Romney: C’mon, even Jimmy Carter would have given the order to take out Bin Laden

posted at 4:43 pm on April 30, 2012 by Allahpundit

A hard jab at O that has the added benefit of being true. Jimmeh gave the order for Operation Eagle Claw; why wouldn’t he give the order to liquidate OBL? The politics of counterterrorism being what they are, it’s easier for a president to err on the side of aggression than passivity. If Obama had sent in the SEALs and things had gone wrong, it would have been embarrassing and politically damaging but O could always plead that his motives were pure and that he’d been duly diligent. He was after Public Enemy Number One, he had decent intel, and he’d assigned the best troops in the world to the mission. By 2011, respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty on something like this was pure folly given the depth of ISI’s treachery in Afghanistan for the past 10 years. In fact, here’s a sensational tidbit about the raid buried in Newsweek’s new story on the hunt for Zawahiri:

“There are indicators that some elements of the Pakistani government may be protecting Zawahiri,” says a U.S. intel official who did not want to be named discussing sensitive information. “We have reports that he’s been hanging out in Karachi for brief periods, and we just don’t think he’s going to be doing that without a lot of people knowing about it.”…

The distrust only got worse after the bin Laden raid. President Obama, fearing a leak, ordered that Pakistan be kept in the dark. The United States, in fact, expected that the Navy SEALs would bring back evidence that Pakistani intelligence was cooperating with al Qaeda. Newsweek has learned that shortly after the SEALs stormed bin Laden’s hideout, federal prosecutors were laying the groundwork to issue sealed indictments against members of the Pakistani government or anyone else they believed had aided bin Laden. The charge, according to two law-enforcement sources, would have been “harboring a fugitive terrorist.”

The SEALs carted away boxes of computers, hard drives, thumb drives, DVDs, and thousands of documents. It was the greatest intel haul on al Qaeda’s operations and habits since 9/11: 3.4 terabytes of information, according to an intelligence source, including a personal journal by bin Laden, outlines for aspirational plots, cellphone numbers, and other contact information for al Qaeda allies. No smoking gun on Pakistani complicity was found, however, and no indictments were returned.

Romney’s taking heat today for having scolded Obama in 2007 over his willingness to cross an ally’s borders to grab Bin Laden, but that was a closer call at the time than it is now. No one was under any illusions then either about ISI double-dealing, but Musharraf seemed to have more control over the agency than Kayani or the current weak civilian government does and he was on better terms with the U.S. than Pakistan is now after another five years of proxy terror in Afghanistan. In fact, the risk of seeing him toppled in the aftermath of a U.S. cross-border incursion was one of the arguments against it, which helps explain why even prominent Democrats at the time challenged Obama on his plan. Five years later, with Musharraf gone and U.S. trust in Pakistan deteriorated to the point where the DOJ was actually preparing terrorism indictments against its leaders, your options on grabbing a top jihadi inside its borders are straightforward. Either you do it or it’s not getting done.

That’s one reason O felt pressured to act. The other reason, as I mentioned up top, is that the politics of this issue simply do not allow for passivity. Obama must have considered what the reaction would be if he’d declined to give the order and the NYT dropped a bombshell six months later about how Bin Laden had been living in Abbottabad and recently left — and that O and the CIA suspected he was there but had refused to act. The GOP would have destroyed him over it. He would have been finished politically. That’s why, when Bush was asked by CNN waaay back in 2006 whether he’d send troops into Pakistan to get Bin Laden — and remember, this was when his pal Musharraf was still in charge — he answered, “Absolutely.” When you’re president and someone asks you a question about whether you’d do X, Y, or Z to get the guy responsible for 9/11, the answer’s always going to be “absolutely,” even if there are truly significant risks to whatever X, Y, or Z might be.

In the end, I think David Frum’s right that the tough call wasn’t whether to give the order but whether to put boots on the ground or just bomb the compound to smithereens and hope that OBL was there. Sending in troops was riskier because having the SEALs taken prisoner or killed in action in a futile effort would have been very hard for O to explain, but I’m not so sure it was much riskier than bombing. An airstrike deep inside Pakistan, right down the road from the military academy, would have been extremely provocative. The target might have been so devastated that there’d be no way to tell if Bin Laden was a casualty or not. In fact, even if he was there and ended up dead in the rubble, ISI surely would have scooped up the body, ferried it away, and then claimed that the bomb had destroyed an orphanage or something. If you’re going to gamble on something like this, you at least want to be sure that you’ve got your man. Sending troops was the only way.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

SECOND LOOK AT JIMMY CARTER!

Good Lt on April 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Everyone already knows Jimmy Carter was one of the fiercest military leaders the USA has ever had, so Obama’s in good company.

MJZZZ on April 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

awesome answer… the more Obama can be associated with JIMMY CARTER the better our chances in the fall..

gatorboy on April 30, 2012 at 4:50 PM

We do know Bill Clinton turned down a chance to get Bin Laden.

So why isn’t Romney bringing up that minor factoid, other than general Republican incompetence?

MNHawk on April 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Keep jabbing…

thebrokenrattle on April 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I think David Frum’s right

Bite your tongue…errr, keyboard, AP!

Regarding this bin Laden attack by Obama, I think it shows how desperate he is. We all knew he’d play up the killing of the dude since it’s his only notable achievement as President(Obamacare is too unpopular and potentially unconstitutional to be touted). And there’s nothing wrong with that. Bush would’ve done likewise.

But this doubling down on the “Romney wouldn’t have ordered the raid” accusation signifies that Obama needs to milk this issue for everything it’s worth, lest he be forced to discuss more important matters like say, the economy.

Doughboy on April 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Nicely done by Mitt. Short, consice, and reminds people that this is a President who is in the running for worst president ever.

milcus on April 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

GREAT response, Mitt.

One thing is for sure, Romney is proving he’s no hapless McCain. He’s not going to let Hussein’s lies go unchallenged.

Which is why McCain lost and Mitt will win.

wildcat72 on April 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Romney in 2007 on whether he’d reserve the right to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan: “Of course…[but] we keep our options quiet”

galtani on April 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

What idiot reporter was even asking him that>

changer1701 on April 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Oh please, SCOAMF had the actionable intelligence for at least 2 weeks and dithered. He had to be dragged off a golf course by Panetta who told him $hit or get off the pot. The only thing Obama did besides give the go-ahed was try and figure out how to place the blame if it failed.

He’s just detestable beyond belief.

Rixon on April 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

We do know Bill Clinton turned down a chance to get Bin Laden.

So why isn’t Romney bringing up that minor factoid, other than general Republican incompetence?

MNHawk on April 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Why would he? That’s got nothing to do with whether Romney would’ve given the order or not.

changer1701 on April 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Ask yourself if, knowing only what was known at the time Carter made his decision, 0bama would have ordered operation Eagle Claw.
On 0bama’s best day, he doesn’t have the honor, integrity or huevos of Carter.

cozmo on April 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Anyone notice Mitt looked a lot like Bush 41 in that picture?

tom on April 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

milcus on April 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM

True dat. PBHO has been spking that football for over a year now. Mitt just took a little air out of it by pointing out that the water boy could have reached the end zone on that play.

MJBrutus on April 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

We do know Bill Clinton turned down a chance to get Bin Laden.

So why isn’t Romney bringing up that minor factoid, other than general Republican incompetence?

MNHawk on April 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Because Clinton is a distraction, his focus is Obama.

thebrokenrattle on April 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM

A hard jab at O that has the added benefit of being true.

Mittens!

I say, I’m beginning to like the cut of your jib, Old Boy!

More high, inside chin music at The One’s noggin and less Johnny Mac roll over and lose nice patheticness?

Hmmm…

Bruno Strozek on April 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Hmmmmm…not sure old “I love Yasir Arafat” Carter would have given the order.

NickDeringer on April 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM

The fact that Obama is touting that this was such a hard call for him to take says more about him than it says about the operation.

AverageJoe on April 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Democrats have been arguing for years that Rethuglicans are evil war-mongering monsters who look for any reason to kill foreigners. I don’t understand Obama trying to get traction against Romney with this when he’s already trying to link him to Barry Goldwater, the guy who was supposed to lead us to nuglar annihilation. The more Obama trots out these desperate campaign tactics, the more I think Obama is going to lose in an epic landslide.

JavelinaBomb on April 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM

The Truth Teller earlier today:

I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. That’s at least been my practice. I said I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.”

Why did I begin to start reading about this? I think I’m going to puke.

CTSherman on April 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Rombo takes it to loser-in-chief and goes back up in Gallup and Rass today. Scared yet Libs?

1984 in real life on April 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Playing this up on the first anniversary of the mission gives Obama a small window of opportunity to play this up (and try to trash Romney in the process). But it’s only the end of April/start of May. Killing Bin Laden won’t buoy him all the way to November. He’s already pretty much shot his wad on the college loan topic. What’s he gonna have left when he needs something the most?

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 4:58 PM

True dat. PBHO has been spking that football for over a year now. Mitt just took a little air out of it by pointing out that the water boy could have reached the end zone on that play.

MJBrutus on April 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

This is not something that will help Obama in November, because during debates, if this comes out again, Romney can just answer the same way. And if Obama tries to run ads, Romney can just bring up how he would have done it even quicker.

This is far from a winner for Obama because I doubt he wants to start talking about his Middle East record of doing nothing about Iran, having terrorists take over in Libya and Egypt, etc…

milcus on April 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM

We do know Bill Clinton turned down a chance to get Bin Laden.

So why isn’t Romney bringing up that minor factoid, other than general Republican incompetence?

MNHawk on April 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Because that was pre-9/11. Any president would have taken the shot at Bin Laden in 2011, including Clinton and Carter. It was a no brainer.

Jon0815 on April 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Ridicule, with a side of mocking laughter. And for dessert? Tie his one good decision to Jimmy Carter’s ability to make, perhaps, one good decision in 4 years of pure failed leadership. Well played, Gov. Romney. Well played.

Rational Thought on April 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Gloves off, Mittens on.

Bmore on April 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I’m going to get so sick of Obama talking about killing Bin Laden that by November I will wish the b*stard was still alive.

Mark1971 on April 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM

16 hours.

Rebar on April 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Meanwhile, Obama is getting our troops killed in Afghanistan to help a bunch of goat herders and drug dealers.

rubberneck on April 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM

and Carter didn’t even eat dogs :O

burrata on April 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Does anyone really think the press would have held Obama responsible if the raid had gone wrong? It was always a win-win for him. Heck, how do we even know this is the first time we tried to get Bin Ladin like this?… http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-us-not-reporting-afghan-attacks-183525507.html

JavelinaBomb on April 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Because that was pre-9/11. Any president would have taken the shot at Bin Laden in 2011, including Clinton and Carter. It was a no brainer.

Jon0815 on April 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Except Ron Paul.

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Mark1971 on April 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I think most people already are and we haven’t reached the anniversary, yet. The more he talks about this and the more his minions promote it, the weaker he looks.

I hope they keep it up.

CTSherman on April 30, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Before I get on this Romney bandwagon, I have one pressing question.

Does Mitt have a vapid, moronic daughter who fancies herself a writer and TV personality?

stvnscott on April 30, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Yes, and he should point out that the leftists hate intelligence operations, even to the point of potentially charging our own operatives for doing their jobs.

Leftists celebrating the taking out of Bin Laden is an insanity, purely and simply. They hate the military, don’t recognize the dangers from our enemies (to them, people with common sense, namely most Republicans, are the actual enemies), and they hate our intelligence operations. They’re also apoplectic about water boarding, and celebrate when state secrets are spread abroad by traitors and leftist reporters. They are, in other words, crazed.

Romney needs to point out again and again that the only reason Bin Laden was located was due to the use of intelligence methods the leftists opposed, and to question why they continually oppose such common sense methods. Romney also needs to point out more broadly that the leftists hate the CIA and are attempting to make massive cuts to our military.

To sum up: The Democratic Party has descended into madness. And they won’t defend freedom. Period.

Allendundit on April 30, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Yeah, Jimmy would have ordered the Abbottabad Raid.

He ordered Eagle Claw.

He also micro-managed Eagle Claw from the first day of its inception .and up until the helo hit the C-130 at Desert One.

Would love to still have clearance and access…would love to be able to see the ‘scripts and records of the Abbottabad Raid.

Did Obama micro-manage?

Was Obama involved at all in the planning?

Other than sign the “finding” how else was Obama involved?

Was it a case of “OK, here is Osama, we have the means and opportunity to “get him” so go do it?”

Or was it a case of “Gee, wonder what’ll happen if one of the helo’s ends up in Islamabad..?”

[Happened at Son Tay...more than a mile and a half from the intended target...but that is another story...and one with some remarkable consequences.]

How involved was Obama?

If he was involved all the way through…then we really need to figure out how to do things right…in case there is a next time.

A no-experience President has no business being involved in the ash and trash and nitty-gritty details of any covert operation…none. Period.

And even an “experienced” President has no business micro-managing any covert operation. Period.

If he wasn’t involved all the way through, then how can Obama “take credit” for killing Osama?

He was merely the guy in the extra chair in the SitRoom that day.

Pretty gutsy.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 5:03 PM

RuPaul is the one who said he would not have ordered the hit and falsley claimed it violated international law…not caring about protecting and defending US Constitution

jp on April 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

No smoking gun on Pakistani complicity was found, however, and no indictments were returned.

Yeah right .
And I am the Great Khali

burrata on April 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Several layers of “win” on that reponse.

* Reminds everyone that Obama is being compared to Carter.

* Reminds people that Republicans are strong on national security.

* Reminds people the Democrats are so weak that they have repeatedly “spiked the football” just to let everyone know that actually got one decision “right”. What does Obama want? I pat on the the head by the American people?

* Reminds people that the “tough” decision was actually the easy decision.

WisRich on April 30, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Man,like the Hopey/Changey Cannibal Eating Dog story,
this OBL Snuffation sure does have legs,and gawd only
kmows,where the next dump will be!!(sarc)

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Carter did try an operation to the free the hostages in Iran. Unfortunately, it failed. IMO, that was probably 50 times riskier than sending seals at midnight to a sleepy town not expecting anything.

rubberneck on April 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Now what about Bill Clinton,didn’t he have about 2 cracks at OBL,but refused the order!?

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM

milcus on April 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Well sure, Egypt has turned to the dark side. And sure Iran is begging for and hopefully will get their a$$es kicked by Israel. And sure he blew the chance in Iran to help overthrow the mullahs. And sure Libya was a complete waste of time and now an AQ playground. And sure Sudan is as bad as it ever was. And sure, Afghanistan is reverting back to form. And sure the US forces are no longer welcome in Iraq. And sure Lebanon is an Islamic sh-thole. And sure Hezbollah has rearmed to the teeth. And sure Abbas has played and keeps playing him for the fool he is.

But hey, he and Madame Smart Power always have the great job they’ve done with Syria to brag about!

MJBrutus on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM

But ya gotta admit, Clinton sure showed the world how to take out an aspirin factory from 650 miles away.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Now what about Bill Clinton,didn’t he have about 2 cracks at OBL,but refused the order!?

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Bill Clinton is old news. He matters as much as Obama trying vainly to make Bush relevant this cycle.

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Obama must have considered what the reaction would be if he’d declined to give the order and the NYT dropped a bombshell six months later about how Bin Laden had been living in Abbottabad and recently left — and that O and the CIA suspected he was there but had refused to act.

O’bama afraid of the NYT doing something to embarrass him?

I don’t think so.

Del Dolemonte on April 30, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Now what about Bill Clinton,didn’t he have about 2 cracks at OBL,but refused the order!?

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM

That was because Clintons found a living OBL more profitable than a dead one

burrata on April 30, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Before I get on this Romney bandwagon, I have one pressing question.

Does Mitt have a vapid, moronic daughter who fancies herself a writer and TV personality?

stvnscott on April 30, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Thankfully, no! Ha!

Rational Thought on April 30, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Obama must have considered what the reaction would be if he’d declined to give the order and the NYT dropped a bombshell six months later about how Bin Laden had been living in Abbottabad and recently left — and that O and the CIA suspected he was there but had refused to act. The GOP would have destroyed him over it. He would have been finished politically.

Say what, AP? If the NYT ran such a story at all, it wouldn’t be until Obama was safely re-elected. No way would they do it when it could hurt his re-election chances.

If Breitbart’s blogs had the story, sure. NYT, LAT, WaPoo… no. No.

fiatboomer on April 30, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Now what about Bill Clinton,didn’t he have about 2 cracks at OBL,but refused the order!?

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM

How’s this for clinton covering his ass.

In September, General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks, armored vehicles and AC-130 Spectre gunships for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aidid’s forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of two U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot (see the Battle of Mogadishu). In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake, but stated that the request for armored equipment had been made within the context of delivering humanitarian aid to Somalia rather than protecting troops. In an appearance before a congressional committee to answer questions about the Somalia disaster, Aspin made an unfavorable impression and appeared weak in response to the detailed probing and criticism of his performance. The president publicly defended Aspin but made clear that the White House was not involved in the decision not to send armor reinforcements to Somalia. Several members of Congress called on Clinton to ask for Aspin’s resignation.

rubberneck on April 30, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Hell, even Gandhi would have given the order.

manwithblackhat on April 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM

and Carter didn’t even eat dogs :O

burrata on April 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM

He ate hushpuppies but not real puppies.

Fallon on April 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM

What was Obama’s real role?

hooligan on April 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Does anyone really think the press would have held Obama responsible if the raid had gone wrong?

He could always blame George Bush.

manwithblackhat on April 30, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Coming soon to theatres near you, the story of Obama’s decision to use the killing of OBL in his campaign ads …….

PAH-KEES-STAHN BACK-FIRE

fogw on April 30, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Biden said that Zero risked his presidency to order that raid.

Uncommon valor indeed.

CorporatePiggy on April 30, 2012 at 5:17 PM

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM
————————————–

But ya gotta admit, Clinton sure showed the world how to take out an aspirin factory from 650 miles away.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM

coldwarrior:

Why yes he did,p*ssing off more of,who pray towards Mecca!:)

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:19 PM

It’s insane O going after Mitt on Bin Laden, as if he is trying to tack further right than the Repub, when, as Drudge is highlighting now http://cnsnews.com/blog/dan-gainor/occupy-promises-biggest-shut-down-city-new-york-has-ever-seen-blockade-san-fran the Occupiers are just insane looney left, and O supports them. Here’s my comment at the link:

F N nuts! Yes, O & Pelosi have been behind these wacks, fanning the flames. We need a prez who’s going to shut these loons down quick, and keep it that way.

anotherJoe on April 30, 2012 at 5:19 PM

CorporatePiggy on April 30, 2012 at 5:17 PM

But, you do know Biden’s plan was to divide the Abbottabad compound into three separate autonomous entities…and he cribbed the idea off a speech a former British PM had written. :-)

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 5:20 PM

The fact that Obama thinks such a no-brainer of a decision is actually a brave and “gutsy” call says more about Obama than anything.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Our President lies so easily he believes his own lies. The mission to take out Bin Laden was underway when Obama was notified as such and when it was finished successfully he crows like a rooster. He did not call the shot.

mixplix on April 30, 2012 at 5:21 PM

What was Obama’s real role?

hooligan on April 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM

He provided pup-corn for the viewing party at his house !

burrata on April 30, 2012 at 5:24 PM

The president publicly defended Aspin but made clear that the White House was not involved in the decision not to send armor reinforcements to Somalia. Several members of Congress called on Clinton to ask for Aspin’s resignation.

rubberneck on April 30, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Clinton did make the call to cut and run after Black Hawk Down, encouraging global terrorists to believe they could attack US assets with relative impunity. bin Laden made this point repeatedly, using Somalia as an example.

I can’t help but wonder how much differently history would have unfolded if a president whose main priority was the country’s security had gone back in and captured Aidad, no matter the cost, sending a very different message to the bloody terrorist scum.

novaculus on April 30, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I’ve come to believe that the politically dangerous choice for Obama would have been not going after bin Laden. If word had ever leaked that he’d chickened out the way Bill Clinton did, that would have been extremely damaging.

NeighborhoodCatLady on April 30, 2012 at 5:27 PM

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM
That was because Clintons found a living OBL more profitable than a dead one

burrata on April 30, 2012 at 5:10 PM

burrata:Could be,Bill wasn’t to happy with the movie,er,
Documentry,Path to 9/11!:)
================================

Heres the scene where OBL is targetted,and the assurance that
authorization is needed!

Path to 9/11, Part One, Section 11
**********************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqzR4Km1_yI&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLC3AD8E202CD02727

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Mitt spikes Barry. Spin that one Axelrod.

BHO Jonestown on April 30, 2012 at 5:29 PM

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM
————————————-

Bill Clinton is old news. He matters as much as Obama trying vainly to make Bush relevant this cycle.

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Bitter Clinger:

Yes,I agree on old news,but,it is a patternization of Lefty Leaders
who hold out,and then pull out,at the last minute!:)

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:30 PM

…IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID…!!!

KOOLAID2 on April 30, 2012 at 5:34 PM

We do know Bill Clinton turned down a chance to get Bin Laden.

MNHawk on April 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

No, it was actually the GOP that created a huge PR campaign against it. I still remember those days. The GOP was relentless against Clinton for wanting to go after Al-Qaeda. He was getting hassled just for having a no fly zone over parts of Iraq.

I want Obama out of office as much as anyone, but spewing lies about this isn’t helping.

MrX on April 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM
————————————–

The president publicly defended Aspin but made clear that the White House was not involved in the decision not to send armor reinforcements to Somalia. Several members of Congress called on Clinton to ask for Aspin’s resignation.

rubberneck on April 30, 2012 at 5:13 PM

rubberneck:Good gawd,it sounds like gunships/armour were turned
down twice,before/after the attempted assault,btw,
thabks for that,mentioned it on a thread yesterday!:)

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The fact that Obama thinks such a no-brainer of a decision is actually a brave and “gutsy” call says more about Obama than anything.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Bingo!

This is not the kind of thing that Hillary was talking about in the “unfair” 3am phone call ad that the left was squealing about.

Then again, maybe it was. It evidentally took everything The One has, just to make this Gutsy Call. Makes me wonder what OTHER calls he hasn’t made that would have been just as gusty if only he had made them.

Lily on April 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Bill Clinton is old news……
Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Then how do we explain Huma ?

burrata on April 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM

burrata on April 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Comfortable shoes?

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Well played, Mr. Romney!

Methinks I heard the pop – or was it a slow hiss – as Obama’s latest desperate talking-point bubble was burst.

Drained Brain on April 30, 2012 at 5:46 PM

People need to use there imagination and put themselves into the shoes of Obama. Think “what decision would I have made if I were president right then?”

I would bet almost everyone would say of “course I would have attacked Osama.”And if the answer comes so easily then I wouldn’t say it was a “gutsy” call.

I only see it “gutsy” as far as Obama’s own political career goes. I guess it could have hurt him politically if things went bad. So Obama is bragging about how brave he was to put the needs of his country before the needs of his reelection. Gee thanks. The President acted presidential.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM

What a dumb line of attack.

Is there really a single voter that would buy that any President would not have made this order? Especially a Republican?

If anything, I see this ridiculous attack backfiring on Obama badly.

Never try to “out-hawk” a Republican, it’s the equivalent of a Republican trying to outspend a Democrat.

BradTank on April 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Except Ron Paul.

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 5:01 PM

We’ll never know for sure since that old crank will never be the president…

Odysseus on April 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Credit where credit is due, that was a very good response Mr.Romney.

Even Carter, libtard nitwit though he was, had the guts to try and fix the hugh-jass mistake he’d made. And not by sending strongly worded letters or sanctions, but by the only method those sand fleas understand – the language of hot lead and death.

The effort failed…but he tried.

MelonCollie on April 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM

We live in an upside-down world.

Obama would get a lot more mileage on bin laden’s death if – instead of making it about Obama – he would brag on how awesome the special forces are.

Instead, there’s not a word about those that actually risked their lives…it’s all about how desk jockies watched the heroism on a video screen….bizarre…

Deafdog on April 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM

So why isn’t Romney bringing up that minor factoid, other than general Republican incompetence?

MNHawk on April 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

What?

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM

We live in an upside-down world.

Obama would get a lot more mileage on bin laden’s death if – instead of making it about Obama – he would brag on how awesome the special forces are.

Instead, there’s not a word about those that actually risked their lives…it’s all about how desk jockies watched the heroism on a video screen….bizarre…

Deafdog on April 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM

We expect presidents to evidence a certain amount of grace and strength…this is just tacky.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Romney’s taking heat today for having scolded Obama in 2007 over his willingness to cross an ally’s borders to grab Bin Laden, but that was a closer call at the time than it is now.

Actually, Mitt only scolded Obama for admitting that we would cross an ally’s borders to grab Bin Laden. Even Hillary gave Mr. Perfect crap for that diplomatic boner.

Mr. Arkadin on April 30, 2012 at 6:18 PM

What was Obama’s real role?

hooligan on April 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Hogging all the credit?

Del Dolemonte on April 30, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 30, 2012 at 6:20 PM

ding ding ding

cmsinaz on April 30, 2012 at 6:22 PM

We do know Bill Clinton turned down a chance to get Bin Laden.

MNHawk on April 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM

No, it was actually the GOP that created a huge PR campaign against it. I still remember those days. The GOP was relentless against Clinton for wanting to go after Al-Qaeda. He was getting hassled just for having a no fly zone over parts of Iraq.

I want Obama out of office as much as anyone, but spewing lies about this isn’t helping.

Chelsea Clinton on April 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Not a Lie at all.

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden’s extradition to the U.S., saying, “At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.”

At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president’s attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha’s home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden’s residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter’s book “Losing bin Laden.”

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.

Then came the bombshell offer:

“If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden,” Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

Del Dolemonte on April 30, 2012 at 6:24 PM

A hard jab at O that has the added benefit of being true. Jimmeh gave the order for Operation Eagle Claw; why wouldn’t he give the order to liquidate OBL?

Probably because of Operation Eagle Claw. Carter would curl up into a ball and shudder in fear of a repeat.

As I recall, Carter also sent the Saudis fighter jets, but they came completely unarmed.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Would love to still have clearance and access…would love to be able to see the ‘scripts and records of the Abbottabad Raid.

He was merely the guy in the extra chair in the SitRoom that day.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 5:03 PM

..good call, CW. Ain’t it the truth! I went off active duty too soon for the Carter Desert One fiasco. My buds in Bellview (yes, it trickled back there as well) said he did micromanage it too much.

Two things keep coming back to me on this: (1) That picture of that pathetic little man scrunched down in that janitor’s closed looking like hired help just looking on. (2) How much this is getting to be like his “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty” moment.

The War Planner on April 30, 2012 at 6:28 PM

But let me understand this … Assassinations good, Waterboarding Bad.

It’s good that there is no such thing as an honest Liberal.

FlaMurph on April 30, 2012 at 6:36 PM

How do we know Bin Laden’s even dead?

We never saw any pictures.

profitsbeard on April 30, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Obama must have considered what the reaction would be if he’d declined to give the order and the NYT dropped a bombshell six months later about how Bin Laden had been living in Abbottabad and recently left — and that O and the CIA suspected he was there but had refused to act. The GOP would have destroyed him over it.

It wouldn’t have worked. After all, Clinton let Osama walk, and he didn’t suffer one bit. In fact, the Cole incident could have been tied to Clinton but the MSM never bothered.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM

FlaMurph on April 30, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Wasn’t the crux of the liberal argument back in the day that waterboarding was torture because it left lasting damage to the victim…mental trauma and all that?

Seems to me that a 147-grain 9mm projectile or the business end of a Hellfire leaves a bit more lasting damage to the victim.

But, under Obama is is perfectly OK and preferred, and spiking the ball about it is to be expected because Obama actually killed Osama and that GW Bush guy didn’t?

The War Planner on April 30, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Got to play with a few guys from over at the old stockade at Benning back in the day, and later was involved (but not directly) in a few that some wonderful professional operators accomplished.

Once the go-ahead is given, the planning and operational details and training/rehearsals are carried out. Once the guys get on the aircraft/boat, whatever, and are heading toward the target, one of the most difficult aspects to deal with (on the ground, as an operator or back at planning staff0 is that element of doubt. Not that we can’t perform as trained, but that doubt having somebody farther up the chain decide that wait a minute, maybe we shouldn’t try it this way…for whatever reasons.

Coming down off an intense mission-driven adrenalin high is one thing with a good mission done.

Being forced to stop in the middle of it all for no apparent reason other than somebody somewhere getting cold feet or micro-managing from 2500 miles away is a serious downer.

And tremendously risky in ways most cannot fathom.

Getting out is a hell of a lot more difficult than getting in. Getting out when you’ve had the rug pulled out from under you can get folks killed needlessly.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM

the GOP: the party of catastrophic terror attacks on their watch and invading/occupying countries w/ no WMD’s.

oh yes, let’s trust the GOP on national security yet again shall we?

DBear on April 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM

If you’re going to gamble on something like this, you at least want to be sure that you’ve got your man. Sending troops was the only way.

I agree. It was a damned if we do, damned if we don’t mission. The intel wasn’t entirely firm, but, is it ever really firm??? It was an audacious mission to pull off right under the Paki’s noses, and it went well. How much political mileage you can get out of it??? Eh…..debatable.

ted c on April 30, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2