Romney 2007: It's not worth spending billions of dollars trying to catch bin laden

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama opposed the Iraq Surge

Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc - YouTube

Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.

You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?

 

[JoeB131]

Obama opposed the Iraq Surge

Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc - YouTube

Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.

You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?

]

I think he meant within or from Iraq itself...

To be fair to Bush, the first guy to raise the whole spectre of a Saddam/Bin laden alliance was Bill Clinton, who mentioned Iraq four times in the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden after the Embassy bombings.

This was to raise Bin Laden's street cred, not Saddam. Everyone already thought Saddam was evil. Even Democrats.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama opposed the Iraq Surge

Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc - YouTube

Yes he did.

And he was probably right. All the Surge did was let us save face.

The end result is that the Iranian backed Shi'ites now run Iraq. Probably the best we can hope for, because the alternative was Al Qaeda running the place, but not a good result for America.

The Surge won the ground war

 

[Sallow]

Yes he did.

And he was probably right. All the Surge did was let us save face.

The end result is that the Iranian backed Shi'ites now run Iraq. Probably the best we can hope for, because the alternative was Al Qaeda running the place, but not a good result for America.

He would have been right..had that been all they did. But Bush dumped billions of US tax dollars to create the "Sons of Iraq"..or to bribe the newly minted terrorists and sectarian fighters into the fold. Of course if they didn't disband the Iraqi military in the first place..and make the Baathists illegal..this never would have ever been needed.

Yeah, you could make that argument.

But leaving the Baathists around would have been like leaving the Nazis around after WWII...

Not really sending the right message.

Ba'athists are actually Islamic Nazis. They are gone from Iraq, hopefully they'll be gone in Syria soon.

I think the thing is, we keep sticking our hands in the hornets nest and wondering why we get stung. And sometimes we raise a hornet up, and it's the one that stings us in the eye. Bin Laden and Saddam were both guys the CIA told presidents we could work with--- until they turned on us.

News Flash: That's exactly what happened. The high ranking Nazis were paraded in front of courts..low ranking ones went back to their positions..and the army was put back in place. Spain was almost completely untouched..by the way. An Axis power.

 

[Sallow]

Obama opposed the Iraq Surge

Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc - YouTube

Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.

You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?

And Iraq..had nothing to do with that. If you are looking for nations to blame..it would have been Afghanistan where the training camps were..and Saudi Arabia..who probably helped fund the operations..and many of the operatives were from that country.

 

[Sallow]

Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.

You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?

]

I think he meant within or from Iraq itself...

To be fair to Bush, the first guy to raise the whole spectre of a Saddam/Bin laden alliance was Bill Clinton, who mentioned Iraq four times in the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden after the Embassy bombings.

This was to raise Bin Laden's street cred, not Saddam. Everyone already thought Saddam was evil. Even Democrats.

In any case..it was a stupid assertion. The two absolutely hated each other. Bin Laden referred to Saddam Hussien as an infidel, hated his "secular" government and the fact he was attacking other muslim states. He was enraged that the Saudis asked for US help as opposed to him and his holy band of craptacular "warriors".

 

[Article 15]

Mitt Romney was for the Iraq invasion and against killing Osama bin Laden.

Barack Obama was against stupidly invading Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden with a nod of his head.

 

[Newby]

There you have it... That's Romney on bin Laden saying in 2007 that, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Yes boys and girls, It's all about 'money' to Mr 1%.

Romney: 'Even Jimmy Carter' would have ordered bin Laden attack - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Monday appeared to call out Mitt Romney over what he said about going after Osama bin Laden on the campaign trail four years ago, as opposed to on the eve of the first anniversary of the raid that killed the terrorist leader.

Asked about Romney's comments earlier in the day that the decision to go after bin Laden was a clear one and that "even Jimmy Carter would" have made the call, Obama referred to a difference between what Romney said during his 2008 presidential campaign and on the eve of the first anniversary of the attack.

"I assume that people meant what they said when they said it," Obama said during a joint appearance with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. "That's been at least my practice. I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did. If there are others who said one thing and now suggest they'd do something else, I'd go ahead and let them explain."

That is only part of the quote of what Romney said.
It distorts what he said, when just part of it is quoted.
This is the full quote;

"In a very diverse group, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Queda,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".

Funny, this just seemed to get looked over, so thought I'd bump it. They never let a good lie go to waste.

 

[Oldstyle]

There you have it... That's Romney on bin Laden saying in 2007 that, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Yes boys and girls, It's all about 'money' to Mr 1%.

Romney: 'Even Jimmy Carter' would have ordered bin Laden attack - CNN.com

How does Barry get that Mitt Romney wouldn't have gone ahead and taken out Bin Laden given the same opportunity? Sorry folks but Romney is right...I don't see ANY President not making that call...including Jimmy Carter.

It's rather sad...and telling...that Barack Obama is SO desperate for something good to point at after almost four years in office that he's using the death of Osama Bin Laden as proof that he's a great President.

But then again...should anyone be surprised by this? He sure can't run on ObamaCare or his handling of the economy. A majority of Americans don't like the former and think he's clueless about the latter.

I don't know about healthcare but he'll certainly run on the economy.

Now THAT is amusing, Flopper! You do realize that 13 million people are still unemployed and a huge number more are "underemployed" meaning they are working part time even though they wish to be working full time? And Barry's plan to fix this problem is...drumroll please..."the Buffett Rule"!!! Don't you think it's time to admit that this Administration has no economic plan going forward? All they've given us over the past two years is a request for a watered down version of the stimulus plan that didn't work the first time around and a request for higher taxes on the wealthy that they know will never be passed and even if it were passed would pay for about one day of our nation's spending. What is Barack Obama's PLAN to fix our economy? What's his PLAN to stimulate job growth? The truth is he doesn't have one and hasn't since Larry Summers and Christina Romer both skedaddled on him. So why would the American electorate vote someone who's run out of ideas to fix our problems back into office?

 

[Katzndogz]

It's hard to take obama assuming the mantle of greatness over Bin Ladin when obama eventually banned the interrogation techniques that led to his end. If Romney had said that he would spend billions of dollars and moving heaven and earth to get Bin Ladin, democrats would be screaming about starving children and birth control robbed to pay to get one old man who was hiding out. If democrats had their way, if it was up to obama, we never would have gotten Bin Ladin. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would never have been made uncomfortable, he would never have been waterboarded he would never have given up the information. What would have happened MAYBE is that obama would have paid for information and gotten bupkis.

Getting Bin Ladin is an exercise in vanity. Romney was right. Bin Ladin wasn't magic, he will be replaced by other terror leaders.

 

[Sallow]

It's hard to take obama assuming the mantle of greatness over Bin Ladin when obama eventually banned the interrogation techniques that led to his end. If Romney had said that he would spend billions of dollars and moving heaven and earth to get Bin Ladin, democrats would be screaming about starving children and birth control robbed to pay to get one old man who was hiding out. If democrats had their way, if it was up to obama, we never would have gotten Bin Ladin. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would never have been made uncomfortable, he would never have been waterboarded he would never have given up the information. What would have happened MAYBE is that obama would have paid for information and gotten bupkis.

Getting Bin Ladin is an exercise in vanity. Romney was right. Bin Ladin wasn't magic, he will be replaced by other terror leaders.

No they didn't.

And getting Bin Laden was an exercise in American Justice. Same with Gaddafi. And the Drone Wars have effectively kiboshed the "easy" replacement of Al Qaeda leaders. Bin Laden wasn't the only high ranking Al Qaeda official killed. See? Obama is killing real terrorists. Bush was killing Iraqis..and calling them terrorists.

 

[freedombecki]

You mean besides that whole 9/11 thingy, right?

]

I think he meant within or from Iraq itself...

To be fair to Bush, the first guy to raise the whole spectre of a Saddam/Bin laden alliance was Bill Clinton, who mentioned Iraq four times in the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden after the Embassy bombings.

This was to raise Bin Laden's street cred, not Saddam. Everyone already thought Saddam was evil. Even Democrats.

In any case..it was a stupid assertion. The two absolutely hated each other. Bin Laden referred to Saddam Hussien as an infidel, hated his "secular" government and the fact he was attacking other muslim states. He was enraged that the Saudis asked for US help as opposed to him and his holy band of craptacular "warriors".

That's quite true in the early stages. Saddam was able to win bin Laden over by providing $25,000 checks for "martyrs" of 9/11 and for al Qaeda engaged in Afghanistan's whipping. By the time al Qaeda was whipped by American Troops in Afghan country, bin Laden accepted the 10 Jumbo Jets Saddam sent to "rescue" al Qaeda's wounded and escapees, and his opening of a couple of his palaces for their continuing terrorism training and activities to poison the world for America. Saddam became bin Laden's right arm, even more so than his acknowledged generals.

The Iraq war was 100% necessary to prevent regrouping of these forces Saddam brought into his country with the hope of being named leader of the Middle East someday. Bin Laden just fled for his life.

We had to go to Iraq, and there was no way we could put a lid on al Qaeda but to do just that.

Everyone in the Congress thought so too, except one: Senator Barack Obama who launched the only no vote. The spinning started and just kept going and blowing.

There wasn't one truth in saying Bush was wrong to go to Iraq. The generals knew he had to agree to let them finish the job, and Saddam had plans on killing a lot more Americans than you will ever know.

Those records were found in one of Saddam's palaces that had 7,000,000+ pages of detailed information on terrorism worldwide and Saddam's generosity to the winners with checks for the dead soldiers families, and playing shell games with UN weapons inspectors when they came to find the nuclear arsenal he claimed many times he had possession of and was going to strike the enemies of al Qaeda, Hamas, and all other Muslims with an axe to grind.

Saddam was going to be the Pollyanna of murdering Americans. It is just that simple my friend, and there are 25 years of State Department memos on Iraq's Saddam Hussein from 1979 that told us Saddam was a bad dude and is why both Reagan and Bush I decided not to help him any more than they had to--because he was also going after neighbors and dissidents in his own country with mass weapons of destruction.

Please review the evidence a little more, Mr. Sallow. Presidents come and go, but the security of the American people has to be performed, and it's in the Constitution who must perform security measures.

You know it's true somewhere in the back of your mind, too, isn't that so.

 

[starcraftzzz]

That's quite true in the early stages. Saddam was able to win bin Laden over by providing $25,000 checks for "martyrs" of 9/11 and for al Qaeda engaged in Afghanistan's whipping. By the time al Qaeda was whipped by American Troops in Afghan country, bin Laden accepted the 10 Jumbo Jets Saddam sent to "rescue" al Qaeda's wounded and escapees, and his opening of a couple of his palaces for their continuing terrorism training and activities to poison the world for America. Saddam became bin Laden's right arm, even more so than his acknowledged generals.

What fantasy world do you live in?

The Iraq war was 100% necessary to prevent regrouping of these forces Saddam brought into his country with the hope of being named leader of the Middle East someday. Bin Laden just fled for his life.

YTes invading a country that had nothing to do with Al-queda/terrorism was totally necessary. It is amazing how damn stupid righjt-wingers are.

We had to go to Iraq, and there was no way we could put a lid on al Qaeda but to do just that.

So we had to invade a country that had nothign to do with al qaeda in order to get a lid on al qaeda... yes you do sound like a retard

 

[starcraftzzz]

It's hard to take obama assuming the mantle of greatness over Bin Ladin when obama eventually banned the interrogation techniques that led to his end.

Yes and unicorns and magic is real.

If Romney had said that he would spend billions of dollars and moving heaven and earth to get Bin Ladin, democrats would be screaming about starving children and birth control robbed to pay to get one old man who was hiding out.

I see so according toy ou democrats attacking romney for saying he would not kill bin laden means democrats secretly wanted bin laden to live.

If democrats had their way, if it was up to obama, we never would have gotten Bin Ladin.

Bin Laden is dead due to Obama's polciies polcieis that the GOP opposed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would never have been made uncomfortable, he would never have been waterboarded he would never have given up the information.

Considering that Sheikh gave us no information pertaning to the whereabouts of Bin laden your statement just proves that you are a clueless dumbass

Getting Bin Ladin is an exercise in vanity. Romney was right. Bin Ladin wasn't magic, he will be replaced by other terror leaders.

Well consideirng under Obama more Al-queda leaders have been killed in 1 year then all 6 of Bushes years we can cocnldue that Bin ladens replacement will not last long

 

[Flopper]

How does Barry get that Mitt Romney wouldn't have gone ahead and taken out Bin Laden given the same opportunity? Sorry folks but Romney is right...I don't see ANY President not making that call...including Jimmy Carter.

It's rather sad...and telling...that Barack Obama is SO desperate for something good to point at after almost four years in office that he's using the death of Osama Bin Laden as proof that he's a great President.

But then again...should anyone be surprised by this? He sure can't run on ObamaCare or his handling of the economy. A majority of Americans don't like the former and think he's clueless about the latter.

I don't know about healthcare but he'll certainly run on the economy.

Now THAT is amusing, Flopper! You do realize that 13 million people are still unemployed and a huge number more are "underemployed" meaning they are working part time even though they wish to be working full time? And Barry's plan to fix this problem is...drumroll please..."the Buffett Rule"!!! Don't you think it's time to admit that this Administration has no economic plan going forward? All they've given us over the past two years is a request for a watered down version of the stimulus plan that didn't work the first time around and a request for higher taxes on the wealthy that they know will never be passed and even if it were passed would pay for about one day of our nation's spending. What is Barack Obama's PLAN to fix our economy? What's his PLAN to stimulate job growth? The truth is he doesn't have one and hasn't since Larry Summers and Christina Romer both skedaddled on him. So why would the American electorate vote someone who's run out of ideas to fix our problems back into office?

I realize that unemployment is down, industrial production is rising, the stock has doubled, retail sales are up and gas prices are falling. You would have to be blind to not see that the economy is improving. The president not only should but must make an issue of the recovering economy.

IMHO, Obama can make a very good case for the slow recovery. He inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, one in which economist predicted a slow recovery.

 

[Chris]

Bush had ZERO to do with nailing Bin Laden. He let him escape at Tora Bora, flailed around for 7 years and failed to catch him, dragged the nation through two botched wars and broke the bank in the process, pranced around on an aircraft carrier and declared "mission accomplish". Obama marched in and whacked America's number one enemy in only two years and Romney criticized him for saying he would nail Bin Laden in Pakistan and now wants to say "me too". Boy, the GOP are shaking that etch-a-sketch just as hard as they can aren't they?

 

[Misty]

"Osama bin Laden was the most historically notable emir, or commander, and Senior Operations Chief of al-Qaida prior to his assassination on May 1, 2011 by US forces. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's Deputy Operations Chief prior to bin Laden's death, has assumed the role of commander as announced by al-Qaida on June 16, 2011, replacing Saif al-Adel, who served as interim commander.

As of August 6, 2010, the chief of operations was considered to be Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah, replacing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."

al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now there is a new emir. Bin laden is dead but al Qaida lives on.

 

[Misty]

Why do I have to keep reminding liberals that their guys constantly talked about the dangers of wmd's and saddam but did nothing about it but talk.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

[Chris]

Obama: Bin Laden – Shoot to kill – gone
Somalia Hijackers – Shoot to kill – result hijackers killed, captain saved
Somalia Rescue – result hostages saved
All operations zero American Killed
Thank You Mr. President, Navy Seals, all who participated.

Who do you want to answer the phone in the White House at 3:00 am?

 

[Misty]

"Al-Qaida in Iraq lost much momentum this April, when its two main leaders, Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, were killed in clashes with U.S. and Iraqi forces. Losing these two men meant losing any personal connection with top al-Qaida leaders who are hiding along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Now, al-Qaida in Iraq might have decided that an Islamic state is no longer a viable goal, says Lt. Col. Michael Marti, the senior U.S. intelligence officer in northern Iraq."

Al-Qaida In Iraq Weakened But Still Dangerous

Hmmmm looks like Iraq war did weaken al Qaida more than the death of bin laden.