I’m sorry, Romney 2.0 is out of date. The current version is Romney 2.1.17
Some more than others.
I think its fair to highlight how gutsy the call was by highlighting how others (specifically Romney) might not have made the same call.
Lets remember the timeline:
They find out and receive preliminary confirmation of OBL presence in the compound in August. Obama is advised to bomb the place and get DNA evidence to confirm the kill.
Obama, is staring at a brutal mid term election but decides it is better to delay the strike so that the SEALs can train for the mission for several months.
A million things can go wrong but things work out.
Republicans spend the next few weeks trying to convince America that Obama did little more than nod assent to killing OBL, I mean who wouldn’t give the go ahead to kill OBL.
When it comes to foreign policy and security, crticizing Obama is like monday morning quarterbacking the winning team because you think you could have covered the spread by a wider margin.
Tell that to NASA.
I think they’re drawing a distinction between somsone who is willing to risk their second term to kill OBL against someone who isn’t.
To be fair if the Iraqis had actually greeted us with flowers and kumbayahs, Jeb Bush would be the sitting President right now.
I don’t dislike Romney. I just don’t think he has enough of a spine to stand up to a “severely conservative” congress if they send wingnut legislation to his desk.
This is something that should be emphasized. This is not the first time the Republicans have tried to argue that Obama had basically no role in the whole process. They failed a year ago and they’ll fail now.
That principle didn’t work so well when GW Bush was president.
Once again, this is a case where I wish Romney would just own his own bullshit. I mean, why not just say, “Yeah, I said I wouldn’t go after binLaden with incredible fervor, and here’s why: <reasons A, B, C, D, etc.>” But, no, Romney instead pivots and says that of course he would have gone after ol’ Osama. Even though he said explicitly that he wouldn’t. Now, I have no doubt that, had Osama knocked on the Romney’s door and said, “Howdy,” that Romney and Co. wouldn’t have shot him dead. But Romney never said he wouldn’t pull the trigger on the guy if he showed up somewhere. He just said that he wouldn’t move Heaven and Earth to do it. Own that and explain it. Same for healthcare in Massachusetts. Own it and explain why it was right for MA and wrong for the rest of the country.
Based on how the Republican Party have comported themselves in the last 3-4 years, Obama has freebies to go as far as he wants with wild claims, hypocricy, and downright filthy play. Shit, he could even rape a few 9 year-old girls if he wanted and he’d still have the moral high ground on the rabble of derelects who have sought only to block and never to perform.
It is easy for anyone to say they’d do the right thing in hypothetical future scenarios. Bush claimed he was a compassionate conservative. But how can you tell what someone would actually do except by looking at past statements.
Besides Osama, we also have Detroit. Sure Detroit is unlikely to nearly go bankrupt in the next four years, but isn’t Romney’s rejection of the bailout worth noting? Especially because he still rejects it?
Obama is taking a page from the Karl Rove book, which is attacking the strengths of your opponents - in this case national security. It is totally fair, and honest, to make Romney responsible for his past statements, especially since he has been all over the map. However, given the record of the Republicans, I don’t give a crap about fair. Truthful, yes, fair no.
Since when is national security a Romney strength?
Right, that makes no sense at all. Romney’s strength would be his business background. National security is a strong issue for Obama here.
I think that Voayger’s point is that national security is traditionally seen as a Republican strength. It is not necessarily truthfully a Republican strength, but that is the perception. It is certainly not a Romney strength (what are his strengths again?), but there ya’ go.
I don’t think that’s going to be the perception in the 2012 election.
I think that Voyager means that national security has traditionally been regarded as a strength of the Republican party.
The ad is Fair and truthful. Romney degraded the effort to get Osama and challenged the policy of going into Pakistan. Obama’s success differentiates the two.
Obama is running on his record. Romney is trying to make one up.
Crane
This kind of disgusting rhetoric is beyond the pale. Raping children is better than pursuing a conservative agenda? Really?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I wonder what he toned it down from… 8 year olds? Boys?
Did Obama even make the right call here? Innocents might have been shot by SEALS, if the intelligence was at all shaky.
So what? Pakistan was knowingly harboring the bastard. We stepped back from hitting the compound with a JDAM because of possible collateral damage. SEALs were the best call.
As for Romney and the rest of the [del]Right[/del] Wrong… suck it. Our guy did what your guy couldn’t, and that’s that.
And Oak? Just about anything is better than pursuing the conservative agenda.
Obama thanks the Navy Seals and others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41VnWsMx7MQ
OKAY, he didn’t spend all day giving out kudos, but it’s not as if he never thanked folks down the chain of command.
Yeah, that post might be a wee bit hyperbolic.
So I’m worse than a baby raper because I’m conservative? That what you’re saying?
Yeah. We’re done here. It’s not even worth pitting you for that shit.