April 27, 2012

Romney would not have killed bin Laden

 Romney would not have killed bin Laden, implies new Obama campaign ad

By Olivier Knox | The Ticket – 9 hrs ago

Ever since Vice President Joe Biden boiled down Obama's 2012 slogan to "bin Laden is dead, GM is alive," it has been clear that the embattled incumbent would not hesitate to use the May 2, 2011, Navy SEAL strike as a political weapon. See the video here

Romney has taken pains to praise Obama for the raid. On Friday, Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul bristled at the video.
"It's now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters' attention from the failures of his administration. 


What do you think of this campaign strategy?
Leave a comment.
Posted by
Labels: , , , , ,

8 comments:

  1. Linda UnderwoodApril 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM

    While I would not necessarily go as far as to say Romney would not have given the go-ahead to take Osama if he were in the SEAL's sights, I think it is fair to remind people that Obama kept his campaign promise to kill Osama Bin Ladin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Schodack SCENEApril 27, 2012 at 9:09 PM

    Is it right that the President should take full credit for killing Bin Laden when "'The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands?'"

    Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/26/the-last-days-of-osama-bin-laden/?iid=sl-main-lede#ixzz1tIDQ7n7j

    ReplyDelete
  3. Linda UnderwoodApril 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM

    Of course the actual execution of the operation was under the control of the military/SEALS. Obama is not a military man with first-hand knowledge of how to pull off an operation like that. But only the president could have given the order to go ahead or even to make it a priority to get Bin Ladin.

    Six months after 9-11 Bush said he "didn't care" about Bin Ladin and didn't make it a priority to spend resources to find him, kill him or bring him to justice. Obama made it a campaign promise and a priority of his administration to hunt Bin Ladin down and squash Al Queda.

    If anything had gone wrong - like Black Hawk down in Somalia under Clinton or the raid to free the hostages in Iran under Carter - there would have been hell to pay. Obama could have played it safe for the sake of his campaign.He didn't. He made good on his campaign promise and took out the man responsible for taking the lives of more than 3,000 people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Schodack SCENEApril 28, 2012 at 9:42 PM

    I just wonder if this is a reasonable campaign strategy...I don't mind your Bush bashing, but you know... "The media were predictably orgasmic over a new Obama campaign ad out Friday featuring former President Bill Clinton in a strong message implying Mitt Romney wouldn't have made the decision last year to kill Osama bin Laden.

    The problem with their glee is that Clinton himself passed up numerous opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden prior to leaving the White House in January 2001 thereby making this entire ad totally hypocritical as is the press's joy for it."

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/04/28/media-miss-hypocrisy-clinton-claiming-romney-wouldnt-have-killed-bin#ixzz1tOBwQlab

    ReplyDelete
  5. Linda UnderwoodApril 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM

    Why isn't it a reasonable campaign strategy? Obama made good on a campaign promise. In 2007, Romney said it was not worth 'moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.'

    So if Romeny wasn't willing to go after him, how can we conclude he would have even known where he was, let alone give the word to pull the trigger?

    And as far as "reasonable campaign strategies" - you have Republicans running ads that are factually wrong about Obama - is that "fair"?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGpaRQodkeo

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Schodack SCENEApril 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM

    Fired up? hahaha Love you Linda. I was just saying the first time I saw Mitt Romney, I thought he "looked" presidential...
    It's like when you see a handsome man and want to get to know him...and then he speaks and, well...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Linda UnderwoodApril 29, 2012 at 1:08 PM

      Sadly, he is not consistent in his policies and he will say anything to get elected.

      Then there is the pesky fact that he hides a great deal of his wealth in off-shore accounts so he can avoid paying taxes to the country that helped him a millionaire, the fact that he supports the very policies that tanked the economy in the first place and the Ryan budget would give an even bigger tax cut to the wealthy while further dismantling the social safety net. -

      Other than that - sure - he is a very telegenic man who looks presidential.

      Delete

Join the conversation.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)