Video: Obama kinda sorta accuses Romney of flip-flopping on Bin Laden

posted at 5:23 pm on April 30, 2012 by Allahpundit

Not really a fair cop — read Morgen’s post yesterday for essential context — but the White House wants to push both the “Romney is more conservative than Barry Goldwater” message and the “Romney stands for nothing” message this fall, no matter how incoherent that might be. So here’s O taking an easy shot at the latter.

Asked about Romney’s comments from earlier this morning belittling how difficult the decision to go after bin Laden may have been, the president said “As far as my personal role and what other folks would do, I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden. I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. That’s been at least my practice.”

The president was alluding to Romney’s 2007 comments about bin Laden that “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” The Obama campaign last Friday released a web ad suggestion that this sentence suggests he would not have been willing to take the risk and order Navy SEALs to cross into Pakistan and infiltrate bin Laden’s Abbotabad compound…

The Romney campaign argues that his 2007 comments about “not moving heaven and earth” to get bin Laden are being unfairly twisted by the president, that the full context indicates that he was saying the war against the extremist Islamist movement was bigger than just one man – not that he wouldn’t go after that one man. According to the Associated Press’s Liz Sidoti, Romney said capturing bin Laden would made the U.S. safer by only “a small percentage” resulting in “a very insignificant increase in safety” since someone else would take bin Laden’s place. Romney supported a broader strategy against.

I explained in the last post why Romney (and Jimmy Carter) would have given the order to go grab Bin Laden given the state of Pakistani treachery circa 2011, so go read that if you haven’t. All I’ll add here is that I’m surprised Obama’s passing on an opportunity to tout his broader record on counterterrorism for a cheap knock on Romney the flip-flopper. Romney’s point in context is that the war on terror is bigger than one man. Indeed, O could say, which is why over the past four years he’s ramped up drone strikes in Pakistan, resulting in the near-collapse of “core Al Qaeda.” WaPo reported within the past week that not only has the drone campaign been extended to Yemen, Obama’s given Petraeus and the CIA authority to fire without first confirming the identity of whom they’re firing at. Why forfeit an excuse to talk about all that? “Bin Laden week” at the White House should be an occasion to tout broader progress against AQ, not syrupy reminiscences about who said what to whom in the situation room once they got the news about “Geronimo.” By making it purely about OBL, he’s risking minimizing his own accomplishment in the minds of low-information voters.

Exit question via the Washington Free Beacon’s Andrew Stiles: When O says “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it,” does that also apply to the various nonsense he spouted on the trail in 2008? Opposing the mandate, ridding his administration of lobbyists, civilian trials for terrorists, etc etc. Back before he tore up the War Powers Act, he was a pretty peace-minded guy, you know. See Peter Kirsanow’s post at the Corner for more examples.

Update: Lefty Josh Marshall says the White House chatter about Bin Laden is less a matter of politics than meta-politics:

But as I first argued back in 2004, national political campaigns are only loosely about ‘issues’ as news obsessives construe them. Contemporary American campaigns are much more meta-battles over power, masculinity and dominance, what I once called “bitch-slap politics.” Not pretty perhaps but you’ll never understand campaigns without understanding things through this prism. And that’s very much what’s happening with the Obama campaign’s latest fusillade against Mitt Romney. This isn’t simply – maybe not even mainly — about the actual decision to risk so much to kill bin Laden. It’s a dance to – let’s not run away from what it really is – unman Romney in his contest with the president.

People don’t expect Democrats to make such brash moves on national security politics. It’s been a very long time since a Democratic president has been in a position to do it. Its aforementioned obviousness aside, it’s garnered a collective gasp from the pundit class. It was a smack right across the face of Mitt Romney right as he’s making a reasonably successful reintroduction of himself to the American people.


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 3

Had bin Laden not been caught, it is eminently plausible given what Romney had said that he would have called off the search for bin Laden and then reappropriated the savings from the cancelled operation towards other anti-terror activities.

That’s why there’s a sh*tstorm going on over this that the Obama team is shamelessly using for the sake of political expediency.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM

At no point did Romney say we should not get Osama
bin Laden…by the way..did you read his book? Or did you just take a couple of sentences out of context and pretend they were indicative of everything he said on this issue?

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Full quote? No you did not…..there was a lot more to Romney’s position than what you are talking about.

Truth is by the time Osama was killed, he was not the big man he had once been and Romney realized that if we made it all about him, we ran the risk of putting our guard down too soon.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Yes, I gave you a full quote. I gave you the question that prompted the response, and the entirety of the response to the question. I even provided the follow-up question and answer, and I took it not from NYTimes or WaPo, but Townhall.com.

How much more do you want? Would you like a recording of Romney going back to his birth so that we get “all of the context”? Please.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I doubt any other President would have done better poll-wise had they “gotten” bin Laden.

Del Dolemonte on April 30, 2012 at 6:34 PM

.
Well, the uncomfortable little coinciding detail of team Obamunista threatening to or actually PROSECUTING other Seal Team members at that time maybe took a little bit of shine off that poll bounce.

And after all, name another President who truly hates the military they command as much as this phony does ?

FlaMurph on April 30, 2012 at 6:42 PM

At no point did Romney say we should not get Osama
bin Laden…by the way..did you read his book? Or did you just take a couple of sentences out of context and pretend they were indicative of everything he said on this issue?

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Again, on the context question, how much more context do you want? I provided the question, the entirety of the response which is at dispute, and I even provided the follow-up question and follow-up response.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Charles Krauthammer says that Obama is being dishonest about this and is not being truthful about Romney actually said.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Had bin Laden not been caught, it is eminently plausible given what Romney had said that he would have called off the search for bin Laden and then reappropriated the savings from the cancelled operation towards other anti-terror activities.

That’s why there’s a sh*tstorm going on over this that the Obama team is shamelessly using for the sake of political expediency.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I get that you think it’s “eminently plausible.” I just think you are seeing a lot of things that aren’t there.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Had bin Laden not been caught, it is eminently plausible given what Romney had said that he would have called off the search for bin Laden and then reappropriated the savings from the cancelled operation towards other anti-terror activities.

That’s why there’s a sh*tstorm going on over this that the Obama team is shamelessly using for the sake of political expediency.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Now you’re interpreting what Romney said and projecting whatthe Obama team is doing.

What to do about Osama was always calculated through a cost/benefit analysis. You’re attempting to frame that as a bad thing? Romney is correct. Even Carter would have authorized the mission, but Zero had to be dragged to it kicking and screaming/ For all we know he never authorized it and all the crap we have seen since is fabricated.

Zero has a habit of waltzing in and taking credit for other people’s work. In this case it was the Admiral in charge or the SEALs.

Zero is walking out on a ledge with this and he would do well to consider that.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Charles Krauthammer says that Obama is being dishonest about this and is not being truthful about Romney actually said.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Charles Krauthammer is not infallible.

Is Obama being opportunistic? Sure. Is he spiking the football? Yes. But is he being dishonest about what Romney said? No.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Allah:

This might be a good time to re-post the trailer for OZOMBIE, no?

(could drive the thread to 1000: zombies, Bin Laden, Obama, Mittens, hell, maybe the zombies eat some dogs, too…)

Bruno Strozek on April 30, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Again, on the context question, how much more context do you want? I provided the question, the entirety of the response which is at dispute, and I even provided the follow-up question and follow-up response.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM

You presented the question and answer the LEAPED to a conclusion.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Now you’re interpreting what Romney said and projecting whatthe Obama team is doing.

Actually, I’m inferring why Obama, rather than saying “Romney wouldn’t have made the order” is instead framing it as a question. I’ve made no interpretation of what Romney has said other than providing the literal meaning of his words.

What to do about Osama was always calculated through a cost/benefit analysis. You’re attempting to frame that as a bad thing?

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Yeah, dude. I want justice, period. I have a problem with an approach that says “Delivering justice is worth no more than [X] millions of dollars.”

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Again, on the context question, how much more context do you want? I provided the question, the entirety of the response which is at dispute, and I even provided the follow-up question and follow-up response.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Obviously, you never read Romney’s book…and you are just plain wrong about what Romney said..the fact that he did not think it was wise to move heaven and earth to get one man if we did not do all the other things necessary to deal with the jihadist threat..does not mean that he does not think it was a good thing to get Osama…you are acting as if it is one or the other…you are wrong.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM

You presented the question and answer the LEAPED to a conclusion.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM

By relying on the literal meaning of Romney’s words? Uh, ooookkkaaayy!

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Is Obama being opportunistic? Sure. Is he spiking the football? Yes. But is he being dishonest about what Romney said? No.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Yes, he is and so are you. Zero is interpreting what Romney said. Giving it his own special meaning. LOL good luck with that!

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Obviously, you never read Romney’s book…and you are just plain wrong about what Romney said..the fact that he did not think it was wise to move heaven and earth to get one man if we did not do all the other things necessary to deal with the jihadist threat..does not mean that he does not think it was a good thing to get Osama…you are acting as if it is one or the other…you are wrong.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM

No, I’m acting as if he was downplaying bin Laden’s importance. When you bring up that any security gains from his death will be minimal, that you shouldn’t over-concentrate on him, and you don’t want to spend billions going after just him, you are freely diminishing Osama bin Laden’s importance. It’s an unforced error.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Yes, he is and so are you. Zero is interpreting what Romney said. Giving it his own special meaning. LOL good luck with that!

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Yeah, all the special meaning of knowing English. Wowwee!

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Yeah, dude. I want justice, period. I have a problem with an approach that says “Delivering justice is worth no more than [X] millions of dollars.”

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Try that again in terms of lives and injuries. That’s the calculus.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Yeah, dude. I want justice, period. I have a problem with an approach that says “Delivering justice is worth no more than [X] millions of dollars.”

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM

But that is not what he said at all. At the time we did not even know if ben Laden was still alive…if he had been dead..would it have been justice to say to hell with this fight..the man is dead and we are even now? Would that be justice?

Your perspective is off here.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:52 PM

By relying on the literal meaning of Romney’s words? Uh, ooookkkaaayy!

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM

That’s not at all what you’re doing. If he said what you claim he said you wouldn’t have to say your conclusion was “eminently plausible” even when so many people think you’re wrong. You’re twisting the literal meaning of the words into some imagined conclusion.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Liberal, Democrat party President bragging about killing somebody?

Liberal democrats are now for killing people without a trial???

albill on April 30, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Killing people without the nuisance of a trial has been the leftist wet dream for 60 years.

Rational Thought on April 30, 2012 at 6:54 PM

No, I’m acting as if he was downplaying bin Laden’s importance. When you bring up that any security gains from his death will be minimal, that you shouldn’t over-concentrate on him, and you don’t want to spend billions going after just him, you are freely diminishing Osama bin Laden’s importance. It’s an unforced error.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:51 PM

He is pointing out the obvious fact that the jihadist threat is about more than one man. If you can not understand that, then I do not know how to help you.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:54 PM

That’s not at all what you’re doing. If he said what you claim he said you wouldn’t have to say your conclusion was “eminently plausible” even when so many people think you’re wrong. You’re twisting the literal meaning of the words into some imagined conclusion.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Hell yes!

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM

conclusion was “eminently plausible” even when so many people think you’re wrong. You’re twisting the literal meaning of the words into some imagined conclusion.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Precisely. And it’s an epic fail. Look if UBL dropped into Carter’s lap he’d have ordered the mission in a heartbeat.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Maybe,Hopey is try’n to convey GaffeBidens comment about
carrying a big stick thingy!!(sarc).

canopfor on April 30, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Try that again in terms of lives and injuries. That’s the calculus.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 6:52 PM

That’s a lousy calculus. That’s the sort of calculus that lets the Democrats fret over whether or not we’re breeding more terrorists (and hence more dead) by going after al Qaeda.

But that is not what he said at all. At the time we did not even know if ben Laden was still alive…if he had been dead..would it have been justice to say to hell with this fight..the man is dead and we are even now? Would that be justice?

Your perspective is off here.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 6:52 PM

But that’s the effect of his quote when he’s willing to limit the total amount spent to not reach the billion mark.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:56 PM

That’s not at all what you’re doing. If he said what you claim he said you wouldn’t have to say your conclusion was “eminently plausible” even when so many people think you’re wrong. You’re twisting the literal meaning of the words into some imagined conclusion.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM

No, I’m using the literal meaning of the words to derive the literal conclusion. You folks are taking what you think he meant to say as the actual meaning.

Again, it’s fine for someone to misspeak, but Romney’s sympathizers shouldn’t be claiming that Obama’s misquoted him or not provided adequate context.

It’s a Romney gaffe, and it’s not the end of the world. Own up to it, and move on. Duh. Instead, Romney’s sympathizers seem to be doubling down on a statement where Romney is proverbially shooting himself in the foot.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Ah ok you have a comprehension problem. One must calculate whether or not going after a bad guy is worth it in terms of the possible loss of life injury and destruction that may ensue from the attempt.

You get that, right? If an Op is too expensive or risky one either chooses a different method or waits for a more opportune time. In the meantime one uses ones resources to their best effect.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:00 PM

No, I’m acting as if he was downplaying bin Laden’s importance. When you bring up that any security gains from his death will be minimal, that you shouldn’t over-concentrate on him, and you don’t want to spend billions going after just him, you are freely diminishing Osama bin Laden’s importance. It’s an unforced error.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Leaving aside your illogical conclusion that these are examples of Romney “freely diminishing Osama bin Laden’s importance” what exactly is wrong with the statements in bold above? How do they differ from Obama? How exactly would these beliefs have made a difference in the decision to go into Pakistan and get Osama?

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Ah ok you have a comprehension problem. One must calculate whether or not going after a bad guy is worth it in terms of the possible loss of life injury and destruction that may ensue from the attempt.

Based on that, we probably should have acceded to the demands of the Brits during the revolution, where we were grossly the underdogs, forgone the Civil War (since we could have lived in peace otherwise), and surrendered to the Japs and the Nazis (since they had the upper-hand prior to our involvement).

You get that, right? If an Op is too expensive or risky one either chooses a different method or waits for a more opportune time. In the meantime one uses ones resources to their best effect.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Yeah, and you forego justice. And that’s unacceptable, period.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:02 PM

How exactly would these beliefs have made a difference in the decision to go into Pakistan and get Osama?

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:01 PM

He’s interpreting those statements to mean something that is not said there at all.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Ah ok you have a comprehension problem. One must calculate whether or not going after a bad guy is worth it in terms of the possible loss of life injury and destruction that may ensue from the attempt.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:00 PM

It’s the sort of common sense statement of fact that leaves me scratching my head when someone doesn’t (or pretends not to) get it. Of course it’s true. It’s always true and always has been true.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Yeah, and you forego justice. And that’s unacceptable, period.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Forego doesn’t mean ignore forever. What part of “wait for a more opportune time” is unclear? That’s SOP for soldiers and lawmen everywhere champ.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Leaving aside your illogical conclusion that these are examples of Romney “freely diminishing Osama bin Laden’s importance” what exactly is wrong with the statements in bold above? How do they differ from Obama? How exactly would these beliefs have made a difference in the decision to go into Pakistan and get Osama?

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Let’s focus exclusively on the billions portion.

They would have made a difference because you have to keep in mind that we’ve been spending money on intelligence, in terms of equipment and labor on bin Laden teams be it with the NSA, CIA, or military.

Remember that we had also spent money trying to kill him (we nearly killed him but failed) in Tora Bora. Add in the cost of the bombs, fueling fighter jets, coordinating with ground forces, etceteras, and there’s more monetary cost again.

Also add in the cost of deploying spies to scout out the compound where he was eventually found, fueling the helicopters, equipping the SEALs, etceteras.

That sort of logic is what allows one to ask “At what point do you say we’ve spent enough trying to get him?” You’ve spent enough once you know he’s dead. Money should be no object in going after an enemy of the state like bin Laden.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Based on that, we probably should have acceded to the demands of the Brits during the revolution, where we were grossly the underdogs, forgone the Civil War (since we could have lived in peace otherwise), and surrendered to the Japs and the Nazis (since they had the upper-hand prior to our involvement).

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:02 PM

…. no

In those situations the leaders made the calculation and decided it was worth the risk. To pretend they didn’t make the calculation is just ignorant.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Forego doesn’t mean ignore forever. What part of “wait for a more opportune time” is unclear? That’s SOP for soldiers and lawmen everywhere champ.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:05 PM

The issue with what you’ve argued above is that it essentially makes us beholden to the willpower of the enemy.

A coupe of old sayings to mull over:

“There’s no time like the present.”
“Never judge an action based on someone else’s reaction.”

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:09 PM

…. no

In those situations the leaders made the calculation and decided it was worth the risk. To pretend they didn’t make the calculation is just ignorant.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Actually, to pretend they made the calculation you claim they did is foolhardy. These were issues of fundamental principle at stake.

Revolution: do we tolerate the exercise of arbitrary authority?
Civil War: do we tolerate slavery?
WW2: do we tolerate a foreign attack against our nation?

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Petty, Mr. President. Very petty. Not to mention, a lie.

Paul-Cincy on April 30, 2012 at 7:12 PM

The issue with what you’ve argued above is that it essentially makes us beholden to the willpower of the enemy.

A coupe of old sayings to mull over:

“There’s no time like the present.”
“Never judge an action based on someone else’s reaction.”

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:09 PM

No, not at all. Only an idiot charges ahead without thinking things through carefully and laying plans to minimize injuries to ones own forces and civilians nearby.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Well if the best Obama has is “I got Osama nah,nah,nah, nah nah”, then he’s in more trouble than I thought

sandee on April 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Yes. Let’s focus on the billions portion if you want. Romney it’s not worth “spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.

Do you think billions were spent “just trying to catch one person?”

He was saying we shouldn’t focus on Osama as the be all end all. We shouldn’t put blinders on and just search for Osama.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Yes. Let’s focus on the billions portion if you want. Romney it’s not worth “spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”

Do you think billions were spent “just trying to catch one person?”

He was saying we shouldn’t focus on Osama as the be all end all. We shouldn’t put blinders on and just search for Osama.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Do I think billions were spent trying just to catch bin Laden? Possibly.

Like I said, add in tons of time, equipment, inter-agency cooperation, and military operations over a period of 10 years, and yeah, it’s possible. And had he continued to elude us, I suspect we would have continued to spend money until we knew he was dead.

I don’t mind him saying that it doesn’t end with bin Laden. Again, what I mind is the downplaying of bin Laden.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:16 PM

What was that that somebody said a long time ago?

You go to war with the army you got not the army you wish you had?

{Don, if you are reading this, yes, it is a gratuitous plug…miss ya.]

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 7:16 PM

No, not at all. Only an idiot charges ahead without thinking things through carefully and laying plans to minimize injuries to ones own forces and civilians nearby.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I’m not claiming that we’ve fought stupidly. What I’m claiming is that we didn’t piddle around worrying about costs while larger issues were at stake. We scavenged through the resources that we had (literally resorting to scrapping in WW2) to achieve the end. We didn’t let the cost of the end determine whether or not we would pursue it.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Actually, to pretend they made the calculation you claim they did is foolhardy. These were issues of fundamental principle at stake.

Revolution: do we tolerate the exercise of arbitrary authority?
Civil War: do we tolerate slavery?
WW2: do we tolerate a foreign attack against our nation?

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM

You are just amazingly wrong here. Every military decision is based on risk and reward. If the reward is worth the risk then it’s worth doing.

Revolution: it was worth the risk of life and property to fight against the arbitrary authority
Civil War: It was worth the risk of life and property to defeat slavery (it was more complicated than slavery but the point remains)
WW2: it was worth the risk of life and property to defend against foreign attack.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:21 PM

I’m not claiming that we’ve fought stupidly. What I’m claiming is that we didn’t piddle around worrying about costs while larger issues were at stake. We scavenged through the resources that we had (literally resorting to scrapping in WW2) to achieve the end. We didn’t let the cost of the end determine whether or not we would pursue it.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:19 PM

We have not fought stupidly and you did not say that either. Yes, we always have taken our time getting into fights. I would not characterize it as “piddling.”

If you study the real histories of the wars you mention carefully you will find that quite a lot led up to them. We waited a very long time to get into WWII.

Picking your fights and planning them carefully is not “piddling.”

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM

You are just amazingly wrong here. Every military decision is based on risk and reward. If the reward is worth the risk then it’s worth doing.

Revolution: it was worth the risk of life and property to fight against the arbitrary authority
Civil War: It was worth the risk of life and property to defeat slavery (it was more complicated than slavery but the point remains)
WW2: it was worth the risk of life and property to defend against foreign attack.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:21 PM

You’re conflating “being worth the risk” with “following higher principles.”

With the Revolution, we could have lived peaceably under Britain, with no blood spilled. Remember, we were supposed to lose that war. If you’re motivated by cost-benefit rather than higher principle, losing is not what you want to do.

With the Civil War, we were supposed to win that but we could have just as easily called for a truce once we started losing northern states to the Confederates. We didn’t.

With WW2, we could have ignored Germany entirely, who represented no direct or immediate threat to us. We also could have acquiesced to Japanese incurions in the Pacific.

The “rational” process of cost-benefit analysis is wholly irrelevant to such conflicts. When we resort to that, we let the enemy dictate to us our behavior.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:29 PM

A lot of innovative plans and programs in WWII werde simply tossed out, many even after they got underway, because the costs did not justify the desired effectiveness of the weapon or system. All through the 50-60′s we scrubbed many super programs, bombers that could fly at the edge of space and avoid Soviet missiles and loiter for days and days and be at any spot on the globe within a few hours…too costly…and even down to simple uniforms for the troops…in the logistics field without which there’d be no successful military, cost/benefit is always the rule…always.

Same on the strategic planning level, same on the tactical level.

Or, is General Haig (Douglas not Alexander) to be held up as some sort of hero because of his meat-grinder tactics at the Somme? 600,000 lost…for what?

To say otherwise is pure ignorance.

Put it this way, ever hear some liberal say aloud “If this saves the life of one child, then it will have been worth it?”

So…spend hundreds of billions over decades for programs known to never have worked…but if one child is saved, it is all money very well spent?

Romney understands cost/benefit analysis…a lot more than this present Administration appears to understand. Solyndra anyone?

Devoting all of our assets to find Osama all the time is/was more important than detecting and disarming, destroying jihadis elsewhere?

Unless one has the ability or a government to write checks everyday and not ever have to worry about them being cashed…go ahead and spend spend spend…Tim Geithner seems to believe this is a great idea….so does Biden, and apparently so does Obama…and Pelosi and Reid, among others.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 7:31 PM

We have not fought stupidly and you did not say that either. Yes, we always have taken our time getting into fights. I would not characterize it as “piddling.”

If you study the real histories of the wars you mention carefully you will find that quite a lot led up to them. We waited a very long time to get into WWII.

Picking your fights and planning them carefully is not “piddling.”

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Yeah, for WW2 we waited until we were actually attacked. We didn’t wait on the Civil War. We hardly were picking our fight carefully. We declared war the next day after Pearl Harbor.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:32 PM

The “rational” process of cost-benefit analysis is wholly irrelevant to such conflicts. When we resort to that, we let the enemy dictate to us our behavior.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:29 PM

I don’t know what else to say to you. You’re just amazingly ignorant here. “Cost-benefit analysis” as you put it is integral to any military decision. It may not sound romantic but it’s just true.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:35 PM

A lot of innovative plans and programs in WWII werde simply tossed out, many even after they got underway, because the costs did not justify the desired effectiveness of the weapon or system. All through the 50-60′s we scrubbed many super programs, bombers that could fly at the edge of space and avoid Soviet missiles and loiter for days and days and be at any spot on the globe within a few hours…too costly…and even down to simple uniforms for the troops…in the logistics field without which there’d be no successful military, cost/benefit is always the rule…always.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Yeah, and we weren’t in an active war with the Soviet Union. But when we started doing a cost-benefit analysis, we fought stupidly and ultimately pulled out of Vietnam. It fell to the commies. Dumb.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I don’t know what else to say to you. You’re just amazingly ignorant here.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Likewise.

“Cost-benefit analysis” as you put it is integral to any military decision. It may not sound romantic but it’s just true.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Except when it’s not, which has generally produced our more successful military engagements.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Except when it’s not, which has generally produced our more successful military engagements.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM

never has that been true…

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:39 PM

As another example of the disastrous results you get when you assess everything as a cost-benefit analysis, remember our initial invasion of Iraq this last go-around?

We employed a cost-benefit analysis and thought we would take Iraq by utilizing Rumsfeld’s “light footprint” strategy. That way we could fight the war on the cheap, and use the oil revenues to pay for it all.

It was a complete failure.

Only once we went in with overwhelming force, disregarding the cost with the surge strategy, and continued to maintain a presence on the streets during the night, did we finally establish control.

At that point, Bush had decided to risk everything. The political costs were disastrous for him, and he had to override a defunding bill advanced by the Democrats. But he changed from a cost-benefit analysis to a costs-be-damned approach, and we turned things around.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:43 PM

A wrong decision made from “cost-benefit analysis” does not make “cost-benefit analysis” wrong.

Every good military decision was also made by evaluating the risk and reward.

Take D-Day. It was a HUGE risk. If it had gone wrong or word had leaked before the attack then we would have been destroyed. But the generals evaluated the risk and decided the reward was worth it.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:50 PM

A wrong decision made from “cost-benefit analysis” does not make “cost-benefit analysis” wrong.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:50 PM

It also doesn’t make every decision a cost-benefit analysis based decision. And when it comes to enemies of the state like bin Laden, money should be no object.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:53 PM

when it comes to enemies of the state like bin Laden, money should be no object.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:53 PM

So if we had to spend 10 trillion to get bin laden you would have been ok with that?

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:55 PM

So if we had to spend 10 trillion to get bin laden you would have been ok with that?

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 7:55 PM

We could have spent the entire holdings of the treasury and Federal Reserve and I would have been okay with it.

On guys like bin Laden, who commit mass murder against your citizens, you go all-in.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:57 PM

We declared war the next day after Pearl Harbor.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Years after the Greater East Asia War had already begun and years after the War in Europe was well underway.

So…Douglas Haig [1st Earl Haig, of the Somme] was perfectly fine sending 600,000 men of the Commonwealth to their pre-mature end for less than half a mile of ground?

After all, the Germans lost that war, in the end.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 8:01 PM

We could have spent the entire holdings of the treasury and Federal Reserve and I would have been okay with it.

On guys like bin Laden, who commit mass murder against your citizens, you go all-in.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Oooh! You sounded just like Clint Eastwood!

Chuck Schick on April 30, 2012 at 8:04 PM

We could have spent the entire holdings of the treasury and Federal Reserve and I would have been okay with it.

My God.

I am left speechless.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Try that again in terms of lives and injuries. That’s the calculus.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 6:52 PM

That’s a lousy calculus. That’s the sort of calculus that lets the Democrats fret over whether or not we’re breeding more terrorists (and hence more dead) by going after al Qaeda.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:56 PM

So, tell us, Stoic, how many other-people’s-lives would be, in YOUR calculus, the acceptable number (costs) to loose to get an OBL?

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:04 PM

loose >>> lose

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:05 PM

We could have spent the entire holdings of the treasury and Federal Reserve and I would have been okay with it.

On guys like bin Laden, who commit mass murder against your citizens, you go all-in.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:57 PM

wow. You would destroy the country to get bin laden…

What an utterly ridiculous statement I have forced you to make. All so you wont have to admit to making a “cost-benefit analysis.”

You know who else was against “cost-benefit analysis?” The Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly. Y’know she died…

“In evaluating a course of action, weight every risk against every reward.”

-U.S. Army General Dwight David Eisenhower

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Years after the Greater East Asia War had already begun and years after the War in Europe was well underway.

All of which may be relevant to a principle of morality, but irrelevant to the principle of defending your country from existential threats to its sovereignty and potentially its existence.

There are certainly grounds where you can say the USA wasn’t idealistic enough or not as morally pure as it should have been in WW2. That doesn’t change that getting into WW2 wasn’t a cost-benefit analysis.

So…Douglas Haig [1st Earl Haig, of the Somme] was perfectly fine sending 600,000 men of the Commonwealth to their pre-mature end for less than half a mile of ground?

After all, the Germans lost that war, in the end.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 8:01 PM

You fight and you see what happens. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That’s the nature of the beast. When you fight on principle, you don’t judge based on outcome. You judge based on whether or not you did everything you could to uphold the principle.

The side benefit of fighting on principle is that it often translates to desirable practical results as well.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:07 PM

We could have spent the entire holdings of the treasury and Federal Reserve and I would have been okay with it.

On guys like bin Laden, who commit mass murder against your citizens, you go all-in.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Do you even realize that you just made a “cost-benefit analysis?”

an EXTREMELY ignorant one. But one none the less.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:10 PM

My God.

I am left speechless.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Relax- patriots like Stoic spend the treasury and Fed reserves on pretty much anything. It’s not their money.

Chuck Schick on April 30, 2012 at 8:11 PM

wow. You would destroy the country to get bin laden…

What an utterly ridiculous statement I have forced you to make.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Not ridiculous at all. It’s merely the difference between someone who thinks that zealous dedication to principle ought to be the rationale, and someone who thinks cost-benefit analysis ought to be it.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Do you even realize that you just made a “cost-benefit analysis?”

an EXTREMELY ignorant one. But one none the less.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Actually I didn’t because I didn’t impose a cost ceiling / break-even point. Cost-benefit analyses require that benefits exceed costs. A costs-be-damned approach, if you’re going to try to force it to fit the idea of a cost-benefit analysis (sort of forcing a square peg into a round hole) basically says that the benefit (or principle) is of infinite value.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:12 PM

To make you econ-drunks happy, I’ll try to speak in your parlance in communicating what a commitment to principle is like in your terms. Think of principle this way: it’s a form of lexicographic preferences, so rather than face the traditional trade-off which you can generate a nice utility function for, you instead demonstrate “dictionary preferences.”

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Well now I’m sold! Eisenhower was wrong and you are right.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:20 PM

To make you econ-drunks happy, I’ll try to speak in your parlance in communicating what a commitment to principle is like in your terms. Think of principle this way: it’s a form of lexicographic preferences, so rather than face the traditional trade-off which you can generate a nice utility function for, you instead demonstrate “dictionary preferences.”

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:18 PM

You don’t have a girlfriend, do you?

Chuck Schick on April 30, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Well now I’m sold! Eisenhower was wrong and you are right.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Well it’s good that you finally realize that. =P

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:22 PM

You don’t have a girlfriend, do you?

Chuck Schick on April 30, 2012 at 8:21 PM

You don’t have a relevant point to make, do you?

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:22 PM

You don’t have a relevant point to make, do you?

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I made it hours ago. You have absolutely ZERO proof Obama moved heaven and earth and spent billions to get Bin Laden.

Thus saying Romney would not have killed Bin Laden is another one of your silly fantasies.

Go catch Maddow. This will all blow over by tomorrow anyway.

Chuck Schick on April 30, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Well it’s good that you finally realize that. =P

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:22 PM

yeah. He was just some five star general. What does he know.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I made it hours ago. You have absolutely ZERO proof Obama moved heaven and earth and spent billions to get Bin Laden.

Thus saying Romney would not have killed Bin Laden is another one of your silly fantasies.

Go catch Maddow. This will all blow over by tomorrow anyway.

Chuck Schick on April 30, 2012 at 8:26 PM

It was never a matter of asserting how much Obama has spent, but rather a matter of how much getting bin Laden was worth. Romney, through his own words, indicated that it had a finite, monetary ceiling associated with it. The point still stands that it is possible that Romney would not have killed bin Laden because he would have redirected resources being used towards finding and killing him towards a different end. That’s the issue, and that’s why Obama has made a solid point against Romney here.

Now did Obama do it because he’s such a stand-up guy? I sincerely doubt it. I’m willing to guess that it’s nothing other than simple real politik. But a crummy motive doesn’t diminish the argument’s point.

I’d much rather watch O’Reilly or Hannity than Maddow.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:30 PM

yeah. He was just some five star general. What does he know.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Undoubtedly much less now. Being dead will do that to a guy. =P

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Try that again in terms of lives and injuries. That’s the calculus.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 6:52 PM

That’s a lousy calculus. That’s the sort of calculus that lets the Democrats fret over whether or not we’re breeding more terrorists (and hence more dead) by going after al Qaeda.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 6:56 PM

So, tell us, Stoic, how many other-people’s-lives would be, in YOUR calculus, the acceptable number (costs) to lose to get an OBL?

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Crickets…

Come on Stoic, how many other-people’s-lives would YOU spend?

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Crickets…

Come on Stoic, how many other-people’s-lives would YOU spend?

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:31 PM

You go after him until he’s dead. I thought I had made that point as clear as posssible. Evidently not.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Crickets…

Come on Stoic, how many other-people’s-lives would YOU spend?

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Let me turn the question back to you though, Yoop. What’s the minimum number of people the Islamists need to kill before you’re going to hop on the “Three cheers for Sharia” bandwagon?

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:33 PM

You go after him until he’s dead. I thought I had made that point as clear as posssible. Evidently not.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:32 PM

no matter how many babies and kittens you have to kill along the way!

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:35 PM

no matter how many babies and kittens you have to kill along the way!

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Enh, the kittens I just kick and the babies make for a nice snack. =P

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Crickets…

Come on Stoic, how many other-people’s-lives would YOU spend?

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:31 PM

You go after him until he’s dead. I thought I had made that point as clear as posssible. Evidently not.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:32 PM

So you would be willing to stand for 1,000 US soldiers dying to get one man to satisfy your need for revenge?

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM

It was never a matter of asserting how much Obama has spent, but rather a matter of how much getting bin Laden was worth. Romney, through his own words, indicated that it had a finite, monetary ceiling associated with it. The point still stands that it is possible that Romney would not have killed bin Laden because he would have redirected resources being used towards finding and killing him towards a different end. That’s the issue, and that’s why Obama has made a solid point against Romney here.

Now did Obama do it because he’s such a stand-up guy? I sincerely doubt it. I’m willing to guess that it’s nothing other than simple real politik. But a crummy motive doesn’t diminish the argument’s point.

I’d much rather watch O’Reilly or Hannity than Maddow.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Not so fast, Obamatron!

Obama said he WOULDN’T HAVE KILLED BIN LADEN. Since Obama clearly did not move heaven and earth nor spend billions to get Osama in his sights, Romney would have had the same chance at killing him as Obama did. Obama’s saying he wouldn’t have take the shot.

Again- nonsense talk from insane partisans.

Chuck Schick on April 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM

And just like clockwork, Team Obama’s attacks go the way of Seamusgate:

SEALs slam Obama for using them as political ammunition and taking credit for killing Bin Laden

bwahahahaha

Chuck Schick on April 30, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Not so fast, Obamatron!

Obamatron? I didn’t realize I was an Obama supporter. I thought I was voting third party this election, but I’m glad that I have people like you around who apparently are better able to read my mind than I am. =P

Obama said he WOULDN’T HAVE KILLED BIN LADEN.

I’m not aware of him saying that, but if he said he wouldn’t kill bin Laden, then he’s a hypocrite.

Since Obama clearly did not move heaven and earth nor spend billions to get Osama in his sights

You’re certainly correct when it comes to the literal truth of moving heaven and earth, which I think we all agree was a rhetorical flourish. I don’t think we actually yet have a monetary cost associated with it. The point also was not the total amount spent, but an assessment of its total worth.

Romney would have had the same chance at killing him as Obama did. Obama’s saying he wouldn’t have take the shot.

Again- nonsense talk from insane partisans.

Chuck Schick on April 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Obama from what I’m aware hasn’t claimed Romney wouldn’t have. Rather, he’s posed it as a question. It’s a ploy to insert doubt into the consciousness of the American public. Since it’s posed in the form of a question, it also means that it can’t be disproven, since while the answers to questions have truth values, questions themselves don’t.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:42 PM

So you would be willing to stand for 1,000 US soldiers dying to get one man to satisfy your need for revenge?

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM

1,000?!?! Try 10,000 or more. He said there is NO limit.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 8:42 PM

So you would be willing to stand for 1,000 US soldiers dying to get one man to satisfy your need for revenge?

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I might quibble with the use of possessive adjectives and the term “need,” but essentially, yes.

We also spent about 5,000 American lives and over 20,000 injured American soldiers to get rid of Saddam. I can live with that.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Speaking of crickets, yoop, what’s the minimum of people Islamists need to kill before you hop on that “Three Cheers for Sharia” bandwagon that I asked about earlier?

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:50 PM

I might quibble with the use of possessive adjectives and the term “need,” but essentially, yes.

We also spent about 5,000 American lives and over 20,000 injured American soldiers to get rid of Saddam. I can live with that.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I’ve met people before who had no problem putting other-people’s-lives on the line, without any personal anguish, as long as their own was in no way involved.

Sick people.

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:50 PM

I’ve met people before who had no problem putting other-people’s-lives on the line, without any personal anguish, as long as their own was in no way involved.

Sick people.

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Your complaint is duly noted. Now answer my question.

How much was bin Laden worth in terms of money? In terms of lives? Would you have not been willing to sacrifice even 1 soldier to go after him? Was he worth paying a contractor say, 10 bucks? What exactly are these cutoffs?

I await to hear from the cost-benefit analysts the formulas and justifications they use! Remember to distinguish between Value of a Statistical Life versus Value of a Statistical Life Year! =P

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Since I’ve never been in that exact situation I have no good answer, but I know it would be markedly less that you are willing to expend, and never “all in” with other-people’s-lives.

You give the appearance of being willing to spend other-people’s-lives like the liberals spend other-people’s-money.

Again, sick.

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Your complaint is duly noted. Now answer my question.

How much was bin Laden worth in terms of money? In terms of lives? Would you have not been willing to sacrifice even 1 soldier to go after him? Was he worth paying a contractor say, 10 bucks? What exactly are these cutoffs?

I await to hear from the cost-benefit analysts the formulas and justifications they use! Remember to distinguish between Value of a Statistical Life versus Value of a Statistical Life Year! =P

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Just because we don’t know the specific number doesn’t mean there isn’t one or that your answer of ∞ is correct. Or any less insane.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Since I’ve never been in that exact situation I have no good answer, but I know it would be markedly less that you are willing to expend, and never “all in” with other-people’s-lives.

You give the appearance of being willing to spend other-people’s-lives like the liberals spend other-people’s-money.

Again, sick.

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 9:01 PM

No, what’s sick is that your logic implies you’re willing to at some point say “Sure, let’s hop on-board with Sharia. All they need to do is kill enough of us!”

What’s sick is that you make appeals to cost-benefit analyses, without recognizing that they put everything in monetary terms, including human life. Those analyses, I might add, are based on earnings over one’s lifetime, be it the entirety or the remainder. Do you really value people based on their personal salaries? Is that what you think morality and justice is based upon?

What’s sick is that you wag your finger at my willingness to sacrifice US soldiers, when, by virtue of having joined the armed forces, that’s precisely a contingency that they volunteer for in order to fight for greater ideals.

You condemn the all-in approach while endorsing the “non-extreme” position that is far more sick than anything I could ever come up with.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 9:07 PM

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html#ixzz1tZn7NsC3

Read the article

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 9:15 PM

What’s sick is that you make appeals to cost-benefit analyses, without recognizing that they put everything in monetary terms, including human life. Those analyses, I might add, are based on earnings over one’s lifetime, be it the entirety or the remainder. Do you really value people based on their personal salaries? Is that what you think morality and justice is based upon?

You are being obtuse, Stoic Patriot.

Romney was not just talking about money. He was talking about the war on Terror and the need to continue to fight it whether or not they captured or killed Osama.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 9:07 PM

I do believe that you are singularly alone in that analysis. I don’t think I have ever seen even the most rabid liberal suggest such a sick analysis.

You. Are. Disturbed.

And no longer worthy of discourse.

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 9:18 PM

You are being obtuse, Stoic Patriot.

Romney was not just talking about money. He was talking about the war on Terror and the need to continue to fight it whether or not they captured or killed Osama.

Terrye on April 30, 2012 at 9:17 PM

My reply in that instance, was specifically to Yoop. And I’m in agreement with Romney that the War on Terror needs to continue to be fought. That’s not a point of contention between myself and anyone else here.

My entire complaint is about whittling down going after bin Laden specifically to a cost-benefit analysis. That’s what I’ve said since the beginning, and what I’ll continue to say now.

Now, other folks have tried to expand every military decision (not something Romney has argued for) to a cost-benefit analysis. That tangent is where I’m continuing to fight them, but if you’d like to bring it back to the more narrow original topic, then by all means, let’s.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I do believe that you are singularly alone in that analysis. I don’t think I have ever seen even the most rabid liberal suggest such a sick analysis.

You. Are. Disturbed.

And no longer worthy of discourse.

Yoop on April 30, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I am certainly most disturbed by the sick willingness of yourself to submit to Sharia when all they need to do is kill enough folks, and your willingness to extol cost-benefit analyses while not acknolwedging what it actually entails.

Stoic Patriot on April 30, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Sketch is on tape saying rather than spending money to find and kill OBL, he prefers redistributing that said money from the middle to the upper 1%. That is how he rolls you know.

Uppereastside on April 30, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3