Republicans would not have authorized the mission to kill bin Laden

[woolfe9999]

Maybe you should re-read those quotes, they said they would not invade Pakistan. We didn't "invade" Pakistan, we borrowed their airspace. Not too mention the fact that, as others ave pointed out, these comments were all made back in 2007. Spin faster.

In context, the comments were made in response to Obama's remarks that he would not hesitate to take out a terrorist target inside Pakistan, with or without permission of the Pakistanis. The republicans were saying that they would not do so without permission. It's fair to argue that they weren't suggesting they'd pass up the opportunity to take out Bin Laden, but that they were saying they'd bring the Pakistanis in on it beforehand, which many people believe would have caused such a mission to fail because the target would have been absent by the time we got to it.

If we're going to be honest here, these guys didn't believe a word of what they were saying back then. They were just saying it to be contrary to whatever Obama said. Accordingly, if it makes them look bad now, that's their problem.

 

[Moonbeam]

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

- Senator Barrack Obama, March 20, 2006.

Good point. America elected Obama but it's all uphill because the Republicans still block any improvement.

 

[cybrsage]

Al-qaida was created by the CIA FFS.

This is the lie that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Somebody started it a long long time ago. When will it stop? Nobody even knows. This is the lie that never ends...

 

[HomerJS]

In 2007, we did not have enough information to successfully go after Bin Laden. If we had, we would have done it then. Once we did, we went after him.

Four years makes a HUGE difference in the gathering of intelligence...but intelligence is required to understand this point.

Romney's answer was not based on the info known in 2007 his entire premise in answering was he would not go into Pakistan. Remember Obama's answer in 2007 was if we have actionable intelligence OBL is in Pakistan.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes they would've.

 

[HomerJS]

Yes they would've.

Based on your guess, wish or what they actually said?

 

[woolfe9999]

Based on your guess, wish or what they actually said?

What they were actually saying was that they wouldn't do it without authorization from Pakistan. I think that's pretty clear. That is the real issue here. It still makes them look quite foolish IMO.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Operation Eagle Claw. The specter of such a disaster would give pause to any sitting president contemplating the possible end of his electoral career.
The call to proceed with the mission took more guts than his political opponents are willing to admit.

 

[woodie1]

That's quite unfair just quoting one side of Romney's position (on any issue).

AMEN!

 

[werepossum]

That's quite unfair just quoting one side of Romney's position (on any issue).

Agreed - two out of three Mitt Romneys agree with Obama's actions taking out Usama bin Ladin.

 

[woolfe9999]

Agreed - two out of three Mitt Romneys agree with Obama's actions taking out Usama bin Ladin.

Hmm, you make a good point. Does this mean that if the majority of Mitt Romney's support a given position, this means we can assume this is his true position? It has to be either that or we go with what the most recent Mitt Romney said. I think we really need a rule of thumb for him or else it gets very confusing.

 

[nageov3t]

What they were actually saying was that they wouldn't do it without authorization from Pakistan. I think that's pretty clear. That is the real issue here. It still makes them look quite foolish IMO.

of course, had they said otherwise they'd be warmongering neocon cowboys just itching to invade Pakistan for their oil.

 

[UberNeuman]

of course, had they said otherwise they'd be warmongering neocon cowboys just itching to invade Pakistan for their oil.

I couldn't dream of how anyone would get that impression...

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What they were actually saying was that they wouldn't do it without authorization from Pakistan. I think that's pretty clear. That is the real issue here. It still makes them look quite foolish IMO.

Depending on the international situation at a given time I might not have gone after Bin Laden or perhaps I would. Are you saying that regardless of the consequences Obama would have gone after OBL?

 

[senseamp]

Depending on the international situation at a given time I might not have gone after Bin Laden or perhaps I would. Are you saying that regardless of the consequences Obama would have gone after OBL?

Under what international situation would you not have gone after Bin Laden? International situation when killing 3K Americans is OK?

 

[EagleKeeper]

This is the lie that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Somebody started it a long long time ago. When will it stop? Nobody even knows. This is the lie that never ends...

Remember who you are quoting. Scared to stick his nose out of his folks basement because he would have to face the real world

 

[woolfe9999]

Depending on the international situation at a given time I might not have gone after Bin Laden or perhaps I would. Are you saying that regardless of the consequences Obama would have gone after OBL?

No, what I'm saying is that these republicans were criticizing Obama for saying that he would go after high value terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without permission from the Pakistanis. They said this would be a bad idea per se because the Pakistanis were our allies. That was a foolish position to take IMO, particularly since we've had reason to suspect for many, many years that the ISI was aiding AQ and other terrorists. That there might be some scenario where it wouldn't be a good idea is irrelevant, because their statements were not qualified that way, with "depending on_____."

They of course were just saying this to contradict what Obama was saying. However, it does not make them look good now, and it isn't only hindsight. I recall these types of criticisms at the time and I disagreed then because I didn't trust Pakistan any more then than I do now. The lesson here is, maybe one shouldn't just reflexively disagree with everything said by the opposing candidate or party. Maybe it's better to think things through first?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Under what international situation would you not have gone after Bin Laden? International situation when killing 3K Americans is OK?

That wasn't the question was it? This is between the Reps and Obama. Are you saying that Obama would have taken out OBL regardless of circumstance and consequence?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, what I'm saying is that these republicans were criticizing Obama for saying that he would go after high value terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without permission from the Pakistanis. They said this would be a bad idea per se because the Pakistanis were our allies. That was a foolish position to take IMO, particularly since we've had reason to suspect for many, many years that the ISI was aiding AQ and other terrorists. That there might be some scenario where it wouldn't be a good idea is irrelevant, because their statements were not qualified that way, with "depending on_____."

They of course were just saying this to contradict what Obama was saying. However, it does not make them look good now, and it isn't only hindsight. I recall these types of criticisms at the time and I disagreed then because I didn't trust Pakistan any more then than I do now. The lesson here is, maybe one shouldn't just reflexively disagree with everything said by the opposing candidate or party. Maybe it's better to think things through first?

It's a matter of whether the conditions for going after Bin Laden were realistic at the time. I didn't care for Bush and his supporters saying that OBL wasn't in effect an important target. Of course he was. My point is that what is done depends on the situation at the time. Going into Pakistan half a dozen years ago wasn't the same as now. BTW, I approve of Obama's actions so that's not an issue. I'm just wondering if others are considering the consequences of going after someone regardless.

 

[woolfe9999]

It's a matter of whether the conditions for going after Bin Laden were realistic at the time. I didn't care for Bush and his supporters saying that OBL wasn't in effect an important target. Of course he was. My point is that what is done depends on the situation at the time. Going into Pakistan half a dozen years ago wasn't the same as now. BTW, I approve of Obama's actions so that's not an issue. I'm just wondering if others are considering the consequences of going after someone regardless.

Going after someone "regardless" has never been anyone's position so far as I can see. Obama said he wouldn't get permission from Pakistan beforehand. Some republicans said they disagreed. That is the issue. Hypothetically there might be a good reason to not go in, but that doesn't mean we would advise the regime there before hand, assuming we did decide to go in.

If we assume that Bin Laden had been discovered in that compound in 2007-8, I don't think any different course of action would have been dictated. We'd go after him, and probably do it without informing the regime (still Musharraf at the time) because we couldn't be certain that the information would be secure within that regime. He was too high value of a target for us to take that chance, and that was true in 2007 as much as in 2010. What those guys were saying at the time was just wrong.

 

[Siddhartha]

Their own words...

Obama, 8-1-2007, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."

Republican response:

Mitt Romney, "bin Laden is not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch" and "I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort"

Rush Limbaugh in September 2007: "Well, we've got another tape from -- I get these guys confused -- Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he's going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate -- that would be Barack 'Uss-Obama.' " Limbaugh added: "All right, so, we're going to attack Pakistan. Poor Musharraf's going to get it on both ends if Barack's elected."

Fox News' Sean Hannity and Karl Rove repeatedly attacked Obama's remarks, saying over and over that Obama said he would "invade" Pakistan. Hannity called Obama's statement "frightening" and Rove said it was indicative of "the inexperience that he has." Hannity even claimed Obama's Pakistan policy could "potentially create a theocracy with nuclear weapons."

Fox News analyst Ralph Peters called Obama's Pakistan position "loonier than anything he's said about Iraq," adding: "So, we're going to invade the country through which we get our supplies -- that means the routes closed. We can't resupply them by air, and you're forcing the Pakistani military to fight us. This is crazy." Fox News' John Gibson said on August 3, 2007: "Obama suggested we invade Pakistan, this week. He's a loser."

John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post that Obama "basically promised that, as president, he would invade Pakistan," adding: "This country is never going to insert military forces to conduct a major campaign against al Qaeda inside Pakistan without the permission of that country's government." The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol wrote: "Barack Obama, losing ground to Hillary Clinton because he seemed naive about real world threats, frantically suggest[ed] that he would invade Pakistan."

Not going after bin Laden became GW Bush's and the GOP's policy when it was decided to put resources behind invading Iraq. Mr Romney was just tolling the party line.

 

[senseamp]

That wasn't the question was it? This is between the Reps and Obama. Are you saying that Obama would have taken out OBL regardless of circumstance and consequence?

No, I am saying Obama had the guts to take out OBL and deal with the consequences. Republicans and Romney didn't. These consequences they said would happen if we went into Pakistan and took care of business, they were wrong, Obama was right. It's completely idiotic to say we aren't going to go after OBL in Pakistan because it's going to make our life more difficult in Afghanistan. The whole point of us going into Afghanistan was to deny guys like OBL a safe haven.

 

[senseamp]

What Romney is saying now is that he would have flip flopped and killed Bin Laden. That's his whole election message, trust me to flip flop.

 

[nageov3t]

you may be too deep in the leftist partisan weeds when even Arianna Huffington is calling you out on it.

 

[senseamp]

you may be too deep in the leftist partisan weeds when even Arianna Huffington is calling you out on it.

She's just pissed Obama called her out at the correspondent dinner.
I guess reading Romney's own statements from the past makes me deep in the leftist partisan weeds