[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where's the evidence that a President Romney (or any conservative Republican president) would have 'made the call' to take Osama bin Laden out?
Seriously!
Does everyone remember how OBL got away in Tora Bora when Bush failed to authorize pursuit by US troops and instead 'farmed out' the pursuit to Afghanistan forces who were notoriously well-known for switching sides or supporting whichever side paid them? If not, certainly everyone remembers Bush clearly stating that he didn't spend much time thinking about bin Laden, right? Perhaps a couple of Bush quotes from March 13, 2002 will refresh everyones' memories.
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts
And do people remember all those terrorist alerts from when Bush was president...including the ones right around Christmas? OBL was one hell of a bogey man, wasn't he? As long as he was alive and free, that is.
And let's talk about 'politicizing' OBL, as Obama is supposedly doing now. Does everyone remember how Bush, and especially Cheney, promoted the idea that only THEY could keep America safe? How about the ads that were run against GA Democrat Senator Max Cleland in 2002 where likenesses of OBL and Saddam Hussein were run in the ads suggesting that Cleland was weak on protecting America?
And what about the well-documented statements of the 2008 GOP nominee, John McCain, and the presumptive 2012 GOP nominee, Mitt Romney where they both criticized Obama's statements about being willing to go after OBL in Pakistan, with or without Pakistan's cooperation? Both McCain and Romney took exception to Obama's statements. So, why should we believe that they would have acted differently when the time came to make the decision? Mitt Romney also stated that it wasn't a priority and that the cost was prohibitively high to go after just one man. Really? And let's not forget the potential political cost if the mission had failed.
Hey, anyone can SAY that they would have done what President Obama did one year ago when he ordered the Seals to attack the compound when there was no direct evidence that OBL was there. But look at what Bush said and did (or more specifically did not do). And look at the statements of the 2008 GOP nominee and the statements the 2012 GOP nominee made when bin Laden was still alive and on the loose to release videos and threats whenever he pleased.
So, again, I ask where the evidence is that John McCain and/or Mitt Romney (if elected and in office) would have gone after bin Laden? Frankly, the opposite seems more true to me. It seems to me that they thought bin Laden was more valuable as some kind of nebulous and shadowy threat who the GOP could use in terror alerts and campaign ads if they thought it would help get them elected (or re-elected like it helped get Bush re-elected in 2004).
And now? Osama bin Laden is gone, and the GOP can't use him to drum up fear anymore. Maybe that is the real reason the GOP is upset. That, and the fact that President Obama is the one who gave the order that took OBL out. Just like he said he would do!
So, maybe a couple of follow-up questions should be these: Are GOP presidential candidates men of their word when they make statements and ask everyone to take them at their word? Or will they just say anything? Considering the fact that even conservatives think that Mitt Romney isn't genuine in his current embrace of 'conservative principles,' why should anyone else believe their candidate if they don't even trust to say what he really thinks and believes? [/FONT][/FONT]
Seriously!
Does everyone remember how OBL got away in Tora Bora when Bush failed to authorize pursuit by US troops and instead 'farmed out' the pursuit to Afghanistan forces who were notoriously well-known for switching sides or supporting whichever side paid them? If not, certainly everyone remembers Bush clearly stating that he didn't spend much time thinking about bin Laden, right? Perhaps a couple of Bush quotes from March 13, 2002 will refresh everyones' memories.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I am truly not that concerned about him."- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02[/FONT]
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts
And do people remember all those terrorist alerts from when Bush was president...including the ones right around Christmas? OBL was one hell of a bogey man, wasn't he? As long as he was alive and free, that is.
And let's talk about 'politicizing' OBL, as Obama is supposedly doing now. Does everyone remember how Bush, and especially Cheney, promoted the idea that only THEY could keep America safe? How about the ads that were run against GA Democrat Senator Max Cleland in 2002 where likenesses of OBL and Saddam Hussein were run in the ads suggesting that Cleland was weak on protecting America?
And what about the well-documented statements of the 2008 GOP nominee, John McCain, and the presumptive 2012 GOP nominee, Mitt Romney where they both criticized Obama's statements about being willing to go after OBL in Pakistan, with or without Pakistan's cooperation? Both McCain and Romney took exception to Obama's statements. So, why should we believe that they would have acted differently when the time came to make the decision? Mitt Romney also stated that it wasn't a priority and that the cost was prohibitively high to go after just one man. Really? And let's not forget the potential political cost if the mission had failed.
Hey, anyone can SAY that they would have done what President Obama did one year ago when he ordered the Seals to attack the compound when there was no direct evidence that OBL was there. But look at what Bush said and did (or more specifically did not do). And look at the statements of the 2008 GOP nominee and the statements the 2012 GOP nominee made when bin Laden was still alive and on the loose to release videos and threats whenever he pleased.
So, again, I ask where the evidence is that John McCain and/or Mitt Romney (if elected and in office) would have gone after bin Laden? Frankly, the opposite seems more true to me. It seems to me that they thought bin Laden was more valuable as some kind of nebulous and shadowy threat who the GOP could use in terror alerts and campaign ads if they thought it would help get them elected (or re-elected like it helped get Bush re-elected in 2004).
And now? Osama bin Laden is gone, and the GOP can't use him to drum up fear anymore. Maybe that is the real reason the GOP is upset. That, and the fact that President Obama is the one who gave the order that took OBL out. Just like he said he would do!
So, maybe a couple of follow-up questions should be these: Are GOP presidential candidates men of their word when they make statements and ask everyone to take them at their word? Or will they just say anything? Considering the fact that even conservatives think that Mitt Romney isn't genuine in his current embrace of 'conservative principles,' why should anyone else believe their candidate if they don't even trust to say what he really thinks and believes? [/FONT][/FONT]
Last edited:
