When George Bush said...

...that the U. S. wanted Osama bin Laden, "dead or alive," I remember thinking, really? Would we really want him alive? To put on trial, or what? And what, exactly, would that entail? Where would we keep him? How long would it all take? What about world opinion, from our allies and the countries in the Middle East? And what if he -- like O. J. -- was found not guilty?

Wouldn't the whole thing be incredibly ... messy?

(That's why I think it was the intention all along to kill the Al Qaeda leader and bury his body at sea. Get it over with.)

And yet ... I have to confess a nagging little thought in the back of my mind. Was it morally right to kill Bin Laden without a trial? What if he tried to surrender in the moment before he was shot? Did the Navy Seals shoot him in cold blood?

But then I thought, hey, the guy had almost ten years to surrender. He could have given himself up at any time.

Yesterday, Maureen Dowd eased my conscience further with her column, "Killing Evil Doesn't Make Us Evil," (my emphasis):

If stealth bombers had dropped dozens of 2,000-pound bombs and wiped out everyone, no one would have been debating whether Osama was armed. The president chose the riskiest option presented to him, but one that spared nearly all the women and children at the compound, and anyone in the vicinity.

Unlike Osama, the Navy Seals took great care not to harm civilians — they shot Bin Laden’s youngest wife in the leg and carried two young girls out of harm’s way before killing Osama.

Morally and operationally, this was counterterrorism at its finest.

We have nothing to apologize for.

And now we find out that the Al Qaeda leader was planning more attacks on America. Like I said, he could have surrendered at any time, but didn't.

I'm glad Bin Laden is dead. I'm glad it was handled so well. I'm glad it's over.