Obama Campaign Ad: One Chance to Make the Right Decision

Plus, ABC News gotcha fail

PoliticsApril 2012 • Views: 25,831

A new ad from the Obama campaign (featuring Bill Clinton) points out that Mitt Romney is on record saying he would not send troops into Pakistan to “kill one man” — meaning Osama bin Laden.

Meanwhile, an ABC News “gotcha” piece on this ad makes no sense at all: FLASHBACK: Obama Campaign Accused Clinton of Using Bin Laden to ‘Score Political Points’ in 2008.

In a new web video titled “One Chance,” the Obama team features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama for deciding to launch the strike last year. “Why [sic] path would Mitt Romney have taken?” the clip asks.

But four years ago this April, the Obama campaign criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for using Osama bin Laden in a political ad.

There’s a slight difference between using bin Laden’s image for political gain, and pointing out that your administration hunted him down and killed him. One of these things is not like the other.

Jump to bottom

134 comments

Obdicut Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:27:20am

It's wrong of Obama to use the fact that his administration located and kill Osama Bin Laden because it shows him to be bold and successful and we can't have that.

Randall Gross Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:31:10am

Way back when I think ABC sort of sided with Hillary Vs. Obama on the Pakistani Sovereignty question.

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:31:21am

"We hire the POTUS".

I rather like that Bill repeated that.

I also think giving Bush II credit at the beginning was a great idea.

Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:31:36am

ABC News is going for a Drudge Report link.

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:31:48am

If I'm remembering right, Pres Obama was to the right of Hillary on this issue. It caused quite a stir when he stated he would hunt him down in Pakistan if he had to.

Obdicut Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:32:15am

re: #5 leftynyc

He got called "naive" for saying it.

What, me worry? Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:32:30am

So.... what's the trouble again even if he were bragging about it? Why would that be wrong? I think he should mention it in every ad, along with all the other AlQueda leaders we either captured or killed.

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

And there's more from that article, as well.

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:33:04am

Apparently, His Dullness has responded:

UPDATE: Mitt Romney's campaign responds with this statement from press secretary Andrea Saul: “The killing of Osama bin Laden was a momentous day for all Americans and the world, and Governor Romney congratulated the military, our intelligence agencies, and the President. It's now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters' attention from the failures of his administration. With 23 million Americans struggling for work, our national debt soaring, and household budgets being squeezed like never before, Mitt Romney is focused on strengthening America at home and abroad.”

Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:33:49am

Serious about Drudge link-bait, by the way. The Washington Post reported yesterday that more than 40% of their web traffic comes from Drudge links.

Simply Sarah Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:34:28am

re: #9 Charles Johnson

Serious about Drudge link-bait, by the way. The Washington Post reported yesterday that more than 40% of their web traffic comes from Drudge links.

Seriously? Holy crap.

What, me worry? Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:35:23am

That Damn Mainstream Media!

erik_t Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:36:09am

re: #8 Targetpractice

Apparently, His Dullness has responded:

Translated: Stop talking about what you've done. It is clearly a distraction and a ruse to avoid... talking about what you've done.

Because that makes sense.

What, me worry? Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:37:34am

I just realized my link was an ABC link also. So now I'm confused.

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:37:38am

Interesting (but OT). Couldn't open the current page this morning. I think the site blocking software used on the proxy server here is keyword based. Since the page title included the word "Facebook" the proxy server blocked it.

Now that there is a new most current article with a different title I can access it and comment.

Four More Tears Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:38:37am

Obama apparently doesn't realize that he's supposed to talk about his failed record.

erik_t Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:38:51am

re: #5 leftynyc

If I'm remembering right, Pres Obama was to the right of Hillary on this issue. It caused quite a stir when he stated he would hunt him down in Pakistan if he had to.

I tend to reject your desire to paint this issue into a left-right box.

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:39:38am

re: #12 erik_t

Translated: Stop talking about what you've done. It is clearly a distraction and a ruse to avoid... talking about what you've done.

Because that makes sense.

I was considering offering him some cheese for the whine, the armchair general getting his knickers in a bunch because the Obama ad draws attention to the dove he used to be while he's out there trying to convince folks that he's now a foreign policy hawk.

Kragar Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:40:18am

re: #15 Assemble!

Obama apparently doesn't realize that he's supposed to talk about his failed record.

Speaking of which...

When Conservatives Need to Attack Obama on Security, They Turn to Conspiracist Frank Gaffney

when some Republican officials and conservative activists need to lash out at President Obama’s foreign policy credentials, they turn to right-wing talk show host and anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney for help. Gaffney uses his Secure Freedom Radio program and Washington Times column to level outlandish charges against the president, including calling Obama “America’s first Muslim president” and alleging that he is likely a secret Muslim and raising doubts about his birth certificate.

On Wednesday, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) joined Gaffney in distorting a quote from an anonymous State Department official regarding the successful dismantling of Al-Qaeda and the administration’s aversion to using the phrase “war on terror.” West told Gaffney that the official’s words meant Obama had “signed a surrender agreement.” Later, he pointedly used the president’s middle name in calling for the defeat of “Barack Hussein Obama” and said that the president has been “absolutely horrible as far as the national security of the United States of America and the foreign policy relations in the Middle East.” Rep. West also suggested that “radical Islamist groups” have seized control of Libya after the rebellion and NATO effort which toppled Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, even though Libya’s National Transitional Council explicitly banned religious parties.

Charleston Chew Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:41:22am

The President's campaign has got some good people working on ads. That's a feat in itself considering that most people in advertising are incompetant at their jobs.

And I think with this ad Bill Clinton just made his last payback payment for the 2008 Dem primary fight.

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:42:09am

I think the point is that Obama didn't ignore the Terrorist Treat --he gave the order to kill a muslim terrorist.

Many voters seem to think he wouldn't do that on principle (because he is really Muslim, Kenyan, foreign-born, Madrassa brainwashed, etc)--the ad shows differently.

Four More Tears Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:43:45am

re: #20 ggt

I think the point is that Obama didn't ignore the Terrorist Treat --he gave the order to kill a muslim terrorist.

Many voters seem to think he wouldn't do that on principle (because he is really Muslim, Kenyan, foreign-born, Madrassa brainwashed, etc)--the ad shows differently.

Terrorist Treats. It's like an explosion in your mouth!

What, me worry? Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:44:43am

re: #20 ggt

Crazy talk is crazy talk, no matter who says it.

He's killed and captured more terrorists than any other president before him. Those are the facts. Rep West (From Crazy Town USA) can say the sky is green and the grass is blue all day long, but that don't make it so.

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:44:56am

Republicans voted against Privacy?

I never heard of this at all

CISPA

Killgore Trout Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:45:55am

Meh. My issue with the ad is that we're supposed to pretend to not understand the context of what Mitt was talking about and that he didn't want to capture/kill Bin Laden. However, I very happy with Obama's war on terror and he's made excellent use of drones. The ad might be politically effective but I'm not impressed.

Kragar Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:45:57am

re: #23 ggt

Republicans voted against Privacy?

I never heard of this at all

CISPA

Obama already said he would veto it.

Charleston Chew Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:46:48am

re: #20 ggt

I think the point is that Obama didn't ignore the Terrorist Treat --he gave the order to kill a muslim terrorist.

Many voters seem to think he wouldn't do that on principle (because he is really Muslim, Kenyan, foreign-born, Madrassa brainwashed, etc)--the ad shows differently.

Those people have a self-healing insanity system. Every time the President does something that reaffirms his patriotism, they just say it's to hide the fact that he's a traitor.

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:48:01am

re: #25 Kragar

Obama already said he would veto it.

Yeah, saw that.

Still has to go to the Senate.

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:48:21am

re: #16 erik_t

I tend to reject your desire to paint this issue into a left-right box.

Excuse me? My desire? Do you not consider it appropriate that when one is considered more hawkish that is not considered more right leaning on a particular issue?

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:48:49am

re: #26 Charleston Chew

Those people have a self-healing insanity system. Every time the President does something that reaffirms his patriotism, they just say it's to hide the fact that he's a traitor.

Can't have our emotional gut-feeling's challenged can we?

He has to be the anti-christ, he just haaaasssssss tooooo BEEEEEE!

/GAH

Kragar Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:50:52am

Barton Suggests We Can't Cure AIDS because it is Punishment for Sin

As we have noted before, Friday episodes of "WallBuilders Live" are generally dedicated to spreading what David Barton and Rick Green consider to be "good news from around the nation the media doesn't report."

Now, we have also pointed out before that Barton believes that everything in our society ought to be governed by what is in the Bible, even our medical practices ... and today Barton returned to this topic, claiming that science cannot create a cure or vaccine for AIDS and that abortion causes breast cancer and mental health problems and proclaiming that to be "good news" because it proves that the Bible is correct:

Barton is a pimple on the ass of humanity.

erik_t Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:51:33am

re: #28 leftynyc

Excuse me? My desire? Do you not consider it appropriate that when one is considered more hawkish that is not considered more right leaning on a particular issue?

Well, no, I don't. Bush's Follies aside, I don't think the case can be made, or could have ever been made, that the political left is intrinsically less willing to engage in military action abroad.

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:51:40am

re: #29 ggt

Can't have our emotional gut-feeling's challenged can we?

He has to be the anti-christ, he just haaasss tooo BEEE!

/GAH

Does that mean that if he ever meets Jesus they will mutually annihilate?

Won't that then make the Holy Trinity unstable, causing it to implode and spray the universe with mutation causing divinity quarks?
//

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:52:16am

re: #24 Killgore Trout

Meh. My issue with the ad is that we're supposed to pretend to not understand the context of what Mitt was talking about and that he didn't want to capture/kill Bin Laden. However, I very happy with Obama's war on terror and he's made excellent use of drones. The ad might be politically effective but I'm not impressed.

IIRC, the context of his comment was insinuations that McCain was a warmonger who'd start war with Pakistan just to capture or kill "one guy," something Romney wasn't willing to do.

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:52:28am

re: #30 Kragar

Barton Suggests We Can't Cure AIDS because it is Punishment for Sin

Barton is a pimple on the ass of humanity.

What does he say about babies?

blueraven Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:53:01am

re: #24 Killgore Trout

Meh. My issue with the ad is that we're supposed to pretend to not understand the context of what Mitt was talking about and that he didn't want to capture/kill Bin Laden. However, I very happy with Obama's war on terror and he's made excellent use of drones. The ad might be politically effective but I'm not impressed.

No that's not what the ad says at all.

Mitt Romney, like most republicans, went after Obama when he said, in a debate, that he would go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden if we had actionable intelligence. They all laughed and called him naive.

The ad asks; would Mitt have done the same thing? Not that he didn't want to capture/kill Bin Laden.

You are grasping at straw men.

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:53:10am

re: #32 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

Does that mean that if he ever meets Jesus they will mutually annihilate?

Won't that then make the Holy Trinity unstable, causing it to implode and spray the universe with mutation causing divinity quarks?
//

It would be cataclysmic.

Pray it never happens!

Killgore Trout Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:53:33am

CSM: Obama ad questions Romney's will to get Osama bin Laden. Fair? (+video)

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:54:21am

re: #24 Killgore Trout

Meh. My issue with the ad is that we're supposed to pretend to not understand the context of what Mitt was talking about and that he didn't want to capture/kill Bin Laden. However, I very happy with Obama's war on terror and he's made excellent use of drones. The ad might be politically effective but I'm not impressed.

The banner going forward into the campaign: HE FUCKING KILLED BIN LADEN.

I don't know that I want to give Mitt a pass on this. I don't know what he would have done. But I do know that Bush failed at the task, and then backed away from it, and Mitt missed any chance he had to distance himself from that.

Political mismanagement.

Obama went and did it.

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:54:48am

re: #30 Kragar

Barton Suggests We Can't Cure AIDS because it is Punishment for Sin

Barton is a pimple on the ass of humanity.

So, we shouldn't, in theory, have any medical treatment that might have been the result of bad behavior?

lawhawk Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:54:53am

re: #30 Kragar

So, according to his logic, we can't cure testicular cancer or breast cancer or cervical cancer for the same reason.

Yet, it's a massive logic fail because we can cure STDs like syphilis with a treatment of antibiotics.

What an asshat.

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:55:00am

re: #35 blueraven

No that's not what the ad says at all.

Mitt Romney, like most republicans, went after Obama when he said, in a debate, that he would go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden if we had actionable intelligence. They all laughed and called him naive.

The ad asks; would Mitt have done the same thing? Not that he didn't want to capture/kill Bin Laden.

You are grasping at straw men.

Ah, so I was right about the talk about warmongering, wrong about the target. Shows how good my memory is these days.

Charleston Chew Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:55:10am

re: #29 ggt

Can't have our emotional gut-feeling's challenged can we?

He has to be the anti-christ, he just haaasss tooo BEEE!

/GAH

Their worldview is like the silver Terminator in Terminator 2. Every time facts punch a hole in it, the shiny goo that is their mind just oozes back to the way it was while everyone else stares in awe and horror.

erik_t Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:55:21am

today Barton returned to this topic, claiming that science cannot create a cure or vaccine for AIDS and that abortion causes breast cancer and mental health problems and proclaiming that to be "good news" because it proves that the Bible is correct:

That sounds like a challenge.

Of course, any future cure will instead be proof that Free Market Baby Jesus is real because he loves us so sooo much, or something.

POST FACTO ACTION HERO

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:55:23am

re: #28 leftynyc

Excuse me? My desire? Do you not consider it appropriate that when one is considered more hawkish that is not considered more right leaning on a particular issue?

Not particularly, in this case. When everyone agrees that we should pursue war, but one guy says we should also bring a particular evildoer to justice, that doesn't strike me as 'further' right.

Obdicut Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:55:32am

re: #35 blueraven

Romney could say that he was just saying it was foolish to talk about doing it, when it'd be a covert mission. But that, well, that line of thinking was obviously mistaken as well. Obama talked about it, and then did it.

Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:56:24am

re: #37 Killgore Trout

The fact is, Obama consistently said that he would do whatever it took to hunt down bin Laden, and Mitt Romney said he wouldn't. The context is that Romney was reflexively attacking Obama by taking the opposite position, and now it's biting him on the ass.

Four More Tears Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:56:32am

re: #45 Obdicut

Romney could say that he was just saying it was foolish to talk about doing it, when it'd be a covert mission. But that, well, that line of thinking was obviously mistaken as well. Obama talked about it, and then did it.

Like a boss.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:56:42am

re: #45 Obdicut

Romney could say that he was just saying it was foolish to talk about doing it, when it'd be a covert mission. But that, well, that line of thinking was obviously mistaken as well. Obama talked about it, and then did it.

You don't have to come and confess...
We gon' find you...

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:57:19am

re: #47 Assemble!

Like a boss.

Like a Leader.

The country tends to elect Leaders --I don't see that in Romney.

Like when Bush II had to rescue his SS agent from the security people at one Foreign State function.

People like strong leadership.

Interesting Times Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:57:27am

No Country For Black Men #NewBoehnerCampaignSlogan #p2
— Claude Gauvin (@JeffersonObama) April 27, 2012

Charleston Chew Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:57:34am

re: #42 Charleston Chew

Youtube Video

Killgore Trout Fri, Apr 27, 2012 11:57:41am

re: #33 Targetpractice

IIRC, the context of his comment was insinuations that McCain was a warmonger who'd start war with Pakistan just to capture or kill "one guy," something Romney wasn't willing to do.

Not really. I think it was just a general strategy discussion about global terrorism.
[Link: townhall.com...]

LIZ SIDOTI: "Why haven't we caught bin Laden in your opinion?"

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I think, I wouldn't want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He's one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He's by no means the only leader. It's a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that."

SIDOTI: "But would the world be safer if bin laden were caught?"

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Yes, but by a small percentage increase – a very insignificant increase in safety by virtue of replacing bin Laden with someone else. Zarqawi – we celebrated the killing of Zarqawi, but he was quickly replaced. Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is – it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin laden or a few of his associates."

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:00:15pm

re: #39 ggt

So, we shouldn't, in theory, have any medical treatment that might have been the result of bad behavior?

Right. You get bubonic plague for mistreating the Feline Overlords. Fetch more tuna, STAT!
/

Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:01:00pm

re: #52 Killgore Trout

Exactly what I said. He was reflexively taking an opposite position. And it turns out that he wasn't just a little wrong -- he was WAY wrong. Taking out bin Laden has dealt a real blow to Al Qaeda, as have all the other targeted killings of Al Qaeda leaders. Romney couldn't have been more off-base.

Killgore Trout Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:01:20pm

re: #38 SanFranciscoZionist

The banner going forward into the campaign: HE FUCKING KILLED BIN LADEN.

I don't know that I want to give Mitt a pass on this. I don't know what he would have done. But I do know that Bush failed at the task, and then backed away from it, and Mitt missed any chance he had to distance himself from that.

Political mismanagement.

Obama went and did it.

Agreed. I wouldn't want to minimize Obama's decision. He did the right thing but I don't consider Bush not killing bin laden a failure. The hunt for Bin Laden spanned both administrations and culminated with Obama's decision. Mission accomplished.

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:02:03pm

re: #47 Assemble!

Like a boss.

Romney planned on being more subtle. Having Bain Capital buy out Al-Queda and then terminate it from within. Win War on Terror and Profit! at the same time.
/

Obdicut Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:02:51pm

re: #52 Killgore Trout

And I think Romney saying that Bin Laden's capture is insignificant is a misestimation. First of all, he overlooks the intelligence value of what we captured along with Bin Laden, and what we were able to follow up on in the time after his death. He also isn't thinking about or doesn't consider important the deterrence effect of the way the operation went so smoothly, no blaze of glory for him on the way out. Just now a dead man with his wives publicly squabbling.

erik_t Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:03:00pm

re: #54 Charles Johnson

He was reflexively taking an opposite position. And it turns out that he wasn't just a little wrong -- he was WAY wrong.

Do you mean to suggest that policies should be adopted based on their merits, rather than based on what your political opponents think? And that when you do not judge ideas on their merits, you frequently come to a really asinine conclusion?

What a curious concept.

blueraven Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:03:03pm

re: #55 Killgore Trout

Agreed. I wouldn't want to minimize Obama's decision. He did the right thing but I don't consider Bush not killing bin laden a failure. The hunt for Bin Laden spanned both administrations and culminated with Obama's decision. Mission accomplished.

Pretty standard.

Killgore Trout Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:03:10pm

re: #54 Charles Johnson

Exactly what I said. He was reflexively taking an opposite position. And it turns out that he wasn't just a little wrong -- he was WAY wrong. Taking out bin Laden has dealt a real blow to Al Qaeda, as have all the other targeted killings of Al Qaeda leaders. Romney couldn't have been more off-base.

He was actually fairly gracious to Obama in the interview...

SIDOTI: "Do you fault the administration for not catching him though? I mean, they've had quite a few years going after him."

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "There are many things that have not been done perfectly in any conduct of war. In the Second World War, we paratroopered in our troops further than they were supposed to be from the beaches. We landed in places on the beaches that weren't anticipated. Do I fault Eisenhower? No, he won. And I'm nowhere near as consumed with bin Laden as I am concerned about global Jihadist efforts."

wrenchwench Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:03:36pm

As I recall, lots of people were saying Obama was dumb, or worse, for saying he'd go into Pakistan for any reason. This may sound naive, but I believe those people were intimidated by Pakistan (they've got nukes!!) but Obama was not because he had been there, he had spoken with actual Pakistanis, and he knew it could be done without causing WWIII.

Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:03:46pm

Note that Romney's "position" on this basically amounts to an argument for large-scale war, instead of small targeted operations.

Standard Republican thinking.

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:04:01pm

re: #57 Obdicut

And I think Romney saying that Bin Laden's capture is insignificant is a misestimation. First of all, he overlooks the intelligence value of what we captured along with Bin Laden, and what we were able to follow up on in the time after his death. He also isn't thinking about or doesn't consider important the deterrence effect of the way the operation went so smoothly, no blaze of glory for him on the way out. Just now a dead man with his wives publicly squabbling.

Aren't they being sent to KSA?

erik_t Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:04:34pm

re: #55 Killgore Trout

but I don't consider Bush not killing bin laden a failure.

Seriously?

blueraven Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:05:36pm

re: #60 Killgore Trout

He was actually fairly gracious to Obama in the interview...

Obama? This was from 2007!

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:05:45pm

re: #61 wrenchwench

As I recall, lots of people were saying Obama was dumb, or worse, for saying he'd go into Pakistan for any reason. This may sound naive, but I believe those people were intimidated by Pakistan (they've got nukes!!) but Obama was not because he had been there, he had spoken with actual Pakistanis, and he knew it could be done without causing WWIII.

In reality, if it wasn't Bin Laden, the Pakistani's could have made a major bru-haha over it. But it was Bin Laden, and factions in Pakistan knew he was there. Their ain't shit they can do to us about it.

Killgore Trout Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:06:20pm

re: #65 blueraven

Obama? This was from 2007!

Ah, nice catch. I stand corrected.

Kragar Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:06:30pm

re: #62 Charles Johnson

Note that Romney's "position" on this basically amounts to an argument for large-scale war, instead of small targeted operations.

Standard Republican thinking.

Why lance a boil when you can amputate the whole limb and bill the patient for a more expensive procedure?

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:07:42pm

re: #52 Killgore Trout

Not really. I think it was just a general strategy discussion about global terrorism.
[Link: townhall.com...]

As I noted above, I misremembered the context. I do remember that Romney subsequently walked back his statement at the very next debate, when McCain took whacks at him, and said:

Romney’s “heaven and earth” line proved a gaffe at the time as well. Sen. John McCain, who tried to portray Romney throughout the race as weak on national security...Romney walked back his remarks in a Republican debate, saying “We’ll move everything to get him. But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person — Osama bin Laden — because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another.”

So Romney seemed to be of the opinion that taking down Bin Laden was not worth the cost, because "there's going to be another." Even there, he was mistaken.

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:07:49pm

re: #31 erik_t

Well, no, I don't. Bush's Follies aside, I don't think the case can be made, or could have ever been made, that the political left is intrinsically less willing to engage in military action abroad.

Wow - I really disagree with that. While I think any President would have gone into Afghanistan, it was a wet dream for the republicans to go to Iraq. And I don't hear anyone on the left wanting to drop bombs on Tehran.

Randall Gross Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:08:45pm

re: #46 Charles Johnson

The fact is, Obama consistently said that he would do whatever it took to hunt down bin Laden, and Mitt Romney said he wouldn't. The context is that Romney was reflexively attacking Obama by taking the opposite position, and now it's biting him on the ass.

It wasn't just that one quote either, a couple of weeks back I tweeted multiple articles from 10/2007 where Mitt Romney & co. were attacking Obama over "Pakistani Sovereignty" and "attacking a US ally" -- I believe McCain chimed in on the subject as well.

Charleston Chew Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:09:04pm

re: #46 Charles Johnson

The fact is, Obama consistently said that he would do whatever it took to hunt down bin Laden, and Mitt Romney said he wouldn't. The context is that Romney was reflexively attacking Obama by taking the opposite position, and now it's biting him on the ass.

Cynics might believe that not taking a stand is a politically prudent thing to do, but when Romney and the GOP set their default mode to "opposite of Obama", and Obama stakes his claim to the correct course of action, it can have the strategic advantage of forcing Romney to pin his name to the wrong course of action by default.

lawhawk Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:10:13pm

It's an effective advertisement on a couple of levels. First off, it's got President Clinton, who is still adored by quite a few on the left and independents (the guy's got charisma) talking about President Bush and the fact that the buck essentially stops with the President - he's the decider in chief.

That pivotal decision we're talking about is the raid on OBL, and that it goes back to Obama's campaign position to go after AQ and OBL regardless of whether it meant going into Pakistan.

It too harkens back to Bush's call to go after AQ wherever they be harbored or have sought shelter.

And President Obama, through the Seal Team, got OBL. Huge kudos for that and one that people may have already forgotten about in the fog of time.

People need to remember that Obama has authorized more UAV strikes and hit more HVTs that Bush did. Intel builds on intel, and the OBL raid captured quite a bit - helping with future raids and planning to boot.

At the time that Obama said he'd go into Pakistan, I warned that it might not be the right thing to say because Pakistan is a nominal ally and that it might stir up a hornet's nest. Well, the US did carry out the mission, and a hornet's nest was stirred, but thus far despite protestations from the Pakistani government and ISI, the US continues to do business there and the uneasy alliance continues (though we're looking to maintain a presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014 precisely to keep an eye on the frontier provinces where AQ and similar terror groups are known to have safe havens).

Obama made the decision - and it's one he certainly doesn't regret.

He got his target - Osama bin Laden.

And in my book, that counts for a great deal.

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:10:27pm

re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist

Not particularly, in this case. When everyone agrees that we should pursue war, but one guy says we should also bring a particular evildoer to justice, that doesn't strike me as 'further' right.

But I think going into a country we consider(ed) an ally to do it is more hawkish.

lawhawk Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:12:43pm

re: #62 Charles Johnson

By the same token, the hit on the Bush strategy in Afghanistan was that it wasn't sufficiently large enough to deal with the threat despite the early successes with special forces in toppling the Taliban regime and sending them into the mountains.

erik_t Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:13:23pm

re: #70 leftynyc

Wow - I really disagree with that. While I think any President would have gone into Afghanistan, it was a wet dream for the republicans to go to Iraq. And I don't hear anyone on the left wanting to drop bombs on Tehran.

Recent Republican leadership hasn't been Right Wing, it's been Crazy Wing. They were against intervention in Libya for the sole reason that Obama was for it. I expect the same to happen in Syria if it comes to that. Their philosophy, as discussed above, has no real relation to any given fact on any given day.

Back when we had two parties that had sane, principled and rational worldviews, there was no real history of one party or the other being more or less willing to fight a police action or a war. Clinton took us into the Balkans multiple times. Bush I took us to Iraq. Reagan took us to Grenada. Kennedy and Johnson to Vietnam. Truman to Korea.

Randall Gross Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:15:46pm

Here's a segment from Mitt Romney's policy page on AfPak:

Mitt Romney will never make national-security decisions based upon electoral politics. Upon taking office, he will review our transition to the Afghan military by holding discussions with our commanders in the field. He will order a full interagency assessment of our military and assistance presence in Afghanistan to determine the level required to secure our gains and to train Afghan forces to the point where they can protect the sovereignty of Afghanistan from the tyranny of the Taliban. Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan under a Romney administration will be based on conditions on the ground as assessed by our military commanders.

If you peel away the blather and blarney, it's Bush Afghanistan policy & talking points redux, wasn't 7+ years of that enough?

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:15:55pm

re: #74 leftynyc

But I think going into a country we consider(ed) an ally to do it is more hawkish.

Perhaps that, although I doubt it was 'dovish' of various Republicans to scoff at the idea.

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:16:11pm

re: #75 lawhawk

By the same token, the hit on the Bush strategy in Afghanistan was that it wasn't sufficiently large enough to deal with the threat despite the early successes with special forces in toppling the Taliban regime and sending them into the mountains.

That seemed to be a similarity between Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of fighting them "on the cheap," only to find out that initial successes couldn't be held and we were burning time and men trying to hold too much territory with too few boots.

Charleston Chew Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:16:28pm

re: #57 Obdicut

And I think Romney saying that Bin Laden's capture is insignificant is a misestimation. First of all, he overlooks the intelligence value of what we captured along with Bin Laden, and what we were able to follow up on in the time after his death. He also isn't thinking about or doesn't consider important the deterrence effect of the way the operation went so smoothly, no blaze of glory for him on the way out. Just now a dead man with his wives publicly squabbling.

Anyone who downplays the US getting Bin Laden severely underestimates the symbolic significance of it. There were Americans literally dancing in the streets that night.

Youtube Video

And it was President Bush who made it that way by saying on Sep 17, 2001, that Bin Laden was "wanted dead or alive". After that the US had to get him. There was no choice.

Bush talked the talk. Obama walked the walk.

Killgore Trout Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:19:28pm

re: #69 Targetpractice

As I noted above, I misremembered the context. I do remember that Romney subsequently walked back his statement at the very next debate, when McCain took whacks at him, and said:

So Romney seemed to be of the opinion that taking down Bin Laden was not worth the cost, because "there's going to be another." Even there, he was mistaken.

Not really. He is mischaracterizing his opponent's position but he's criticizing the populist angle of capturing/killing bin laden as the most important factor in fighting global terrorism. He is correct. At the time of Bin Landen's death he really didn't have a whole lot of control of Al Qaeda anyways. The global network had been disrupted, moving money and communications were dificult and they had a hell of a time pulling off a successful operation or even building a functioning bomb.
If we had simply executed bin laden on 9-12 the network would have continued to operate. A much larger comprehensive effort is what brought down al qaeda.

Randall Gross Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:20:29pm

The no deadlines thing became a GOP talking point and holdfast -- they are so anchored to it now that they can't give it up even when it's obvious that they must.
If we don't put pressure on the corrupt "ally" leaders of both Pakistan and Afghanistan to produce results and defend themselves, then we we never leave the subcontinent. The leaders there will love it, because even as their populace is ravaged by the terrorists and collateral damage from our strikes the corrupt military in both countries still will rake in dough from US & Euro taxpayers.

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:20:40pm

re: #76 erik_t

Recent Republican leadership hasn't been Right Wing, it's been Crazy Wing. They were against intervention in Libya for the sole reason that Obama was for it. I expect the same to happen in Syria if it comes to that. Their philosophy, as discussed above, has no real relation to any given fact on any given day.

Back when we had two parties that had sane, principled and rational worldviews, there was no real history of one party or the other being more or less willing to fight a police action or a war. Clinton took us into the Balkans multiple times. Bush I took us to Iraq. Reagan took us to Grenada. Kennedy and Johnson to Vietnam. Truman to Korea.

Ah - you're speaking much "larger" than I was. I was really just comparing Pres Obama vs SOS Clinton during the primary wars. Although I always felt they were both moderates, Pres Obama was considered more liberal than SOS Clinton except on this one issue.

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:21:53pm

re: #76 erik_t

Recent Republican leadership hasn't been Right Wing, it's been Crazy Wing.

Quoted for Truth

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:22:02pm

re: #78 SanFranciscoZionist

Perhaps that, although I doubt it was 'dovish' of various Republicans to scoff at the idea.

Nah - that was pure politics - they are against anything the Democrats support.

Randall Gross Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:22:59pm

re: #81 Killgore Trout

You also have to recognize that it wasn't just Bin Laden, Romney was opposed to all strikes in Pakistan because they were a "sovereign nation" and an "ally" we needed in the war on terror.

Obdicut Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:23:19pm

re: #81 Killgore Trout

He's going beyond that. He said that the taking of bin Laden was 'insignificant'. He's not simply taking on the idea that it was the most important. You're misrepresenting what he said-- ironically, you're doing so as hyperbolicly as those who claim it's the most important event in national security.

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:23:38pm

re: #85 leftynyc

Nah - that was pure politics - they are against anything the Democrats support.

Calvinball politics. Touch the Opposite Pole on every issue. And try to force the other side to sing the "I'm So Sorry" song.

No way to properly govern a country.

Randall Gross Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:25:19pm

It's like the Iran gaffe Romney made back then - people focused more on the gaffe than what was unsound and wrong with Romney's policy.

erik_t Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:25:34pm

re: #83 leftynyc

Ah - you're speaking much "larger" than I was. I was really just comparing Pres Obama vs SOS Clinton during the primary wars. Although I always felt they were both moderates, Pres Obama was considered more liberal than SOS Clinton except on this one issue.

You really have no way of classifying activity as holistically 'left wing' or 'right wing' based on a self-contained sample size of two. It doesn't really make any sense.

We can say from that sample that Obama was in many senses more hawkish. Calling him more left or right wing on this issue is putting the cart before the horse.

Charles Johnson Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:26:30pm

re: #81 Killgore Trout

What we do know is that we didn't get bin Laden on 9/12, and the Al Qaeda network continued to operate and stage terror attacks throughout Bush's presidency.

Al Qaeda's global network HAD been disrupted, true -- by President Obama, not by Bush. Their downfall can be traced to the switch in US policy, from fighting a big "war on terror," to aggressively targeting the leaders and spokesmen of Al Qaeda.

At the time, I was right there with Romney and the rest of the right, making fun of Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan to get bin Laden, and I was completely fucking wrong about it. In fact, it's pretty clear to me that along with many other people, I was played by the GOP all along, and that won't happen again.

I do question Bush's commitment to finding bin Laden. I don't believe it was a real priority for his administration.

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:26:41pm

re: #90 erik_t

You really have no way of classifying activity as holistically 'left wing' or 'right wing' based on a self-contained sample size of two. It doesn't really make any sense.

We can say from that sample that Obama was in many senses more hawkish. Calling him more left or right wing on this issue is putting the cart before the horse.

How about we agree to disagree on this issue? Peace.

Ben G. Hazi Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:30:37pm

re: #47 Assemble!

Like a boss.

One of my favorite Lonely Island bits (definitely NSFW)

Youtube Video

Talking Point Detective Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:30:42pm

re: #52 Killgore Trout

Not really. I think it was just a general strategy discussion about global terrorism.
[Link: townhall.com...]

Wow! Romney's position there is astoundingly ignorant: grouping very disparate entities under one label of "violent jihad."

You aren't seriously advocating the policy recommendations of someone that ignorant, are you?

Of course, if elected, it's highly doubtful that he wouldn't consult with people that will inform him of that ignorance, but it shouldn't be forgotten that the Bush administration systematically rejected the input of informed experts as they perused a politically inspired strategy that turned out to be disastrous.

Killgore Trout Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:31:20pm

re: #91 Charles Johnson

I do question Bush's commitment to finding bin Laden. I don't believe it was a real priority for his administration.

I don't believe that. Much of the intelligence that led to bin laden Was collected under the Bush administration. They were working on.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:31:31pm

After everything is said, the fact of the matter is still yay Obama.

erik_t Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:33:05pm

re: #94 Talking Point Detective

You aren't seriously advocating the policy recommendations of someone that ignorant, are you?

Much like the process of Republican policy generation, I suspect that many Romney proponents first self-identify as Romney supporters. Only second do they learn what policies they will need to figure out how to advocate.

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:34:18pm

re: #95 Killgore Trout

I don't believe that. Much of the intelligence that led to bin laden Was collected under the Bush administration. They were working on.

Was that before or after the shuttering of the CIA unit dedicating to hunting him down...in 2005?

lawhawk Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:35:07pm

re: #91 Charles Johnson

There were a couple of not insignificant technological developments that helped the Obama Administration go after OBL and other HVTs, including the development and fielding of the Predator drones (along with the armed Reapers and Global Hawks) during the Bush Administration. UAV airstrikes began under the Bush Administration, but accelerated under Obama. That allowed the Obama Administration to go in and hit HVTs around the world with unprecedented capabilities.

It would also ignore that there was quite a bit of intel that was gathered during the Bush Administration that helped go after HVTs, including OBL.

One bit of intel I would hope finally gets light of day would be whether the data collected in the OBL raid sheds any light on just how close we were to getting him at Tora Bora.

100

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:36:48pm

Did Obama have any way of knowing that the intelligence he got that OBL was in Pakistan was any better then the intelligence Bush II was given regard WMD's in Iraq?

101

blueraven Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:37:01pm

re: #95 Killgore Trout

I don't believe that. Much of the intelligence that led to bin laden Was collected under the Bush administration. They were working on.

Bush himself said he wasn't really concerned about Bin Laden. I am sure they would have liked to get him, but was it a top priority? I have doubts about that.

102

Big Joe Ghazi Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:37:04pm

Senate Investigation Finds Little Evidence Justifying ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Methods

Reuters reports that a three-year-long investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats into the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (i.e. torture) is expected to find little evidence that such techniques produced counter-terrorism breakthroughs. Sources familiar with the inquiry say that committee investigators have found little substantiation for the claims by some Bush supporters that “enhanced interrogation” produced valuable intelligence. One official told Reuters that there was “no evidence” that such interrogation techniques played “any significant role” in the intelligence operations leading to the discover and killing of Osama bin Laden last May.

103

Talking Point Detective Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:37:33pm

re: #97 erik_t

Much like the process of Republican policy generation, I suspect that many Romney proponents first self-identify as Romney supporters. Only second do they learn what policies they will need to figure out how to advocate.

That's pretty much political partisanship - which dominates on both sides of the aisle.

But when you see that kind of ignorance proudly offered, you should at least take notice. Treating "...Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world" as essentially similar entities is a stunningly ignorant position to take. Unfortunately, however, it is reminiscent of the ignorance of the Bush administration evidenced prior to the invasion of Iraq.

104

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:37:34pm

There's this meme about Bush's fault for missing Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Never looked into it. Any truth to that?

105

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:38:25pm

re: #102 Ghost of Tom Joad

Senate Investigation Finds Little Evidence Justifying ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Methods

Broken link.

106

William Barnett-Lewis Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:39:10pm

re: #91 Charles Johnson

I do question Bush's commitment to finding bin Laden. I don't believe it was a real priority for his administration.

This. All he ever really wanted was an excuse to kill Saddam. Now, that isn't necessarily a bad thing but he went about it at the expense of a huge pile of unfinished business in Afganistan and a badly broken nation (and people) in Iraq that has lead to a far more dangerous Iran.

107

Randall Gross Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:39:28pm

Of course most RWers have their panties in a big bunch over this ad, but really the whole thing reminds me of the RW response to the seal vs Pirate thing. They had to find a way to twist that against him, even though it was absolutely the right decision.

108

Big Joe Ghazi Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:40:04pm

re: #102 Ghost of Tom Joad

Senate Investigation Finds Little Evidence Justifying ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Methods

fixed

109

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:40:04pm

OT and by the way - has everyone seen this thread at freeperland?

[Link: www.freerepublic.com...]

They are tearing eachother's throats out and I spent around 20 minutes eating lunch and laughing my ass off.

110

Talking Point Detective Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:42:04pm

re: #102 Ghost of Tom Joad

Senate Investigation Finds Little Evidence Justifying ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Methods

Yeah - I just read that article. The linkage that "enhanced interrogation" lead to OBL's capture has always been tenuous - based on people who clearly had CYA motivations. The reported findings that the intel that lead to his capture came after the "enhanced interrogation" stopped is the most important info from that article. Which administration was in power when the intel came out seems only important in a rather meaningless partisan sense. The question of whether torture can be justified is more important, IMO.

111

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:42:10pm

re: #109 leftynyc

OT and by the way - has everyone seen this thread at freeperland?

[Link: www.freerepublic.com...]

They are tearing eachother's throats out and I spent around 20 minutes eating lunch and laughing my ass off.

Just looking at the first page of comments, I'm guessing a schism is afoot in the Freeper ranks?

112

Simply Sarah Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:42:13pm

re: #109 leftynyc

OT and by the way - has everyone seen this thread at freeperland?

[Link: www.freerepublic.com...]

They are tearing eachother's throats out and I spent around 20 minutes eating lunch and laughing my ass off.

I haven't. I avoid that place like the plague. It's a mental vampire, it is.

113

Big Joe Ghazi Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:43:35pm

re: #109 leftynyc

OT and by the way - has everyone seen this thread at freeperland?

[Link: www.freerepublic.com...]

They are tearing eachother's throats out and I spent around 20 minutes eating lunch and laughing my ass off.

Purging for purity seems to be self destructive.

114

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:45:23pm

re: #109 leftynyc

OT and by the way - has everyone seen this thread at freeperland?

[Link: www.freerepublic.com...]

They are tearing eachother's throats out and I spent around 20 minutes eating lunch and laughing my ass off.

Why do you even go over there?

115

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:46:04pm

re: #113 Ghost of Tom Joad

Purging for purity seems to be self destructive.

It seems that the Inquisition has begun and those whose faith in Free Market Jesus is found wanting are about to end up confessing their "sins."

116

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:46:06pm

caption needed.

117

lawhawk Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:46:22pm

Oh, and another thing about the ad - the fact that we're going back and discussing Obama and GWB and foreign policy only helps Obama; he's the experienced one in this race, not Romney.

Obama gets to tout the foreign policy successes, and the GWOT and OBL are big ones.

118

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:47:08pm

re: #116 ggt

caption needed.

"How did I get here? And why do I feel this pain in my side?"

119

Randall Gross Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:47:30pm

Toomey did just displace DeMint yesterday, there is a shift in the GOP.

120

Sionainn Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:47:46pm

re: #116 ggt

caption needed.

"Note to self: Electricity and water don't mix."

121

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:48:10pm

re: #116 ggt

caption needed.

The thing's hollow—it goes on forever—and—oh my God—it's full of stars!

/I'm pretty sure somebody has already posted that, maybe you ;)

122

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:48:17pm

re: #111 Targetpractice

Just looking at the first page of comments, I'm guessing a schism is afoot in the Freeper ranks?

You don't know the half of it. I've already found two comments by long time freepers asking their accounts to be disabled, many more saying they will not contribute. I've never seen anything like it over there and I've never spent so much time there - not the most pleasing part of my personality is loving the hell out of it.

123

Simply Sarah Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:48:20pm

re: #117 lawhawk

Oh, and another thing about the ad - the fact that we're going back and discussing Obama and GWB and foreign policy only helps Obama; he's the experienced one in this race, not Romney.

Obama gets to tout the foreign policy successes, and the GWOT and OBL are big ones.

Somehow, this made me think of "BHO is the POTUS in the USA GWOT: Also featuring GWB, OBL, and HRC."

I might be broken.

124

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:48:34pm

re: #116 ggt

caption needed.

Too much Reality TV. Brain Bleach, STAT!

125

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:50:04pm

re: #112 Simply Sarah

I haven't. I avoid that place like the plague. It's a mental vampire, it is.

I agree and I usually check out links posted here or on other sites (it's how I found this one), but if you put on your hipwaders and use plenty of Purel, I promise you several belly laughs at their expense.

126

Talking Point Detective Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:50:10pm

re: #116 ggt

caption needed.

"Romney said what?"

127

leftynyc Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:51:18pm

re: #114 ggt

Why do you even go over there?

Another site had a link to it saying anyone to the left of Atilla would get a kick out of it. I've been needing some laughs and really got my fill on that thread.

128

Targetpractice Fri, Apr 27, 2012 12:56:36pm

Well, Lidane's been saying that the head Freep made it clear that the site would not support Romney in any way. So, such a thread was pretty much inevitable. The "moderates" are finding that, after years of stoking the anger and hatred of the "true conservatives" for political gain, that they can't now take them by the reins and force them to accept somebody deemed anything less than "true."

129

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Apr 27, 2012 1:07:25pm

later all

Have a great afternoon!

130

HappyWarrior Fri, Apr 27, 2012 2:00:01pm

I think it's a good ad. Anyhow, the right wingers complaining about it are the same ones who desperately wanted to paint an image of Obama as "weak on terrorism". I think some of them are upset that Obama destroyed with that order their narrative about him on foreign policy.

131

Daniel Ballard Fri, Apr 27, 2012 2:14:51pm

re: #101 blueraven

Bush himself said he wasn't really concerned about Bin Laden. I am sure they would have liked to get him, but was it a top priority? I have doubts about that.

Properly the higher priority was al Qaeda overall. not just the head of the snake.

132

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Apr 27, 2012 2:49:27pm

re: #81 Killgore Trout

Not really. He is mischaracterizing his opponent's position but he's criticizing the populist angle of capturing/killing bin laden as the most important factor in fighting global terrorism. He is correct. At the time of Bin Landen's death he really didn't have a whole lot of control of Al Qaeda anyways. The global network had been disrupted, moving money and communications were dificult and they had a hell of a time pulling off a successful operation or even building a functioning bomb.
If we had simply executed bin laden on 9-12 the network would have continued to operate. A much larger comprehensive effort is what brought down al qaeda.

True, but unimportant. Symbols are real, and the Republicans have not disdained to use emotional and symbolic language to discuss the war on terror. If they do in the case of discounting the importance of Bin Laden, it's because they thought they couldn't get him.

133

labman57 Fri, Apr 27, 2012 6:20:27pm

Republicans to Obama: "How dare you campaign on your accomplishments!"

134

CarleeCork Fri, Apr 27, 2012 10:38:05pm

re: #8 Targetpractice

Apparently, His Dullness has responded:

By firing more Americans? Fuck rMoney!

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Obama Campaign Ad: One Chance to Make the Right Decision

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud