Obama's Ad on bin Laden, Romney: Fair or Foul?

[echo7tango]

There's a new ad where Obama brags about bin Laden's assassination, and questions whether Romney would have been able to order the hit. Do you think this is fair tactics in the election race?

Arianna Huffington is one who does not. She calls it a "despicable" move.

I am not an Obama fan and will not vote for him, however I am glad bin Laden was finally killed and since Obama did it, he can take credit for it and I'm OK with the ad.

Fair? Foul? Thoughts?

[Kozmik]

Timely.

Remember, it's been one year since the bin Laden raid. Like I said, the election is winding down.

[Ravenman]

I see this whole bin Laden thing as a legitimate issue to bring with Romney, but I'm not sure it is being used in the right way. Rather than, in essence, trying to make Obama look more macho because he took out UBL, and who knows what Romney would have done, I'd approach it in a different way.

Romney said in 2007 that it is "not worth moving heaven and earth" for one person, and the result would be "very insignificant increase in safety." Then when he gets challenged on his statement, he changes his tune: "Of course we get Usama bin Laden and track him wherever he has to go, and make sure he pays for the outrage he exacted upon America." That statement was made that same year.

Seems like another example of Romney saying what he thinks people want to hear.

[echo7tango]

Every politician says what s/he thinks people want to hear, Obama and Romney included.

[Marley23]

Here is the ad. I'm seeing some complaints that they only used a partial quote from Romney, but the bottom line is that by any logical standard it is fair to take credit for decisions you made and things you did. The fact that people are complaining Obama shouldn't do that with Bin Laden carries a whiff of that whole 'Democrats are supposed to be nicer' thing - it asks Obama to campaign with one hand behind his back. He did make the Bin Laden a hunt a new priority on taking office and he did order the Abbottabad raid.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Seems like another example of Romney saying what he thinks people want to hear.

That's a much less compelling argument, though. One is "Obama made the decision to prioritize and go after Bin Laden and Romney might not have," and the other is "Romney's a flip-flopper."

Originally Posted by platoon1016Guy

Every politician says what s/he thinks people want to hear, Obama and Romney included.

That's true, but it doesn't mean people can't be called out for dishonesty.

[Blaster Master]

I haven't seen this ad, but based on the description, I don't think it's really fair. I understand the idea of saying "look what I accomplished". However, I don't think you can really discredit Romney in any way for something like that because we don't know all of the variables that went into it.

For instance, given the saem intelligence and same plan, I imagine almost anyone who would have been president, whether it was Obama or McCain or Romney, probably would have okayed the strike. On the other side, it is possible that another president may have made finding OBL less of a priority and that intelligence may or may not have been gathered. But I certainly don't have the knowledge to say how much of a difference in priority there would have been and whether or not it would have still led to his death or capture.

So, I think it's a good idea for Obama to say that he finished it, he deserves the props for that, and he can put it against Republicans as a whole since he did in half his term what Bush couldn't do in two whole terms, but I don't think it's really a point to attack anyone else directly with. That is, it should just be something on his list of accomplishments, not a list of things he did that Romney wouldn't have done in the same position.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

However, I don't think you can really discredit Romney in any way for something like that because we don't know all of the variables that went into it.

What if Romney said he wouldn't have done the same thing? That's what the ad argues- Romney disagreed with Obama's position on going into Pakistan to get bin Laden if necessary, and (arguably) also said it might not be worth it to get one individual. I do think it's interesting that nobody has mentioned that the argument in the ad is made by Bill Clinton. Obama only appears in still photos- most of the ad is Clinton talking to the camera.

[BobLibDem]

If the raid had failed, Republicans would be running ads showing downed smoking helicopters with a voice over of Jeremiah Wright saying "God damn America". If Bush had gotten bin Laden, it would have been a national holiday and Republicans would have pushed for repeal of presidential term limits. And a tax cut for the wealthy.

Obama did what he specifically said he would do during one of the debates and what McCain specifically said he would NOT do- go into Pakistan and get bin Laden. It was a bold move and he deserves the credit and he gets to campaign on it.

[BigT]

Oops. I didn't think that all the way through. It would make sense if it were McCain who said he wouldn't do it. But there was no way Romney would have been president in Obama's stead, so there's no reason to bring up what he would have done.

So the way to make this right is to ask a what-if question on some other evil person. Show that Romney would apparently be soft on terrorism in the future, based on his past performance.

[echo7tango]

It's one thing to try and get bin Laden, and another to actually get him. I'm glad he's dead. Obama got him, so he can tout that.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by BigT

So the way to make this right is to ask a what-if question on someone else.

That's what the ad is. It asks if Romney would have made this decision.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

For instance, given the saem intelligence and same plan, I imagine almost anyone who would have been president, whether it was Obama or McCain or Romney, probably would have okayed the strike.

I think this is a generous interpretation for two reasons.

First, the strike was a potential Bay of Pigs/Iran Hostage Crisis. A choice that could easily go south and make the President look like an incompetent fool. It also represented a military strike into a sovereign country that we are not currently at war with. A nuclear capable country with significant military resources. This is the sort of decision you don't make if you don't think OBL is a Big Fucking Deal. If you think he's a Nice To Have, you don't risk your presidency and a huge international incident over it.

Second, the strike was at least partly the result of Obama making OBL a priority. You don't get the same intelligence and plans if you don't put resources into it.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

First, the strike was a potential Bay of Pigs/Iran Hostage Crisis. A choice that could easily go south and make the President look like an incompetent fool. It also represented a military strike into a sovereign country that we are not currently at war with. A nuclear capable country with significant military resources. This is the sort of decision you don't make if you don't think OBL is a Big Fucking Deal. If you think he's a Nice To Have, you don't risk your presidency and a huge international incident over it.

Second, the strike was at least partly the result of Obama making OBL a priority. You don't get the same intelligence and plans if you don't put resources into it.

Well put, and I think that's why the ad is fair game (even if that quote might not be). The raid did not just happen: Obama made bin Laden a priority again when he took office, and he did make a difficult decision about going into Pakistan without telling the Pakistani government what was happening. It was likely that someone important in Al Qaeda was in that home, but it was not a sure thing that it was bin Laden. Experts reportedly felt there was maybe a 60 percent chance it was bin Laden. That's not bad, but it's not a lead-pipe cinch. The risks were significant, and there has certainly been fallout from the raid even though it was successful. So it's fair to ask if Romney would have made bin Laden a priority and sent the Navy SEALs into Pakistan since he said he was opposed to incursions of this type.

[Steve MB]

Fair. Romney's statement, however one tries to spin it, indicates a level of risk-aversion that makes it questionable, at best, that he would have pulled the trigger given the geopolitical costs even if the operation succeeded and the risk of a Carteresque fiasco if it failed.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by platoon1016Guy

Every politician says what s/he thinks people want to hear, Obama and Romney included.

Yeah, but if you say it to an open mic it can be recorded and played back at you later; them's the rules, these days.

[furt]

Originally Posted by platoon1016Guy

There's a new ad where Obama brags about bin Laden's assassination,

Perfectly fair. Arguably tacky, but that's politics.

and questions whether Romney would have been able to order the hit.

An entirely different matter. Taking broad statements that Romney made about the war on terror in general and then implying he wouldn't have given the order is both unfair and crass.

More than that, though, it's just sloppy. An "Obama tough, Romney soft" ad could have been made that suggested the idea a lot more subtly and would have had a lot more plausible deniability. It's enough to say "Romney might have given that order too ... but we'll never know, because he didn't have to." (cue dramatic minor chord).

Same idea, but much less objectionable.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by furt

Perfectly fair. Arguably tacky, but that's politics.

An entirely different matter. Taking broad statements that Romney made about the war on terror in general and then implying he wouldn't have given the order is both unfair and crass.

Even if it's true?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by furt

It's enough to say "Romney might have given that order too ... but we'll never know, because he didn't have to." (cue dramatic minor chord).

I don't think they need to run a commercial to remind people that Romney is not the president. The issue (according to the ad's argument) is that he said he opposed the strategy that led to the bin Laden raid, and that if it had been his call the raid might not have happened. So if you think Obama did the right thing, you should know Romney was against it.

[echo7tango]

Originally Posted by Marley23

So if you think Obama did the right thing, you should know Romney was against it.

That's not the same thing as the hypothetical scenario, where if the situation were exactly the same except Romney is the president making the call, he would not have ordered the hit. I'm confident he would order the hit.

I think this, regardless of what he has said in the political jockeying.

I also think he would have committed resources to track OBL down. It's similar (somewhat) to Obama promising to shutting down Guantanamo during the 2008 election, and then changing his mind once he got elected.

[Chronos]

"Here's a good thing I did, and my opponent probably wouldn't have done it" is exactly what a campaign ad should be. I can't see any problem with this.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by furt

Taking broad statements that Romney made about the war on terror in general and then implying he wouldn't have given the order is both unfair and crass.

Irrelevant. The issue is not "broad statements that Romney made about the war on terror in general", but specific statements Romney made about his rejection of the strategy that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden.

Originally Posted by platoon1016Guy

That's not the same thing as the hypothetical scenario, where if the situation were exactly the same except Romney is the president making the call, he would not have ordered the hit. I'm confident he would order the hit.

Why on earth would you be confident that he would do something he publicly opposed (well, other than the fact that if one dislikes Romney's position on any issue, one need only wait a while and it will change)?

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by platoon1016Guy

There's a new ad where Obama brags about bin Laden's assassination, and questions whether Romney would have been able to order the hit. Do you think this is fair tactics in the election race?

Absolutely fair. In fact, I'd think less of Obama if he didn't bring it up.

The Republicans are pissed off and whining because THEY can't claim the kill - because you know if one of THEIR guys had gotten him they would have been crowing about it. But their guys didn't do it, either because they couldn't or because they just didn't care enough to do it. Obama's administration got OBL, they get credit.

[elucidator]

I have no doubt that if GeeDubya had done this thing, they would have been calm, solemn, and respectful, and would have disdained any exploitation, political or otherwise.

Me? Tequila and bongwater, why do you ask?

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by platoon1016Guy

I also think he would have committed resources to track OBL down.

Like Bush did?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by platoon1016Guy

That's not the same thing as the hypothetical scenario, where if the situation were exactly the same except Romney is the president making the call, he would not have ordered the hit. I'm confident he would order the hit.

Romney's opposition was not hypothetical. Obama said in one of the debates that he would be willing to send soldiers into Pakistan to get bin Laden, and Romney (and McCain) said he was wrong.

I also think he would have committed resources to track OBL down.

That's a hypothetical.

[CJJ*]

IMO the ad isn't simply about who would/wouldn't have gotten OBL. This is mostly about emasculating Romney; Obama is not so much taking credit for the successful raid as he is using it to--sorry for the metaphor, but it captures the idea exactly--bitch-slap Romney. If Mitt's response is to whine or start combing thru the minutiae of the raid or his past statements, he will look weak in the face of Obama's challenge, and that will be his real problem. If you doubt this, consider John Kerry's response to the Swift Boaters; I think Kerry was hurt less by the number of people who actually believed the allegations (most of whom wouldn't have voted for a Dem anyway) as he was by his apparent weakness regarding this attack on his "manhood". IMO this weakness--regardless of the truth in the underlying allegations--inspired his opponents and demoralized his supporters.

Let me be clear: I don't think these kind of schoolyard power plays are a good way to choose a president. But let's be honest, this is how electoral politics work in America. It's just so unusual for a Democrat to make this kind of move that has the pundit class gasping.

[emcee2k]

Seems accurate and fair. What's crazy, is that I actually agree with Romney here. Or, rather the Romney quoted in the ad, probably not current Romney.

[zamboniracer]

The ad is accurate and doesn't take anything out of context or put so much spin on it to make one dizzy. It is entirely fair.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

I think this is a generous interpretation for two reasons.

First, the strike was a potential Bay of Pigs/Iran Hostage Crisis. A choice that could easily go south and make the President look like an incompetent fool. It also represented a military strike into a sovereign country that we are not currently at war with. A nuclear capable country with significant military resources. This is the sort of decision you don't make if you don't think OBL is a Big Fucking Deal. If you think he's a Nice To Have, you don't risk your presidency and a huge international incident over it.

Second, the strike was at least partly the result of Obama making OBL a priority. You don't get the same intelligence and plans if you don't put resources into it.

I agree, and let's remind ourselves of what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (who was appointed by Bush, remember) said about the raid: "Frankly, my heart was in my mouth... There was a lot of uncertainty about whether he was there. This was a very risky operation. So, I was very concerned. So was the President... I worked for a lot of these guys and this is one of the most courageous calls -- decisions -- that I think I've ever seen a president make."

Based on what Gates says, it's a good question as to whether other Presidents would have made the same decision, except with the benefit of hindsight.

Originally Posted by Marley23

That's a much less compelling argument, though. One is "Obama made the decision to prioritize and go after Bin Laden and Romney might not have," and the other is "Romney's a flip-flopper."

If we are going to judge political statements by how compelling they are, then statements like, "Republicans want old people to die," "Obama did a terrorist fist jab at the 2008 convention," "John McCain has a black baby," would probably be okay. I'm not a big fan of defending statements because they are more provocative than facts.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

For instance, given the saem intelligence and same plan, I imagine almost anyone who would have been president, whether it was Obama or McCain or Romney,would have okayed the strike

"He took the harder, and the more honorable path. When I saw what had happened, I thought to myself, 'I hope that’s the call I would’ve made,'"
- Bill Clinton

So no. It's not a sure thing.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If we are going to judge political statements by how compelling they are, then statements like, "Republicans want old people to die," "Obama did a terrorist fist jab at the 2008 convention," "John McCain has a black baby," would probably be okay. I'm not a big fan of defending statements because they are more provocative than facts.

I'm comparing the merits of two hypothetical ads, not arguing that good ad copy is more important than facts. As arguments go, "Romney flip-flopped on the importance of getting bin Laden" is just not as a hell of a lot less interesting than "Romney said he opposed the kinds of raids that led to the killing of bin Laden." The ad they made is much stronger than what you're proposing. Why say the guy flip-flopped on bin Laden when he definitely said he opposed these kinds of raids?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

"He took the harder, and the more honorable path. When I saw what had happened, I thought to myself, 'I hope that’s the call I would’ve made,'"
- Bill Clinton

So no. It's not a sure thing.

I agree it's not a sure thing, but I'd hardly use Clinton's statement in a political ad as proof.

To the OP: Fair. And savvy to have Clinton do the talking. Romney is on record as saying he probably wouldn't have done the raid. Maybe he would've taken the predator drone approach, but then we probably wouldn't have known for sure if it was successful.

And I say this as someone who would not have authorized the raid if I had been president.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm comparing the merits of two hypothetical ads, not arguing that good ad copy is more important than facts. As arguments go, "Romney flip-flopped on the importance of getting bin Laden" is just not as a hell of a lot less interesting than "Romney said he opposed the kinds of raids that led to the killing of bin Laden." The ad they made is much stronger than what you're proposing. Why say the guy flip-flopped on bin Laden when he definitely said he opposed these kinds of raids?

Well, who knows, maybe he'd of flipped and flopped an odd number of times when April 2011 rolled around in which case he'd of sent in the raiders.

The simple, "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive" ad would work for me. Romney was on the wrong side of both of those during the 2008 campaign. Of course, by the time January 2009 rolled around, Romney might have flipped an odd number of times on the GM bailout as well.

[Chronos]

Well, who knows, maybe he'd of flipped and flopped an odd number of times ...

It's hilarious that you can't just say "maybe he'd have flipped", and have to specify whether the number of flips was odd or even. True, but still hilarious.

[The Hamster King]

It's totally fair game. Back in 2008 Romney explicitly said he was opposed to the tactics that Obama used to get Bin Laden. Well, it turns out that Obama made the right call. He was right and Romney was wrong and that's an important data point for determining who should be in charge the next time a tough decision like that needs to be made.

The GOP is just bitching because it's a valid point and it goes straight to the heart of their weakness on national security.

[Little Nemo]

This is standard campaigning. Every candidate is going to have his opponent asking "can this guy make the tough calls?" Obama himself had to face this back in 2008.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I don't think they need to run a commercial to remind people that Romney is not the president. The issue (according to the ad's argument) is that he said he opposed the strategy that led to the bin Laden raid, and that if it had been his call the raid might not have happened. So if you think Obama did the right thing, you should know Romney was against it.

The line quoted in the ad in question is ""it's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person". The thrust of the quote was that killing Bin Laden was, in and of itself, not the only action that needed to be taken.

The quote comes from an Associated Press story on April 26, 2007, about a Romney interview with reporter Liz Sidoti that covered a range of topics. Here’s the related passage:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ing-bin-laden/

Using that quote to paint Romney as actively opposed to killing OBL is misleading.

More to the point, it's just hamhanded adwriting. When the truthiness-or-not of an ad becomes the topic, the ad has failed. The same implication could have been effectively made without coming close to the line.

[Mosier]

Obama shifted the military's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to allow more military missions inside Pakistan. The only reason the OBL raid worked was because the Pakistan government was completely left in the dark, something Bush would never have considered. Obama deserves the credit for finally tracking OBL down and killing him, and he deserves to use that success during his campaign. Romney would be smart to avoid ever bringing the subject of terrorism up during the election, since it's objectively Obama's strongest point. In fact, Republicans should completely abandon the idea that they can paint Obama as soft, or unfriendly to the military.

Republicans should stick with the unemployment rate, the birth certificate thing, the secret muslim thing, the black thing, and Obamacare as their talking points.

[Rhythmdvl]

Good point, yet still a bit weak. He should go all out and extend the machismo even further. Something like:


Announcer:
Do you really think Iranian terrorists would have taken Americans hostage if Barak Obama were president?
Do you really think the Russians would have invaded Afghanistan if Barak Obama were president?
Do you really think third-rate military dictators would laugh at America and burn our flag in contempt if Barak Obama were president?


Ach, then again, if he did something that ballsy millions of people would just hear Kaos.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Good point, yet still a bit weak. He should go all out and extend the machismo even further. Something like:


Announcer:
Do you really think Iranian terrorists would have taken Americans hostage if Barak Obama were president?
Do you really think the Russians would have invaded Afghanistan if Barak Obama were president?
Do you really think third-rate military dictators would laugh at America and burn our flag in contempt if Barak Obama were president?


Ach, then again, if he did something that ballsy millions of people would just hear Kaos.

Zis is KAOS! Ve don't ashashinate terrorists here!

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by furt

The line quoted in the ad in question is ""it's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person". The thrust of the quote was that killing Bin Laden was, in and of itself, not the only action that needed to be taken.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ing-bin-laden/

Using that quote to paint Romney as actively opposed to killing OBL is misleading.

First, the key quote is not the one you cite, but the one where Romney specifically attacked Obama's declaration of willingness to launch a raid into Pakistan if a sufficiently valuable target were found there.
Second, the claim is not that Romney is "actively opposed" to killing bin Laden, but that his stated positions raise doubts that he has the judgment and courage to actively support doing so.
Two distrortions in one statement -- how very efficient of you.

More to the point, it's just hamhanded adwriting. When the truthiness-or-not of an ad becomes the topic, the ad has failed. The same implication could have been effectively made without coming close to the line.

Oh, puh-leeze. A statement of truth "has failed" because the side inconvenienced by that truth squeals and tries to change the subject from the facts to the "controversy"? By this "logic", the theory of evolution "has failed" because creationists won't shut up and face reality.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I do think it's interesting that nobody has mentioned that the argument in the ad is made by Bill Clinton. Obama only appears in still photos- most of the ad is Clinton talking to the camera.

Yeah, I thought that was interesting too....especially since Clinton had chances at bin Laden and didn't try it.

That bit of irony noted, I think the ad is otherwise fair game. Green lighting that mission was a very ballsy move. If it went badly, Obama knew he'd catch hell for it, maybe even doom his chances for a second term. He did it anyway. I respect that, even though I hope Obama loses the election.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by platoon1016Guy

Obama promising to shutting down Guantanamo during the 2008 election, and then changing his mind once he got elected.

You are incorrect; Obama in fact, as one of his first actions after inauguration, signed an executive order to close Gitmo in one year. Then the Republicans whipped up a hissy fit of fear and fury over it, a passel of Democrats cravenly followed suit, and the poltroons in Congress passed legislation blocking the closing.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by furt

The line quoted in the ad in question is "it's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person". The thrust of the quote was that killing Bin Laden was, in and of itself, not the only action that needed to be taken.
[...]
Using that quote to paint Romney as actively opposed to killing OBL is misleading.

I think the point they're trying to make here is that Obama understands that some things are more important and bigger than columns in an actuarial table. Some things are worth fighting for even if the accountants say they're not. Romney wasn't so much "I'd never kill OBL" or "OBL doesn't matter" but rather "My numbers tell me that OBL isn't worth the risk:reward ratio"

They're drawing a distinction between someone who'll do the right thing because it's right versus someone who'll do the right thing when there's a net profit in it.

[echo7tango]

Originally Posted by EddyTeddyFreddy

You are incorrect; Obama in fact, as one of his first actions after inauguration, signed an executive order to close Gitmo in one year. Then the Republicans whipped up a hissy fit of fear and fury over it, a passel of Democrats cravenly followed suit, and the poltroons in Congress passed legislation blocking the closing.

You're absolutely right, because I chose the wrong words. Obama didn't change his mind. More accurately, Obama made a promise (and got votes for something) he ultimately could not deliver on.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

especially since Clinton had chances at bin Laden and didn't try it

When was this?

In this interview he claims he invested a lot of time into the Reagan announced war on terrorism.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

When was this?

In this interview he claims he invested a lot of time into the Reagan announced war on terrorism.

NBC story

Story in The Telegraph

ABC story

[furt]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

First, the key quote is not the one you cite,.

I cited the one used in the ad. If they had a better one and didn't use it, that seems to support the idea that the ad was poorly designed.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Fair. Romney's statement, however one tries to spin it, indicates a level of risk-aversion that makes it questionable, at best, that he would have pulled the trigger given the geopolitical costs even if the operation succeeded and the risk of a Carteresque fiasco if it failed.

Funny you should bring up Carter and "Desert One". Carter made the same sort of ballsy decision that Obama did, except that it ended rather poorly.

So? That's the chance you take in super high-stakes geopolitics. These are tough operations and a bajillion things can go wrong. In Carter's case, it went sideways. In Obama's case it went swimmingly. Yay for Obama... but both men made the hyper-gutsy decisions that, IMO, were correct to make. Both knew the incredible risks to their presidencies, and both were willing to make the right call. Yet Jimmy gets no credit for his decision. Totally unfair.

Funny, too... these guys are both considered by the knuckle-draggers to be "bleeding-heart liberal chicken shits; adverse to any aggressive military action that could lead to American bloodletting"..... Yeah. Right .

Let us never confuse from whom the true balls hang.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by emcee2k

Seems accurate and fair. What's crazy, is that I actually agree with Romney here. Or, rather the Romney quoted in the ad, probably not current Romney.

I'm not sure that this is what you're implying here but, one could make the case that while it was nice to get Obama, we had no business doing so in a country we are not at war with-- i.e. we violated Pakistan's sovereignty.

Thing is, no one--certainly not Romney--will voice that complaint after the fact because crushing Osama's terrorist ass was just too popular. Still, it's a fair point to make (whether you personally agree with it or not).