to corporate oil, agribusiness and overseas subsidies, and insurance for nuclear power plants. These expenditures are the causes of our debt, outsourcing of jobs, and overall decline in our education and health. Winograd has framed the debate in these terms, and her prominent rivals imitate her jobs with peace rhetoric, but they would not defund the four wars the US is fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya.  And they take corporate donations, so they will not be free to vote their conscience when they get to Washington.

Readers: How do you plan to vote in the May 17 special election?

RELATED:

Patt Morrison: Jane Harman, out of the fray

Los Angeles Times Endorsement: Councilwoman Janice Hahn for Congress

Editorial: The race to fill Jane Harman's congressional seat is a test of the state's new election rules

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Among the candidates vying to fill former Rep. Jane Harman's seat are, from left, teacher Marcy Winograd, L.A. City Councilwoman Janice Hahn and California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Credit: Los Angeles Times

The families of 9/11 victims as well as various other factions have criticized the decision to bury Osama bin Laden's body at sea, and quickly. Some people want the satisfaction of having his body in custody; others want more proof that the corpse was that of the terrorist leader. Meanwhile, the two major reasons given by the Obama administration for the quick ocean burial ring a little hollow: that no other country would take his body, and that they wanted to follow the protocol required by Muslim law to bury within 24 hours. Not that these aren't true, but they don't sound like the real reasons.

There are numerous situations in which a person's religious beliefs do not or cannot hold sway in these matters. If an autopsy is needed on a murder vicim, for example, burial will likely have to be delayed, even though both Islam and Judaism call for speedy burial. For that matter, strict Jewish practice calls for avoiding autopsy altogether, but criminal law takes priority over religious law.

It's easier to believe a reason that's been given as an afterthought -- that a grave could become a shrine. But there's obviously more to this well-thought-out plan than that.

Think of the trouble that would be caused by having custody of Bin Laden's body. There would be endless debates about how it should be treated, who should have access to it and how it would be guarded after interment. It would be harder to gain consensus for a sea burial if the body were in U.S. possession, and harder to make that burial a secret, location unknown.

In other words, there might have been a bit of public complaining after the fact, but there's no real public furor. It's easier to gain forgiveness than permission. That decision was as tactically smart as the attack on the Pakistani compound.

RELATED:

The Osama bin Laden 'deathers'

Mailbag: Goodbye 'birthers,' hello 'deathers'

After bin Laden: We've yet to learn the long-term consequences

--Karin Klein

Photo: Religious rights were conducted on the deck of the aircraft carrier Carl-Vinson, located in the North Arabian Sea. Credit: Timothy A. Hazel / AFP / Getty Images

Hey, remember that whole royal wedding thing?

And how about President Obama's birth certificate?

Or even Major League Baseball's takeover of the Dodgers?

Oh yeah, those.

Google the topics last week and there were stories as far as the eye could see.

Google them now and all you'll get is the wind whistling through the deserted streets of the Internet.

For example, I tried "William and Kate honeymoon" and the top result was from a site called SheKnows.com.

Similary, "Obama birther" yielded a fairly old story from Patch.com.

Nothing like the killing of the world's most-wanted terrorist to take care of the news' silly season.

Or did it?

No sooner were the birthers dismissed than they found a new cause:  Osama bin Laden isn't dead; it's all a government hoax.  Just check out my colleague Paul Thornton's blog post, "Mailbag: Goodbye 'birthers,' hello 'deathers.'

Plus there's the "clamor" for the White House to release gruesome photos of a dead Bin Laden.   

Among those "clamoring" is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who -- in an echo of House Speaker John Boehner's  "I'll take him at his word" comment that Obama is a U.S. citizen and a Christian --  said that he himself was not among those who doubt that Bin Laden was killed in a U.S. raid in Pakistan but that the proof would quiet those who do doubt it.

And then there are those who would try to profit from the public's insatiable appetite for Bin Laden news.  In "Bin Laden death is magnet for scammers on Facebook, Google" on The Times' Technology blog, David Sarno and W.J. Hennigan wrote:   

One Facebook posting appearing to be from the BBC trumpeted a link titled "Osama bin Laden Killed (LIVE VIDEO)." When clicked, the link takes the user to an outside page modeled to look like Facebook, where it asks the user to enter a verification code. When the user submits the code, the link is then posted to the user's Facebook account.

Actually, to those of us uncomfortable with social networking, it's somehow reassuring to find that even among the Facebook generation, there's still one born every minute.

But as for the deathers and their ilk, I find myself longing for the days when Walter Cronkite signed off his newscast each night intoning "And that's the way it is" -- and Americans actually believed him.

RELATED:

Al Qaeda without its leader

Regretting Bin Laden's death

Global terrorism: The battle isn't over yet

Gregory Rodriguez from ground zero: America reboots

Debate: Is it appropriate to rejoice at bin Laden's death?

Ted Rall / For the Times

(Click on the cartoon to see a larger image.)

MORE CARTOONS:

Is MOCA to blame for a new wave of graffiti in downtown L.A.?

Under the new Electoral College system, California is irrelevant

Cracking down on cellphones in state prisons

'California's can't afford to promote a gay lifestyle in our schools'

How Jerry Brown's budget might win Republican approval

Sure, President Obama's approval ratings are up and the victory in Abbottabad may just give him the edge he needs in the next presidential race. Still, we don’t yet know the long-term consequences of Osama bin Laden’s death, and there is the possibility that our mission wasn’t as victorious as excited crowds on Sunday night made it seem.

Bin Laden achieved exactly what he wanted

In "The Looming Tower," the Pulitzer-winning history of al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11, author Lawrence Wright lays out how Osama bin Laden’s motivation for the attacks that he planned in the 1990s, and then the September 11 attacks, was to draw the U.S. and the West into a prolonged war—an actual war in Afghanistan, and a broader global war with Islam.

Osama got both. And we gave him a prolonged war in Iraq to boot. By the end of Obama’s first term, we’ll probably top 6,000 dead U.S. troops in those two wars, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. The cost for both wars is also now well over $1 trillion. […]

Yes, bin Laden the man is dead. But he achieved all he set out to achieve, and a hell of a lot more. He forever changed who we are as a country, and for the worse. Mostly because we let him. That isn’t something a special ops team can fix.

--Radley Balko, Reason

 Al Qaeda is still a force to be reckoned with

As any expert will tell you, one of bin Laden's biggest successes is creating an organization that will survive him. When bin Laden and a few associates founded al Qaeda in 1988, the organization was tiny and relied on the Saudi millionaire for the bulk of its funding. In subsequent years the organization has grown to support insurgents throughout the Muslim world, issued propaganda swaying the views of millions and, of course, murdered thousands through terrorism and its participation in civil wars. Thousands were asked to formally join the organization, and tens of thousands received training. So al Qaeda will not collapse overnight.

--Daniel Byman, Foreign Policy

 Bin Ladensim continues

If Al Qaeda were to go into decline post-Bin Laden (and that is far from clear), it would not be surprising to see other jihadist organizations compete for the mantle of leading global jihad. Already other groups have adopted many of his innovations, which brought jihadism into the Information Age. The battle against Bin Laden is over, but the battle against Bin Ladensim continues.

--Max Boot, Los Angeles Times

We're still a country addicted to oil

Although in the contest to determine Mr. Bush’s successor Barack Obama offered himself as the candidate who would take a different tack, he has not done so. Since taking office, he has redoubled US military efforts in Afghanistan, while opening up new fronts in Pakistan and, more recently, Libya. Although President Obama avoids the term “war on terror,” that war – and the larger project begun back in 1915 – continues unabated. And although Mr. Obama can rightly cite the killing of Bin Laden as a notable victory, it will not prove decisive, if only because the essential issues giving rise to war in the first place remain unresolved.

--Andrew J. Bacevich, The Christian Science Monitor

 We don't know: Can we trust Pakistan?

If Pakistani military intelligence did not know about this, they should have known. If they did know, the withholding of information of this importance from the U.S. is more evidence that the relationship is broken.

--Mark Quarterman, The New York Times

 RELATED:

Regretting Bin Laden's death

Mailbag: Goodbye 'birthers,' hello 'deathers'

Global terrorism: The battle isn't over yet

After bin Laden: We've yet to learn the long-term consequences

The striking similarities between World War I and today's wars

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: People rally to condemn the killing of Osama bin Laden in Karachi, Pakistan, on Tuesday. Credit: Shakil Adil / Associated Press

Most viewed: Southern California's great migration

The editorial board looks at what’s behind the population drop in Los Angeles, Long Beach and other large cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties ...

According to the latest census data, there's been a great migration in Southern California over the last decade — a movement that has pulled people from Los Angeles and Orange counties and transplanted them in the Inland Empire. Many moved for the jobs, especially in the booming housing construction industry; others moved to grab one of those houses as prices closer to the ocean soared beyond reach. Working-class and immigrant families sought affordable housing in less crowded communities where schools would be better and neighborhoods safer.

... and offers suggestions for what's needed to get back on track.

Most commented and shared: Echoes of a bygone war

Recalling the similarities between World War I and today's wars, San Francisco-based author Adam Hochschild asks:

Was [World War I] worth it? Of course not. The near-starvation of Germans during the war, their humiliating defeat and the misbegotten Treaty of Versailles virtually ensured the rise of the Nazis, along with a second, even more destructive world war and a still more ruthless German occupation of France.

He asks the same question about the war in Afghanistan.

War has a tendency to produce lofty rhetoric. A French newspaper at the time called World War I a "holy war of civilization against barbarity," while a German paper insisted the war was necessary to stop Russia from crushing "the culture of all of Western Europe."

And so it still goes. Today's high-flown war rhetoric naturally cites only the most noble of goals: stopping terrorists, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, spreading democracy and protecting women from the Taliban. But beneath the flowery words, national self-interest is as powerful as it was almost 100 years ago. Does anyone think that Washington would have gotten quite so righteously worked up in 2003 if, instead of having massive oil reserves, Iraq's principal export was turnips?

 Reaction to Hochschild’s Op-Ed on our discussion board is mixed.

 On the one hand, there's reader rusoviet, who says:

[O]ver sixty-six years of peace in Europe thanks to NATO resisting the Reds and preventing a war - thank you USA and UK.

On the other, there's Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve:

Needless war. That pretty much describes the war in Iraq. Over 4000 KIA and over 20,000 wounded. Over 100,000 Iraqis dead. A civil war between two religious factions. Untold cost. 

After 10 miserable years, we are just now getting to the point where we can withdraw our forces.  

And as soon as that happens, Iraq will no doubt drift back into civil war, dictatorship, oppression, coups and massacres. Which pretty much describes Iraq's history. 

The damnable hubris of the Bush Administration and its cadre of neo-con fools.

*Spelling and formatting were corrected in comments for clarity.

ALSO TRENDING:

Cynicism over Osama bin Laden's death

The cost of illegal aliens, firefighters and schools

Budget and 'birther' battles

 Same-sex marriage and tax increases: Rethinking our decision-makers

Economy and environment in peril -- scare tactics or truth?

--Alexandra Le Tellier

You have to hand it to Nicolas Martin: He took lemons and, because he couldn't make lemonade, he made a federal case out of them.

In "Lemonade Day done wrong" in Sunday's Times Opinion pages, Martin, executive director of the Consumer Health Education Council in Indianapolis, tells how he and his 8-year-old daughter were eagerly looking forward to setting up a lemonade stand on May 1, which is Lemonade Day in America.

Everything was going smoothly, and then:

The next morning I began a three-day phone trek through the maze of government agencies that regulate businesses and food sales, and I watched my child's All-American plan crumble like fresh-baked cookies.

Yep, big bad Big Government reared up and stomped all over their cookies, er, dreams.

But it’s not just kids' lemonade stands that are threatened, Martin says; it's the American dream:

Lemonade Day is promoted as a way to "inspire a budding entrepreneur!" But it is actually a dispiriting lesson about how hard it now is to become an entrepreneur, whether you're an adult or a child. It is about how even the most harmless enterprise, the humble lemonade stand, has been sacrificed on the altar of government regulation.

Whoa. I’m picturing Aztec priests with still-beating hearts in their hands! (I wonder if they needed a government permit for that?)

I'm sure Martin's heart, though, is in the right place. And I'm sorry that, at the tender age of 8, his daughter had her heart broken. (And I'm finished with the heart puns.)

But do you want to know when Big Government is bad? It's when it has a rule to keep you from doing something you want to do.

And do you want to know when Big Government is good? It's when it has a rule that keeps someone else from doing something you don't want them to do.

Take lemonade stands. 

A good lemonade stand is the one Martin and his daughter were going to set up.

A bad lemonade stand is the one your neighbor's kid sets up on the corner near your house, causing a traffic jam and leaving empty cups on the sidewalk and lawn, all while screaming at her friends and passersby for hours while you're trying to sleep one off on a Saturday morning.

And do you know what you say then? "There outta be a law!" (Right after "Honey, do we have any aspirin?")

Or maybe it's not a lemonade stand. Maybe it's a taco truck that parks on your street from 10 p.m. to midnight and serves hordes of folks who love a good street scene. They make noise and litter, too; plus the taco truck guy can be cheaper than the restaurant down the street because he's unlicensed, doesn't pay taxes and doesn't have to pass a food inspection.

But, hey, he's just a humble entrepreneur. Why should he be "sacrificed on the altar of government regulation"?

But the lemonade stand girl is just a kid, you say; she isn't hurting anyone. 

At least, that's what Martin hopes. Because if somehow someone does get hurt -- say, slipping on some spilled lemonade -- he'll hear that other great American cry: "I'll sue!"

ALSO:

Lemonade Day done wrong

Federal regulations: Let's review the rules

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo credit: Matthew Mead / Associated Press

One of the most interesting -- and, I suspect, least popular -- reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden is to bewail the necessity of his death. But a prominent clergyman is braving a backlash by writing that "we Christians regret profoundly the necessity of this killing."

To be fair, Samuel T. Lloyd III, dean of the Washington National Cathedral, prefaces this sentiment with a denunciation of Bin Laden and he says that the cathedral staff "share with our fellow Americans a sense of relief that Osama bin Laden's life of hatred and violence is over."  But that falls short of the eye-for-an-eye emotion that led young men to shout "USA, USA" outside the White House.

The exultation that overtook the entire country was not simply a reaction to Bin Laden's being put out of business. And  President Obama's declaration that justice has been done wouldn't have resonated the same way if bin Laden had been captured and dispatched to Guantanamo.

Lloyd ends his statement with this declaration: "We recommit ourselves as a people of faith to building a world of compassion and interfaith understanding and continuing to work tirelessly for peace and reconciliation in every dimension of our lives." That is undoubtedly the Christian perspective, but it will be thin gruel for Americans who  craved the red meat of revenge.

RELATED:

Mailbag: Goodbye 'birthers,' hello 'deathers'

Global terrorism: The battle isn't over yet

After bin Laden: We've yet to learn the long-term consequences

The striking similarities between World War I and today's wars

Debate: Is it appropriate to rejoice at Osama bin Laden's death?

-- Michael McGough

Photo: A roadside vendor sells newspapers with headlines about Osama bin Laden's death. Credit: Mohsin Raza / Reuters

Los Angeles Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez was in New York City on Sunday. After President Obama's speech, he headed for Lower Manhattan:

When I got to ground zero at 10 minutes past midnight Sunday night, a few hundred people, mostly   young men, were hooting and hollering in the direction of two kids waving a 3' x 4' American flag with a black-and-white image of Marilyn Monroe emblazoned on it.  Scores of people were thrusting their camera phones in the air taking pictures of the swirling crowd, and complete strangers were shooting one another friendly glances.

When asked what they made of the scene, the people I talked to tossed out adjectives like "amazing" and "crazy."  But there didn't seem to be a unifying theme or common rationale for their presence. The  mood flip-flopped between triumphalism and gratitude, pride and vengeance, carnival and sports rally, and, as an afterthought, political demonstration.

The crowd shared almost none of the president's solemnity.  I didn't have a problem with people celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden, but the sounds of vuvuzela and the collegiate taunts  "Na-na- na- na,  na-na-na-na, hey hey hey, go-o-odbye!"  made the gathering more like a raucous frat party than anything else. 

One thirtysomething man in a baseball cap yelled out twice, "Can we honor the fallen?"  But no one paid any attention.   A 27-year-old black man milling near the fringes of the crowd told me he couldn't "scream in jubilation" knowing what had happened there 10 years ago.  "This is sacred ground," he said.

No leaders emerged. Isolated cells  launched into chants of "USA! USA!" or anti-bin Laden chants that can't be reprinted here.  

For every chant that caught on for a few minutes, there were plenty of false starts, and not all the renditions of "The Star-Bangled Banner" and "God Bless America" were exactly full-throated.  Two good souls had brought candles to light, but no one else was that organized. 

The public noise was disconnected from the private feelings.  As I made my way through the crowd, the quiet sentiment I encountered wasn't bravado but relief. 

The one person I met who had been in Lower Manhattan on 9/11 a decade ago suggested that Bin Laden's death would allow time to start again. Looking more than a little lost, Spanish immigrant Antonio Miguez told me that he'd been waiting for this moment.  He confessed to feeling "so happy and kind of sad."

For all the spurts of triumphalism -- at one point the crowd chanted “Yes we can! Yes we can!" -- what dominated was more a kind of emptiness.  The United States had simply regained its footing, gotten itself back to the starting line. We had finally gotten our heads above water.  Bin Laden's death, in other words, was less a victory than a psychic restoration.

One moment of clarity occurred around 2 a.m. when a young Middle Eastern-looking man, hoisting merchandise above his head, starting barking, "American flags, $5.  American flags, $5!"  My section of the crowd burst into laughter.  The  peddler, who quickly disappeared into the crowd, was just the most palpable sign of the evening that we were back in business.

RELATED:

Editorial: The end of Osama bin Laden

Mailbag: Goodbye 'birthers,' hello 'deathers'

Photos: Crowds celebrate Osama bin Laden's death

Is it appropriate to rejoice at Osama bin Laden's death?

The conversation: Reactions to Osama bin Laden's death

--Gregory Rodriguez

grodriguez@latimescolumnists.com

Photo: A man holds up a handmade sign as thousands of people gather in the streets at ground zero Sunday night. Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Most viewed and shared: Lemonade Day done wrong

Despite news of Osama bin Laden's death, Nicolas S. Martin's Op-Ed article about how government regulations kill the American dream has continued to dominate interest in the Opinion section. In it, he recounts how his plans to teach his daughter how to set up a lemonade stand went off track.

Learning to be an entrepreneur "starts with a lemonade stand," say the organizers of Lemonade Day. But they don't want to talk about the regulations that make it impossible for my kid to become a lemonade stand entrepreneur. They tell me it is "silly" and "beside the point" to focus on the regulations. I am told that Lemonade Day is about kids learning to "give back to their communities," "do better in school" and "open bank accounts." It is not about something so self-serving as making a profit by selling a good product. That is the old American way, but the new way is living with rules that banish the lemonade stand to one government-approved day a year.

Most commented: The end of Osama bin Laden

The editorial weighed in on Osama bin Laden’s death, saying:

Sunday night's announcement should remind the nation that the presidency is not just an office to be contested and that American values are not merely empty words to be used as political rhetoric. Obama ordered the seizure of America's most vile enemy, who resisted and was shot down. The world is better and safer for his death.

Commenter John2011 praised the president as well:

President Obama gave the order and the job was done. Obama is a true Commander in Chief. Fact is, Democratic Presidents have been the greatest war-time Presidents in America over the last 100 years. GOP Presidents talk the talk but Democratic Presidents walk the walk. Obama will resolve the U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as he is doing now, over the next 4-6 years. The American people will re-elect him to make sure the job is done.

But most readers commenting on our discussion board woke up feeling cynical. Here are a few of their words, with spelling errors corrected for clarity:

I don't feel safer with bin Laden dead.

--Kwayne

Let's give credit where credit is due: After all, it was Obama that sat up late compiling evidence of bin Laden's whereabouts, it was Obama that conceived the tactical plans for the attack, and it was Obama that was on the first chopper to land at the fire fight site...

 What? Obama didn't do any of this? So what did he do to deserve the credit?

 He sure did.  He used "I" 19 times and mentioned the troops 3 times. Yes, he definitely told us who was responsible for this. I, I, I, I, I, I

"I directed Leon Panetta... to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority..."

"I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden."

"I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan."

"I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."

"I’ve made clear..."

"I’ve repeatedly made clear..."

"I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken..."

"These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to..."

--Rallymonkey

Remember: Lincoln did not free the slaves. It was thousands of soldiers in blue uniforms, face down in the mud that freed the slaves. God bless the average American soldier, just doing their job.

--edwardskizer

With the costs of all this safety, my wallet isn't safe, my bank account isn't safe, and my financial future isn't safe. Today's babies will be paying in 40 years for all this security. I fear high taxes without end to pay for all this safety. 

-- George2

ALSO TRENDING:

The cost of illegal aliens, firefighters and schools

Budget and 'birther' battles

Same-sex marriage and tax increases: Rethinking our decision-makers

Economy and environment in peril -- scare tactics or truth?

Saving the Dodgers

--Alexandra Le Tellier

You can't say you didn't see this coming, especially since those less inclined to take the president at his word regarding his birthplace were (mostly) silenced last week: Some are already accusing the Obama administration of being less than truthful about the death Sunday of Osama bin Laden. Those who have written to letters@latimes.com cite a number of factors that inform their skepticism, including the quick disposal of Bin Laden's body and the substantial political capital Bin Laden's killing would earn for President Obama.

Two things: First, you won't find any letters in the paper expressing such skepticism because, well, we don't print unfounded rumors and wild speculation; and second, though skepticism is a fine intellectual trait (and one that serves journalists well), exercising it properly requires a credible factual basis. That's the difference between, say, questioning the Bush administration's prewar claims of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program, when other governments and United Nations inspectors raised doubts, and embracing 9/11 "trutherism," which is informed by a pathological mistrust of all things government, despite all evidence to the contrary. I'd slot "deatherism" in the latter category.

Below are a few of the "deather" submissions (the names have been removed to protect the guilty) and, following them, several letters from writers who anticipated this new discipline of conspiracy theorizing. They have been edited only for style, grammar and spelling.

From the deathers:

Why all the rush to dispose of Osama bin Laden's body?

Doing so seems highly suspicious to me. You'd think they'd want to put his body on display to prove to the world beyond a doubt that he was dead. Our government's explanation of burying his body at sea to comply with Islamic customs seems pretty hokey to me.

Why should they care about such customs concerning a brutal mass murderer who was a sworn enemy of the United States?

--

Why should we believe he is dead? Where are the pictures? Where is the evidence? PLEASE SHOW ME PROOF.

Can we really just blindly trust the government?

--

The story has absolutely no legs and is highly suspicious, particularly since the body was conveniently buried at sea without a trace, without an opportunity for confirmation. This isn't justice (as we define it here); it is retribution. So, call it what it is. Don't lie. The DNA test is bogus. When did they do a DNA test? They killed him last night and already have results? We knew where he was all this time, and only today we got him? Give me a break. Obama needed a more solid basis for garnering votes of the unwashed masses by "fulfilling" at least one of his promises -- bringing the troops home. That's all this propaganda is about. I don't believe it for an instance, and I don't care -- al Qaeda is an idea, and ideas cannot be killed by killing the man. We've martyred him for his followers, which is more dangerous than keeping him alive.

--

Bin Laden buried respectfully at sea? That’s the best that the government PR machine can generate? I don’t believe it for a moment. After nearly a decade of hunting down this cockroach, you’d think the U.S. government would have had a well developed kill plan to bring Bin Laden’s body home for autopsy, brain study and extensive forensic analysis. But no, we're to believe, because the government tells us so, that sufficient DNA samples and photographs were obtained for positive identification and then his body buried at sea in accordance with Islamic law. Nonsense!

How about the likely possibility that his body will be comprehensively dissected and studied by U.S. scientists, then cremated, and the cremains stored deep in some secure unnamed government vault and forgotten? That's more plausible than what we're currently expected to believe, even though it does smack of "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Two from the anti-deathers:

Regarding the May 2nd frontpage headline "U.S. Kills Bin Laden."

Now what are the tea-party birthers going to do, ask to see the death certificate?

--

Maybe Bin Laden shouldn't have been buried at sea. Donald Trump will ask for proof that Bin Laden was really killed.

RELATED:

Editorial: The end of Osama bin Laden

Gregory Rodriguez from ground zero: America reboots

Is it appropriate to rejoice at Osama bin Laden's death?

The conversation: Reactions to Osama bin Laden's death

President Obama closes one 'birther' chapter. Will another open?

-- Paul Thornton

Photo: Newspaper headlines reporting the death of Osama Bin Laden in front of the Newseum in Washington on May 2. Credit: Mark Wilson / Getty Images