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.
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)?
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.
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?
Like Bush did?
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.
That’s a hypothetical.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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,’”
So no. It’s not a sure thing.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!