Where's the evidence that Romney would have taken out bin Laden if he was President??

[blackhawk]

Do Mormons join the military?

I would say yes they do.

 

[Lakhota]

Okay, let's "assume" a President Romney would have given the same order to take out bin Laden in Pakistan. Okay, now let's look at reality: Obama was the President who actually gave the order, which allows him to take credit as President and use it to seek re-election. Bush politicized 9/11 to help him defeat John Kerry in 2004.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

[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.

[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, 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]

How the hell can there be evidence of what someone might have done?

You're a complete fucking idiot, you really are.

 

[Salt Jones]

[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.

[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, 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]

How the hell can there be evidence of what someone might have done?

You're a complete fucking idiot, you really are.

Romney said he wouldn't in 2007 and 2008. Was he lying then or now?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

[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.

[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, 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]

How the hell can there be evidence of what someone might have done?

You're a complete fucking idiot, you really are.

Romney said he wouldn't in 2007 and 2008. Was he lying then or now?

Hardly evidence that he wouldn't if he were actually CiC. Shit, Obama said he'd have cut the deficit in half by now.. how'd that work out?

 

[Lakhota]

•McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Romney Said We Shouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Bush Couldn't Get Bin Laden, Period.

McCain, Romney and Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden in Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

 

[The Infidel]

•McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Romney Said We Shouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Bush Couldn't Get Bin Laden, Period.

McCain, Romney and Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden in Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

Obama would not have gotten Osama without Bush era policies so fuck off troll.

 

[Salt Jones]

•McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Romney Said We Shouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Bush Couldn't Get Bin Laden, Period.

McCain, Romney and Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden in Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

Obama would not have gotten Osama without Bush era policies so fuck off troll.

What policies? Disbanding the bin laden group at the CIA?

 

[Lakhota]

•McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Romney Said We Shouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Bush Couldn't Get Bin Laden, Period.

McCain, Romney and Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden in Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

Hi, you have received -629 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Obama would not have gotten Osama without Bush era policies so fuck off troll

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

Aw, the poor little wingnut baby can't handle the truth without negging...

 

[AmericanFirst]

[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.

[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, 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]

Where is the evidence that libtards actually can say anything truthfully without twisting it to make it look good for their sorry a%$es? I haven't seen any evidence yet. Obamaturd gave the go ahead on standing orders from BUSH!!! Yeah, burst that butt kissing bubble doesn't it? GOOD!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

•McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Romney Said We Shouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Bush Couldn't Get Bin Laden, Period.

McCain, Romney and Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden in Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

Hi, you have received -629 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Obama would not have gotten Osama without Bush era policies so fuck off troll

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

Aw, the poor little wingnut baby can't handle the truth without negging...

No problem since there is very little truth that comes from the idiot left. Again, obamaturd just gave the nod on standing orders from BUSH!!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

Better question:

Q: Where is the evidence that Obama really did kill Bin Laden?

A: Um....at the bottom on an ocean, and in photos that supposedly Americans are too sensitive to deserve to see.

So....um...yeah.

Like his sealed records, UNBELIEVABLE!!!

 

[Lakhota]

Obama got Osama, waaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[AmericanFirst]

Romney said he would've taken out bin laden.

Clinton had a chance to get bin laden and didn't before 9-11.

Obama gets the credit cuz he was president at the time and I admit I didn't think he had the stones to do it. But he did and that's awesome.

But the economy is in the toilet and Obama can't won't doesn't know how to
fix it without offending his lame government dependent base.

Let's try and use some logic, shall we?

If Clinton had a chance to get bin Laden (and didn't) before 9-11, didn't Bush 43 also have a chance to get OBL before 9-11 and didn't?

It's a very good question, especially in light of the USS Cole bombing which took place right before the 2000 election. So, wasn't the attack on the USS Cole a renewed indication that bin Laden and al Qaeda were both a current and ongoing threat to the US and US interests? Why didn't Bush take action when he came into office?

Logic and the idiot left do not mix. Clinton was practically handed bin ladens head on a platter and didn't, and still doesn't, have the stones to do anything. Idiot.

 

[The Infidel]

•McCain Said He Wouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Romney Said We Shouldn't Go After Bin Laden in Pakistan.
•Bush Couldn't Get Bin Laden, Period.

McCain, Romney and Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden in Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

Hi, you have received -629 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Obama would not have gotten Osama without Bush era policies so fuck off troll

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

Aw, the poor little wingnut baby can't handle the truth without negging...

Am I lying ya bastard?

I will neg you every time I see you lying.... if ya dont like it, STOP FUCKING LYING..!

 

[AmericanFirst]

I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence.

And I asked you if you had a time machine. How else can we come up with "evidence" of something that may or may not have occurred in an alternate reality?

A person's statements are generally considered to be a reflection of their beliefs and intentions. If you can show me statements made by Romney that indicated he considered finding and then either killing or capturing bin Laden to be an important goal, that would count as evidence.

Then on that premise, obamaturd is a two faced liar. Go figure.

 

[Salt Jones]

McCain, Romney and Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden in Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

Hi, you have received -629 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Obama would not have gotten Osama without Bush era policies so fuck off troll

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

Aw, the poor little wingnut baby can't handle the truth without negging...

Am I lying ya bastard?

I will neg you every time I see you lying.... if ya dont like it, STOP FUCKING LYING..!

Which bush era policies?

 

[Salt Jones]

And I asked you if you had a time machine. How else can we come up with "evidence" of something that may or may not have occurred in an alternate reality?

A person's statements are generally considered to be a reflection of their beliefs and intentions. If you can show me statements made by Romney that indicated he considered finding and then either killing or capturing bin Laden to be an important goal, that would count as evidence.

Then on that premise, obamaturd is a two faced liar. Go figure.

Is Romney lying now or then?

 

[Lakhota]

McCain, Romney and Bush Wouldn't, Shouldn't, Couldn't Get Bin Laden in Pakistan | Crooks and Liars

Hi, you have received -629 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Obama would not have gotten Osama without Bush era policies so fuck off troll

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

Aw, the poor little wingnut baby can't handle the truth without negging...

Am I lying ya bastard?

I will neg you every time I see you lying.... if ya dont like it, STOP FUCKING LYING..!

Okay, give us the facts. Give us "credible" proof that Bush policies led to the bin Laden compound in Pakistan. Please, none of that false waterboarding bullshit that Panetta and McCain have denied...

BTW, how in the hell was Bush ever going to find bin Laden in Iraq? I repeat, Iraq?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Mustang, how do you honestly expect ANYBODY to answer your question?

You are expecting somebody to provide "evidence" to support what a "President Romney" would have done if he had had the opportunity to give the order to take out Bin Laden.

This is one of SILLIEST topics I have ever seen on this forum, and that is saying A LOT.

Really? Mittens has answered that question a couple of times. He gives a different answer every time, but we expect that, right?

Its a legit question because we have terrorist enemies all over the world. Its a fact of life now. Why don't we have the right to know if we're voting for another gDub who can't be bothered with anything that does not put money in his pockets or if we're voting for a man who has taken out more of the enemies of the US than any other president. Yealh, that's Obama.

Mitt probably would not.

This close to the election, well, of course his story changed. He'll be doing more of this in the coming weeks - I mean, of course, copying everything President Obama says.

Reality is, he will do what Norquist tells him to do. End of story.

And we DO have the right and obligation to ask phoney Etch A Sketch Mitt every kind of question we can think of.

The real question is why do rw's and pubs say we should not ask questions of the Mittens?

Maybe for the same reason obamaturd doesn't like being questioned, ego. But, romney is still better than obamaturd, any day of the week.