Republicans would not have authorized the mission to kill bin Laden

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Al Qaida does not have a second person with the same charisma or power Bin Laden had. Thus killing him gave the organisation a huge blow.
Unless they find a new leader soon who can get in the news with a big attack somewhere it will only fall apart more and will also lose its attraction to youthful extremists who want to belong to something. (So I guess those will have to join the GOP instead then)

 

[HomerJS]

your obama can't run on his record of ruin so in an act of desperation he's spiking the ball over bin laden. The effort to get bin laden had a life of it's own. Your obama had NOTHING to do with the operational phase and was dragged off the golf course for pictures in the war room.

Careful Fox News will sue you for plagerism

I guess an aircraft carrier and flight suit would have made a better picture

Mission Accomplished!

 

[HomerJS]

But the OP is a partisan hack, so he'd never do that.

The whole notion of this thread is utter fail. The SEAL's are correct. Obama is behaving like a grandstanding a$$, even some D's are implying that. Obama was pulled off of the golf course to make the decision. All he did was give the ok to go. Yes, it was the correct decision and I'm glad he made it, but so what? Obama should be celebrating the team that ran the mission, not himself. Completely classless.

Yeah you are right. Nice job BTW spiking the football at the end of the 1st quarter

 

[werepossum]

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.

Not necessarily. The only reliable barometer of a politician's true inclinations is past performance. Everything every politician says while running (which anymore includes the entire term of "service") is for political purposes. Everything. Everything politician. (With the possible exception of Chris Christy.)

 

[cybrsage]

Romney flip flopped once Bin Laden raid proved successful. Of course, knowing it's a success, he would have done it. That's not leadership.

Since no one else has been able to actually provide unedited and in context quotes to support statements such as yours, I offer you the same.

Can you link the unedited and in context quotes which support your claim of flip flopping? They may be there, but no one has yet been willing to show them. This makes me believe they do not exist.

 

[ky54]

So a president should never acknowledge or act in a manner that would indicate a fondness for the military and their achievements. Okies...

 

[theeedude]

Since no one else has been able to actually provide unedited and in context quotes to support statements such as yours, I offer you the same.

Can you link the unedited and in context quotes which support your claim of flip flopping? They may be there, but no one has yet been willing to show them. This makes me believe they do not exist.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/12/21/mitt_romney_then_and_now.html

Mitt Romney, Then and Now

"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."

-- Mitt Romney, quoted by Reuters in 2008, on the United States entering Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden.

"I think other presidents and other candidates like myself would do exactly the same thing."

-- Romney, in an interview on MSNBC earlier today, downplaying credit for Obama for ordering the raid in Pakistan that finally killed Osama bin Laden.

Flip flop

 

[cybrsage]

Which part of "unedited and in context" did you not understand? The unedited part, the in context part, or both?

 

[cubby1223]

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."

Where is the response from a Republican in office?

We all know the people who get paid to sit on the sidelines and oppose anything from "the left", or those who get paid to hate everything from "the right".

Seriously, the one thing that just boggles the mind is people who have this belief that Limbaugh and Hannity control the Republican Party. Do Olbermann and Maddow currently control or have ever controlled the Democrats? No. So why believe they control Republicans other than it's an easy way to live without thinking?

 

[HomerJS]

Where is the response from a Republican in office?

We all know the people who get paid to sit on the sidelines and oppose anything from "the left", or those who get paid to hate everything from "the right".

Seriously, the one thing that just boggles the mind is people who have this belief that Limbaugh and Hannity control the Republican Party. Do Olbermann and Maddow currently control or have ever controlled the Democrats? No. So why believe they control Republicans other than it's an easy way to live without thinking?

Here's one...
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/05/02/john-mccain-opposed-going-into-pakistan/

 

[theeedude]

Which part of "unedited and in context" did you not understand? The unedited part, the in context part, or both?

Which part of flip flop did you not understand. There is a flip, and there is a flop. Together they make a flip-flop.

 

[cybrsage]

Which part of flip flop did you not understand. There is a flip, and there is a flop. Together they make a flip-flop.

So you are merely saying he is flip flopping but cannot support it with actual information...while pretending you have support. That is pretty lame of you.

You post edited comments taken outside of their context and pretend they are meaningful. That is also pretty lame of you.

But hey, if it helps you sleep at night, go for it. Just know you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[Matt1970]

I can just see it now all the criticism we would have taken if a Republican gave the order to take out Bin Laden.

Invaded a sovereign Nation.
Should have used missiles so not to risk US Soldiers.
Violated and agreement we had with our Ally.

 

[blankslate]

I can just see it now all the criticism we would have taken if a Republican gave the order to take out Bin Laden.

Invaded a sovereign Nation.
Should have used missiles so not to risk US Soldiers.
Violated and agreement we had with our Ally.

Sorry that is wrong... If President Bush actually focused on killing or capturing Bin Laden and succeeded I would have much more respect for his Foreign policy decisions. If they actually found a modern WMD program in Iraq and not the old 70s/80s arsenal that Saddam Hussein bought from another country my respect for his Foreign Policy stance would have been very high indeed.

However neither of those happened so kindly stop raising that canard.

 

[wetech]

Which part of flip flop did you not understand. There is a flip, and there is a flop. Together they make a flip-flop.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/mitt-romney-obamas-wrong-about-my-old-pakistan-quote.php

“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.” He added that troops “shouldn’t be sent all over the world” and that Obama’s remarks were “ill-timed” and “ill-considered.”

But Romney didn’t leave it at that: Under questioning in a Republican primary debate shortly afterward, he essentially endorsed Obama’s position while attacking him for saying it out loud:

ROMNEY: It’s wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say, “We’re going to go into your country unilaterally.” Of course, America always maintains our option to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don’t go out and say, “Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out.” We don’t say those things. We keep our options quiet. We do not go out and say to a nation which is working with us, where we have collaborated and they are our friend and we’re trying to support Musharraf and strengthen him and his nation, that instead that we intend to go in there and potentially bring out a unilateral attack.

 

[werepossum]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/mitt-romney-obamas-wrong-about-my-old-pakistan-quote.php

I agree with Romney there; it was necessary that we went in, but harmful to boast that we would go in as it harmed our relationship with Pakistan for no gain at the time. Bottom line is that it was politically expedient for Obama to talk tough, and politically expedient for Romney et al to bash him for it. There is no greater underlying truth.

That said, while I think any prospective Republican President except Paul would do the same, I give Obama quite a bit of credit for taking the risk. The main stream media would have covered him whether he went back on his campaign words or tried and failed, but had he lost this gamble, with a bunch of SEALs killed or Pakistani civilians killed, the Republicans would have attacked him unmercifully (as he would do to them were the situation reversed.) Obama took the politically more risky path to do what was best for the country, and for that he should be lauded.

He overplayed his hand though. Rather than giving his "I love me some me" speech in which he took credit for practically everything short of pulling the trigger (if that), he should have modestly credited the men who did the operation, knowing that the media and his supporters would be falling all over themselves crediting him personally. His detractors were going to detract either way; much better to be seen as humble and effacing than as self-serving. His accomplishment is the same either way, he just robbed himself of the full political boost he should have gotten.

 

[cybrsage]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/mitt-romney-obamas-wrong-about-my-old-pakistan-quote.php

This is why so many refuse to actually post what was said...an unedited version, taking in context, supports the exact opposite of their position.

 

[theeedude]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/mitt-romney-obamas-wrong-about-my-old-pakistan-quote.php

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them."

It's ill considered to kill Bin Laden, according to Romney. 😀

 

[theeedude]

I agree with Romney there; it was necessary that we went in, but harmful to boast that we would go in as it harmed our relationship with Pakistan for no gain at the time. Bottom line is that it was politically expedient for Obama to talk tough, and politically expedient for Romney et al to bash him for it. There is no greater underlying truth.

That said, while I think any prospective Republican President except Paul would do the same, I give Obama quite a bit of credit for taking the risk. The main stream media would have covered him whether he went back on his campaign words or tried and failed, but had he lost this gamble, with a bunch of SEALs killed or Pakistani civilians killed, the Republicans would have attacked him unmercifully (as he would do to them were the situation reversed.) Obama took the politically more risky path to do what was best for the country, and for that he should be lauded.

He overplayed his hand though. Rather than giving his "I love me some me" speech in which he took credit for practically everything short of pulling the trigger (if that), he should have modestly credited the men who did the operation, knowing that the media and his supporters would be falling all over themselves crediting him personally. His detractors were going to detract either way; much better to be seen as humble and effacing than as self-serving. His accomplishment is the same either way, he just robbed himself of the full political boost he should have gotten.

It was important to remind people that Romney would not have gone into Afghanistan and gotten Bin Laden, if his past words are to be believed.

 

[theeedude]

I can just see it now all the criticism we would have taken if a Republican gave the order to take out Bin Laden.

Invaded a sovereign Nation.
Should have used missiles so not to risk US Soldiers.
Violated and agreement we had with our Ally.

You mean the stuff Romney criticized Obama for saying he'd do during the 2008 election? 😀

Here is another Republican failure coming out of the woodwork to bash Obama for cleaning up the mess he left behind:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/...in-laden-raid-despite-downplaying-122287.html

“You mentioned there was a tough decision,” Rumsfeld said on Tuesday night on Fox News. “I don’t think it was a tough decision. We’ve seen a lot of instances where presidents over the years have had to make decisions like that.”

But six years ago, Rumsfeld himself called off a major raid in Pakistan, citing many of the same factors that Obama administration officials complicated the OBL mission.

 

[wetech]

It's ill considered to kill Bin Laden, according to Romney. 😀

way to ignore the rest of the quotes from the article.

 

[Generator]

Of course the Republicans wouldn't go after OBL, he was their Frankenstein. As America was under attack George Bush was shitting his pants for minutes reading some bullshit coloring book to toddlers. It happened on the Republicans watch...that is the type of incompetent, unsafe governance you get from these clowns.

Apparently in Afghanistan OBL and Al-queda was cornered and the command came in to let them go! Don't want to win this quickly, still had to get into Iraq. The whole Bush administration betrayed their country REPEATEDLY!

Then you had Bush with gall to say he don't care where OBL was. Let it be known that OBL was the Republicans cash cow, they knew where he was the whole time. Thank god we got a President who put a end to this bullshit. Did you Republicans honestly think you could have a perpetual war against your boogey men as you reaped the wealth from the deaths of your serf armies?

I'm sure you scumbags will come up with something else. Keep up the good fight folks...

 

[theeedude]

way to ignore the rest of the quotes from the article.

He's wrong in them too. You do tell guys like Pakistan, clean up your mess, or we'll do it for you.

 

[boomerang]

Of course the Republicans wouldn't go after OBL, he was their Frankenstein. As America was under attack George Bush was shitting his pants for minutes reading some bullshit coloring book to toddlers. It happened on the Republicans watch...that is the type of incompetent, unsafe governance you get from these clowns.

Apparently in Afghanistan OBL and Al-queda was cornered and the command came in to let them go! Don't want to win this quickly, still had to get into Iraq. The whole Bush administration betrayed their country REPEATEDLY!

Then you had Bush with gall to say he don't care where OBL was. Let it be known that OBL was the Republicans cash cow, they knew where he was the whole time. Thank god we got a President who put a end to this bullshit. Did you Republicans honestly think you could have a perpetual war against your boogey men as you reaped the wealth from the deaths of your serf armies?

I'm sure you scumbags will come up with something else. Keep up the good fight folks...

How's your anger management class going? Not so well I'm thinkin'...

 

[Phokus]

George Bush famously said he didn't care about Bin Laden and he also disbanded the CIA group responsible for hunting him down.

If a liberal did/said that, conservatives would call it treason.