"Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order," Romney said of the Democratic president ousted after one term. Obama has tried to portray inconsistency in Romney's position on the merits of targeting bin Laden. Without mentioning Romney by name, Obama has said he has been consistent and if others have not, "let them explain it." http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...o-afghanistan-to-sign-post-war-agreement?lite Poor Romney, just doesn't know that he has to fish or cut bait. Didn't he tell us that he would have obtained Pakistan's permission to go after bin Laden? What if Pakistan said "no can do" to the Mittster, would he have gone after bin Laden anyway? How long would bin Laden have stayed in Abbottabad while Romney was asking for permission? We can safely say that bin Laden would still be hatching big plans if Romney had been at the controls.
you know it, Obama did what needed to be done, Romeny has already publicly said that is not the way he would of done it
Yep, waterboarding is not OK but assassination is. Great stuff the libs give us. The new bloodthirsty crowd. BTW, anybody could give a kill order for somebody in their jammies. How terrifying.
Bin Ladin was no longer a threat. Even Al-Quada had pushed him out of their organization. Nothing wrong with taking him out but he had no more big plans in the works.
I'm not seeing any issue or inconsistency there, although murdering a murderer is NOT assassination. That would be YOUR inconsistency.
So we should just forget about 911? Let bye-gones be bye-gones? Welcome Al Qaeda into the family of nations? (I'm asking this even tho I'm still not sure Al Qaeda acted alone.)
Bin Laden hadn't launched any big plans since 9/11 so why do you assume he had all this big stuff in the works? Bin Laden was basically irrelevant from a terror point of view by this time. However the point that Mitt was making is why risk pissing off a still very relevant country. His logic has a reasonable basis for argument.
Of course not but you need to see the forest through the trees. It is far more important to maintain or achieve a good relationship with Pakistan than it is to satisfy a bloodlust for something that happened 10 years ago. We would still have gotten him or maybe the Pakistanis would have done it to be rid of him, who knows. I'm actually glad Obama took him out but there is an argument to made on both sides.
Who's to say that our relationship with Pakistan hasn't actually improved since OBL's killing? I'd bet the power over there loves seeing him gone, even tho they have to object publically.
The irony of it is that the Pakistani's claimed to have had no knowledge that OBL was in Pakistan. Personally, I believe instead of continuing to give massive amount of monetary aid to them, the U.S. should should leave them to thrash about in their own web of deceit. ... same for Afghanistan.
Invading a States sovereignty without advising them is never a wise move. I highly doubt they would have said no but its at least good to talk to them first. A simple 2 minute phone call would not have slowed the mission down at all.
Its that very monetary aid that lets us go into their country and do things without their knowledge without them getting all irate about it. Monetary aid throughout the world buys us influence among other things.
Well let's review Romney's ENTIRE statement and the question asked. LIZ SIDOTI: "Why haven't we caught bin Laden in your opinion?" GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I think, I wouldn't want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He's one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He's by no means the only leader. It's a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that." SIDOTI: "But would the world be safer if bin laden were caught?" GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Yes, but by a small percentage increase – a very insignificant increase in safety by virtue of replacing bin Laden with someone else. Zarqawi – we celebrated the killing of Zarqawi, but he was quickly replaced. Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is – it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin laden or a few of his associates." SIDOTI: "Do you fault the administration for not catching him though? I mean, they've had quite a few years going after him." GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "There are many things that have not been done perfectly in any conduct of war. In the Second World War, we paratroopered in our troops further than they were supposed to be from the beaches. We landed in places on the beaches that weren't anticipated. Do I fault Eisenhower? No, he won. And I'm nowhere near as consumed with bin Laden as I am concerned about global Jihadist efforts." And then the a few days later when asked about it. MODERATOR: "Gov. Romney, respond to the mentioned reference to you ... by Sen. McCain." ROMNEY: "Thank you. Of course we get Osama bin Laden and track him wherever he has to go, and make sure he pays for the outrage he exacted upon America." MODERATOR: "Can we move heaven and earth to do it?" ROMNEY: "We'll move everything to get him. But I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person — Osama bin Laden — because after we get him, there's going to be another and another. This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. "They ultimately want to bring down the United States of America. "This is a global effort we're going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It's more than Osama bin Laden. "But he is going to pay, and he will die." So care to reconcile that with your statement of fact that Romney would not have order the raid? And where in his statement do you disagree and more important where do you believe Obama would disagree? And especially this We know he wasn't after Bush ran him into hiding into Pakistan where he had been sitting impotent watching himself on TV.
We will never really know if the SEALS got Osama or a look-a-like...not really. No autopsy, no body, nothing.
Yeah! Exactly! Why bother this poor old man who was just trying to live out the rest of his life in the comfort of an upscale suburban compound? I'm sure the libruls will same something along the lines of "justice"...bah humbug!!!
Had the administration done the Romney plan and told Pakistan before the raid there is little doubt the Seals would have raided an empty house.
Classic Mitt the Flip. One day he says OBL is no big deal, wouldn't move heaven and earth. Next day after catching some heat, OBL's the top priority and he would move heaven and earth. The guy will say anything, pander to anyone, to get elected.
He wasn't and we didn't move heaven and earth to get him. Of course if you want to claim we should have done NOTHING else and should have diverted all our assets to capturing him and should have sent a couple of divisions over the Pakistan border go ahead.
No, I just wanted to point out what a flip flopper Mitt the Flip is. Thanks for pointing out another example.
As opposed to Obama, Gitmo, terrorist trials, etc etc. Romney's statement was quite prudent and practical and as you admit it would not have been a good move to devote heaven and earth just to catch OBL when the threat, as we found out yesterday, was emanating from elsewhere. OBL was an impotent old man in hiding.
Republican excuse making. Personally, I've very happy OBL is feeding the fishes. God bless America and President Obama.