Political Animal
Blog
The two distinct but interrelated flaps about the killing of Osama bin Laden that are consuming much oxygen today are: (1) Can the president take credit for an operation planned and executed by military and intelligence personnel? and (2) Is it fair for the Obama campaign to quote Mitt Romney’s 2007 statements suggesing the pursuit of bin Laden was a poor allocation of resources to suggest he would not have pulled the trigger on the operation?
On the first point, the one thing that should be abundantly clear is that Romney and his supporters have no standing to complain about Obama taking credit for anything until such time as they stop holding him responsible for every sparrow that has fallen to the ground from the moment he took the oath of office (or even before then, if you listen to the bizarre claims that employers stopped hiring on Election Day of 2008 because they were fearful of the socialism headed their way). If the November election is indeed to become, as conservatives keep telling us, a national temperature reading on American life in general, then any development that warms the body politic should be fair game for Obama.
On the second point, Romney said something he shouldn’t have about Osama bin Laden in 2007, and as Josh Marshall pointed out today, he was really just aping the Bush administration’s line aimed at tamping down criticism that it hadn’t managed to take out Osama even as it was so abundantly squandering lives and treasure in Iraq. Still, he said it, and no one held a gun to his head to make sure he did. Sure, that’s not the same as knowing that Romney would have cancelled any effort to pursue Osama, much less canceled an operation to kill him. But again: is the Romney campaign going to foreswear attack ads that don’t go out of their way to offer pros and cons to this or that available critique of the incumbent? Of course not. Romney supplied the Obama campaign with the raw material for an attack line; it’s Mitt’s job to defend himself, and not to whine about having to do so.
All in all, Romney may regret carrying on an extended debate on this subject, which just reminds people who was president when the opportunity came to capture or kill America’s Most Wanted Man.
Facebook
Twitter
Quaker in a Basement on April 30, 2012 5:07 PM:
Previous GOP ads that featured bin Laden traded on the deaths of Americans for political gain. The current Obama campaign is leveraging the death of the man who killed them!
And there's your difference.
citizen_pain on April 30, 2012 5:13 PM:
George Bu$h and Mitt R-Money didn't think killing OBL was a priority.
Clips of Bu$h in 2003 saying such, as well as R-Money's 2007 utterance.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The repukes have no leg to stand on, and the dems must bludgeon them repeatedly with it.
citizen_pain on April 30, 2012 5:16 PM:
Sorry, provided wrong date:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority" -- 3/13/02
GWB
liam foote on April 30, 2012 5:19 PM:
I have to agree with some of my Republican friends who quite grudgingly say, "Yeah, it was a good call and he deserves credit for taking that risk. Plus he has the cojones to keep whizzing drone missiles at anyone who mentions jihad in public. But that is national security where he already has a huge advantage over Romney. What about the economy and employment?"
So, yes, Mr. Obama deserves credit for doing what he said he was going to do in the first place, which would be to authorize a covert mission on Pakistani soil, an assertion for which he was criticized by Sec. Clinton and ridiculed by the GOP, including Sen. McCain and Mr. Romney during the 2008 campaign. Let's give credit where it is due.
The bin Laden saga, the imagery and message, will be a factor in the 2012 election and the GOP is perfectly aware of this, hence their either dismissing the importance of the event or trying to somehow credit Bush-Cheney torture. Bottom line is that a substantial number of TP'ers and others on the GOP right wing will vote in Nov'12 simply to oust the Kenyan and his family, but not many seem attracted to Mr. Romney and his policies, whatever they may be this week.
I suspect that quite a few GOP folks who have no enthusiasm for Romney but could never bring themselves to vote for Obama may, like my friends, say "Gotta give him credit for bin Laden" and will simply stay home and look at GOP prospects for 2016.
John B. on April 30, 2012 5:20 PM:
Romney supplied the Obama campaign with the raw material for an attack line; it’s Mitt’s job to defend himself, and not to whine about having to do so.
Yes. This. Be it his "not going to apologize for being successful" or this thing about bin Laden, Romney's attempts at defending himself are whiny in their tone. I'm not looking forward to a whole campaign's worth of that tone . . . though I admit it'll be fun to compare/contrast his tone with Obama's on a debate stage or two . . .
howard on April 30, 2012 5:24 PM:
for romney to have actually ordered the killing, there would have needed to be an operational plan.
which is what obama tasked military and intelligence with in 2009, and which, quite clearly, romeny would not have done were he president at that moment.
so who cares if he would have approved the mission, too, since under his administration, there would have been no mission to prove.
that's what backs obama up: he directed a policy change. the policy change produced a positive result. he gets to take credit. period.
Ron Byers on April 30, 2012 5:26 PM:
Part of the President's job is to remind people why they should vote for him. One reason is that he had the guts to go after Bin Laden. Another is that he had the wisdom to save GM.
If Republicans don't think we need a President with guts and wisdom they should vote for Romney. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks both courage and wisdom.
Bruce K on April 30, 2012 5:37 PM:
right on to howard, you nailed the point!
TCinLA on April 30, 2012 5:44 PM:
(1) Can the president take credit for an operation planned and executed by military and intelligence personnel?
Until Obama, as Commander-in-chief, gave the orders for the planning and execution of the program to get OBL, none of these people were doing anything. The man who gives the order gets the credit. He certainly would have gotten the credit if it didn't work.
(2) Is it fair for the Obama campaign to quote Mitt Romney’s 2007 statements suggesing the pursuit of bin Laden was a poor allocation of resources to suggest he would not have pulled the trigger on the operation?
Of course it is, the idiot said what he said so if he doesn't like it, let him take his Tough Shit Card to the local Mormon Temple and get it punched by the local chaplain, as we used to say in the Navy.
Texas Aggie on April 30, 2012 7:03 PM:
Howard says essentially what I was thinking. The question of whether or not Rmoney would have given the order to take out bin Laden is moot because the situation would never have come up. Bush shut down the effort to track bin Laden and Obama restarted it. There is no reason to believe that Rmoney would ever have even considered restarting it.
The only reason that the situation ever occurred where bin Laden could have been taken out was because Obama decided to go after him. The republicans had given up and weren't even trying.
E.Hatt-Swank on April 30, 2012 9:50 PM:
I always try to avoid the travesty that is the "Morning Joe" program on MSNBC, but this morning I caught a few minutes of it while Mark Halperin & Joe & the rest were discussing this point. They all seemed to agree that Obama should take credit for the killing of Bin Laden, but that it was kind of distasteful, crass, gauche; and that if Bush had gotten Bin Laden and bragged about it, the media would have been all over him. Which says to me: if that clueless crew is not pleased by Obama's "hardball" politics here, then he certainly must be doing something right! I like it and hope he keeps it up relentlessly. Screw the Beltway crowd.
stratplayer on May 01, 2012 9:24 AM:
No credit, no blame. Eminently fair. Bet they don't go for it.
david1234 on May 01, 2012 10:49 AM:
I wonder why Romney doesn't continue with his original position: The effort to get Bin Laden exceeds the benefits.
zandru on May 01, 2012 11:27 AM:
They're Just Working the Refs...
... as always. Never expect any content or consistency from Republican whines and wails - just keep knocking them down every time they repeat the old stale arguments.
Repetition is what makes "fact" in Today's United States™ (a subsidiary of The Republican Party). If you're repeating something with a basis in reality and valid argument, so much the better.