Obama slams Romney for changing tune on bin Laden

Comments (42)
SeamusDog wrote:

If Republicans woulda made the call, why didnt they? OBL was alive when th elast R left office

Apr 30, 2012 3:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Wow, what a courageous statement to make. The truth is, Romney doesn’t know what he would have done. But then Romney says whatever he thinks will get him elected President. Clinton said it best, that he hopes that he would have made the same call.

Apr 30, 2012 3:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
leobaoig wrote:

Of course he would, he is the EXACT SAME as Obama.

Apr 30, 2012 3:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Flashrooster, so true, hindsight is 20/20 so of course knowing the results Romney would have ordered it. But the question is knowing his personality, not willing to take chances politically, always taking the ‘safe-way’ by telling people what he thinks they want to hear(the flip-flopping) would he have made this risky decision not knowing the outcome. Logically I think he would have leveled the place with a B2 strike, considering he likes the ‘safe-way’ and his previous hawkish statements about suing military force.

Apr 30, 2012 3:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Obama doesn’t know what Romney would have done, either. Obama also says whatever he thinks will get him reelected.

Apr 30, 2012 3:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

It’s a simple question, and strange that anyone is asking! You have actionable intelligence on the most wanted man in the world. Do you use your resources? Or squander your advantages? Anyone with the guts to run the gauntlet into the Oval Office almost certainly has the guts to do this – or the self-preservation instinct not to put themselves on the record as opposing such an operation!

I don’t think there’s been a single candidate in this race since early last year (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) who would have turned down that opportunity.

The real question is… Which of the candidates could have coolly kept the operation under their hat while it was happening, as Obama did?

Saying “YES” is a no-brainer. Knowing the whole plot and not betraying the intrigue in the slightest degree, to your regular guests at the White House? A class act…

Apr 30, 2012 3:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ayesee wrote:

“On Tuesday in New York, Romney will mark the anniversary of bin Laden’s killing by appearing with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and meeting with firefighters.”

And what is that, but a somewht cheap political tactic?

Apr 30, 2012 4:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

Funny how the press lets Obama get away with this: We found Obama through intelligence gained from Water Boarding. Obama says he would have never allowed water boarding.

Apr 30, 2012 4:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
acspore wrote:

The point is not whether he would have given the order to kill OBL, every President would have. The fundamental point is would he have focused resources and priorities to go after Osama Bin Laden? Clearly, he would have been like Bush, his priorities were elsewhere. This Romney fella is one dishonest, despicable, guy. He has no core, no principles, not a shred of honesty and backbone in his entire body, it’s all about making money and nothing else with him, astonishingly loathesome.

Apr 30, 2012 4:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Unpartisan, actually it is untrue that we found Osama(ill excuse your typo sure it a mistake) through intelligence gained from water-boarding. When in fact the name of the courier for Bin Laden that we tracked, eventually leading to the compound was from several different sources, one of them was KSM, who was water-boarded, but I never heard if this tidbit of information was obtained from him from torture(water boarding IS torture) enhanced interrogations. Never the less it came from multiple sources, with most not being water boarded.

Beyond this specific case, torturing (once again water-boarding is torture) IS NOT a reliable intelligence gathering technique, people will say anything to make the torture stop. A more effective interrogation technique is to establish a bond with the person being interrogating, much like the VERY professional Long-term interrogation of Saddam Hussein by the FBI. Everyone should do some research on how this was done, was amazing and very insightful into why Saddam did certain things.

Apr 30, 2012 4:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
unclepie wrote:

Would he have invaded Iraq, to get the “weapons of mass destruction”? Would he have invaded Afghanistan to get the….get the….what was it? Why did we invade Afghanistan, anyway?
Would he have invaded Vietnam? Bombed Laos and Cambodia?

Apr 30, 2012 4:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Romney will mark the anniversary of bin Laden’s killing by appearing with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and meeting with firefighters? Look who’s monopolizing the limelight.

Apr 30, 2012 5:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:


It was an honest spelling mistake, I don’t think ill of the President. Anyways CIA Chief Leon Panetta stated the following in an interview with NBC:

Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged. Panetta, who in a 2009 CIA confirmation hearing eclared “waterboarding is torture and it’s wrong,” said Tuesday that debate about its use will continue. “Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.

Personally, I am moving more and more to a non interventionalist approach. In my opinion a NeoCon is definitely not an improvement over Obama, and I will put foreign policiy as an advantage for Obama over Romney. Really you can’t get the Foreign policy experience a President has without being President, so incumbants normally should have the advantage. Romney is just promising more wars. But my point is given the information that Panetta has said and that Obama was against waterboarding and seemed to court the group that wants to try Bush and Cheney, I wouldn’t be bringing up the whole Bin Laden thing as it may have not happened if it hadn’t been for Bush and Cheney and waterboarding in the first place.

Apr 30, 2012 5:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
hepette wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 5:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

“Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order”
What a pompous ass. Romney is just plain incapable of behaving like a normal, decent, humble human being. Jimmy Carter has more courage, class, and brains than Romney will ever sufficiently pretend to have in any of the endless number of fake character rolls he plays to win votes. Unlike Mitt Romney, Jimmy Carter served his nation by joining the Navy, which included extensive service on both diesel-powered and nuclear-powered submarines.

Romney, and some of the posters on here, act like the decision was a no-brainer. There was enormous risk in that operation and anyone saying otherwise only demonstrates their lack of understanding about such missions, and probably shows that they’ve never had to risk their lives in service for others. We know that to be the case for Romney. It also disrespects and belittles the risk taken by the Special Ops who performed that risky and incredible service to this nation. Shame on Romney.

There was a lot that could have gone wrong. In fact, they lost a helicopter during the mission and still pulled it off successfully. There were other options as well, safer options, like bombing the compound. There was also considerable doubt as to whether or not bin Laden was even there. It was a very high risk operation and a big political gamble for Obama, especially since the Republicans are clearly not above using anything to attack Obama with. Imagine had the mission failed. That would make the Republicans very happy.

As matthewslyman points out, in a very classy post, Obama handled the operation with great class and tact. And since the operation, he’s been rather coy about this huge political success. He deserves credit and he hasn’t exploited it like he could, yet that hasn’t stopped the Republicans from claiming otherwise. Had Bush accomplished the same feat, we’d never have heard the end of it and the Republicans, instead of admonishing Bush for exploiting it, would be pushing that exploitation themselves. The usual Republican double standard. We know this because Bush did it during the Iraq War. In fact, Bush ran his reelection campaign on his handling of 9/11, and frankly I never understood what there was to crow about. After all, he was in charge during the worse terrorist attack against the US in history, and was even warned that it was coming. Rove turned a negative into a positive. And in 2008 Rudy Giuliani tried to run his campaign on HIS handling of 9/11. It’s all just another example of why I could never align myself with the Republicans.

Obama deserves credit for both making the right decision and the way he’s handled it. He has every right to tout this success during his reelection campaign.

Apr 30, 2012 6:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

No sense in arguing hypotheticals.

Apr 30, 2012 6:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MKM23 wrote:

Yet again Willard is opening his mouth again and will soon put his foot in it. It is just like watching a circus.

Apr 30, 2012 7:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JoshuaL wrote:

I agree with Flashrooster…

And this whole thing that Obama is doing is just a response to when Romney said that anyone would have made that same decision. Doesn’t anybody remember Romney’s first major political ad that took former president Clinton’s words COMPLETELY out of context to make it seem like anyone and everyone would have done what Obama did when in fact Clinton was saying the opposite!??!

Romney started this losing fight and Obama is just responding now that it is clear Romney is the nominee… But apparently Republicans think it is okay for THEM to politicize things so long as THEY are doing it and nobody else gets to do it, or even respond!

Apr 30, 2012 7:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

All he talked so far is what the other guy didn’t do or what someone else could have done – it’ll be helpful if can talk more about what he has done if anything significant that mattered to the common-good of the nation and the public.

Apr 30, 2012 7:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Well, we know what Ronald Reagan chose to do with Bin Laden. Send him cash and weapons. That worked well, I think.

As far as I’m concerned, the GOP has lost its credibility on security and foreign policy matters. Bush and Cheney milked the Bin Laden drama for 8 years and came up dry. It wasn’t for lack of spending either.

Apr 30, 2012 7:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bobbski wrote:

“Even Jimmy Carter…?” Perhaps the idiot does not remember that Carter DID authorize a mission to free the hostages in Iran. The military wasn’t up to it and the mission failed costing Carter a second term.

Romney just may be the most clueless presidential candidate in my lifetime and I have been on the planet for 71 years. He makes Dukakis look like a genius.

Apr 30, 2012 8:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
explorer08 wrote:

It does not matter what Democrats say, do, or think – Republicans always take the default position against them. That is the Republican strategy. It doesn’t matter if the ideas, actions, or thoughts do or do not have merit – the Republicans will take a stand against them. This is the strategy of Karl Rove (the Joseph Goebbels of the Republican party). Republicans subvert the wishes of the Founding Fathers by not allowing for compromise or any admission at all that a Democrat might be right about something. This is why we are in decline. The constitution cannot work under such Republican actions.

Apr 30, 2012 8:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

explorer08: “This is why we are in decline. The constitution cannot work under such Republican actions.”

Right now perhaps more than any other time since the Civil War, strategic prioritization is essential and should be a national discussion. I’m talking about the basic “do to” list for our survival. The is why I’m so repulsed by the Republicans. Their priorities are twisted. If something positive for the country is seen as being good for the Democratic Party, then they’re against it, like the auto bailout; tax cuts for small business; getting out of Iraq; raising the debt ceiling (as opposed to a default); improving our healthcare system; there’s no end to it. Even their reaction to the killing of bin Laden was tepid at best. As you stated, explorer08, if this is allowed to continue, the US will fail.

That’s why I say we have to get a better sense of our priorities, and the Republicans can either change course or get out of the way. I’m not saying they have to go along with everything the Democrats what to do, nor am I saying the Democrats are always right. They aren’t. But the Republicans MUST show a genuine willingness to work with the Republicans or we must campaign to get them out of the picture and only allow people willing to work with each other in our government.

Apr 30, 2012 9:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

UnPartisan..regarding your post at 5:10pm….? Yesterday Romney appeared to be your guy. Have you figured out yet who’s responsible for the budget and the financial crisis we are facing? Did you read the opening two sentences of of Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity”? “Statement of Constitutional and Legal Authority”? Or read Bowles-Simpson? Too much is made of the President. Congress is the biggest problem in this country. We keep electing the same jack wagons (both sides of the aisle) over and over again. Insert Einstein’s definition of Insanity here.

Apr 30, 2012 10:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

xyz2055: Though I agree with most of your post, we can keep having elections and keep reelecting who we have in there or keep throwing all the bums out, but until we change our system and the finance our elections, it’s not going to matter. We’ll just end up getting a new set of bums. We’re going to keep getting the same results, Albert’s definition of insanity.

Our elected government employees have as much volition as those who write the checks for their campaign’s will allow them. The problem is that they aren’t serving us any more. They’re serving those who write the biggest checks for their campaigns. What they do for us is pump our heads full of propaganda. If our elected government officials don’t serve the money folks, they lose their election bids, at least 94% of the time. So why should they concern themselves about us? Because it’s the right thing to do? That would be nice. He or she could be the ideal Congressman for the people, but unless he or she is doing what is wanted by the plutocrats who sign the campaign checks, there won’t be enough people who will know about how great that Congressman has been. We’ll only hear how bad they are and how much better their opponent is. Because of the disparity in wealth there is no way the vast majority of the American people can compete with the plutocrats who choose the members of our government for us.

As hard as it will be to do, serious campaign finance reform is the only thing we can do that will return our government back to us, the American people. Did you know that last year only 196 individuals made up 80% of all money raised by super PACs? And this year is looking even worse. This fact should have people pouring into the streets in protest. The problem is, how many people know about this and how many people understand what it means to our Republic? It is the great unknown American tragedy.

Apr 30, 2012 12:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

flashrooster..here’s the flaw in your comment. The 0.1% that spend big money on election campaigns don’t have enough votes to make a difference in the elections. The 99% DO! While I agree with you on campaign reform, it’s not going to happen. Americans simply need to get smarter. Keep turning those positions over each election cycle until we get people in office that get it. That they work for the majority..not just the few.

May 01, 2012 2:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

xyz2055: I have to disagree. In an ideal world, yes, the votes make the difference. This is not an ideal world and we must deal with our current reality if we ever hope to change it. What you’re ignoring is the 94% figure I referred to in my last post. The candidates who spend the most money win their election 94% of the time. That fact can’t be ignored. The plutocrats are very much aware of that fact.

The problem is that the 99.9% you’re referring to do not get reliable information. That makes all the difference. The people can’t make informed decisions if they aren’t informed. Do you realize that 6 months into the Iraq War 70% of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks? That’s what propaganda can achieve. The plutocrats have most of the money and utilize it to control the information. He who controls the information controls the world. This is what we’re up against.

May 01, 2012 2:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
uc8tcme wrote:

The American citizen who continues to beleive Romeys flip flopping is not sain. How can Romey continueously take the opposite position on issues only to conveinently change his stance when it seems fit (normally post facto) – that is a Dr. Jeckyll / Mr. Hide – the media has called him on this many of times and this guy is running for POTUS, he has no conviction on servicing this country, he wants the power. What a shame.

May 01, 2012 7:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mr.Monkey wrote:

Difference between Bush and Obama, Bush supported fair court and execute, means, president of fairness and war, Obama supported killing instead of right for all, that makes him President Killer.

May 01, 2012 7:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TobyONottoby wrote:

Mr.Monkey -

Were you one of President George W. Bush’s speech writers, by any chance?

May 01, 2012 9:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

It’s time for Romney to start talking what if any substantial that he has accomplished instead of going after other folks what they haven’t done or what he’d do. Short of that, much of what he is saying is coming out as gas.

May 01, 2012 10:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
0okm9ijn wrote:

Romney confuses the killing of OBL with the strategic decision to carry out the operation to kill him. First, Romney would have had to enter Pakistan, an ally, without Pakistan’s knowledge. A step he argued against in 2008. Second, Romney would have performed each step Obama performed before the final call: to limit information to a select group, th eselect group, what information to limit, how to assemble the team that prepared for the operation, and the type of operation to prepare for. Each of these steps carried the potential of failure and to crippled the final operation. Last, GWB failed to make the strategic call to kill OBL in Bora Tora. While this is political, it is cheap and presumptous for him to denigrate Carter for the failure of Iran rescue strategy while he wold argue away the Pakistan call.

May 01, 2012 11:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mct1 wrote:

The facts are that Rommey never said what Obama claims . His comments were in regard to troop movements Why does the Reuters reproter not say this or is he in the Bag for Obama ??????

May 01, 2012 12:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:

I am no fan of Bush The Lesser, but Mr. Monkey is absolutely correct when he states that Bush supported fair court and execute procedures, and Obama supports outright killing. Don’t take my word for it, look up their policies regarding said subject, it’s rather enlightening. Sigh, I can’t vote GOP because of their war on women, the poor, and the elderly, so I suppose once again I’ll hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two weevils.

May 01, 2012 1:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

I love the GOP outrage about politicizing the death of OBL.

It’s not like Obama announced Bin Laden’s death in front of a huge throng of troops from the deck of an aircraft carrier under a giant banner saying “Mission Accomplished”.

May 01, 2012 1:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

flashrooster..I’m fully aware of the statistics on who spends the most money wins elections. This is why Super Bowl ads cost millions of dollars for each 30 second ad. Name recognition is extremely effective. That’s why I said the American people simply need to get smarter. 90% of campaign ads are (which have something negative to say about their opponent) are either outright lies or a gross exaggeration of the truth. Your solution is for the wolves to pass a law that they won’t go into the hen house. I just don’t see that happening. You’re smart enough to get it and I’m smart enough to get it. We just need for more people to get it. Everyone should be an Independent. Make the candidates fight for your vote.

May 01, 2012 1:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

xyz2055: But that puts us right back in the same place. Of course everyone needs to be smarter. You could use that answer for all of our problems. But unless you have a viable, realistic plan for making the masses smarter, then you might as well say, we need a magic wand, and it would be just as useful. How do you propose making the people smarter when those who have the money and control our government and our information want the people to remain dumb? Anything you propose can be countered times 10, or times 100, if necessary. FOX News is the most widely watched news broadcast. How do you get people to start questioning the only news source the trust?

You say it’s just a matter of voting everyone out of office until we have people in there who serve our nation rather than the plutocrats. I’d just like to hear your plan for doing this. How do you overcome that 94% figure?

May 01, 2012 3:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

In the end, it does not really matter what Romney says because he is not going to be President. Doesn’t have the votes necessary. He is a career candidate who does little beyond complain and listen to himself talk.

May 01, 2012 3:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Butch_from_PA wrote:

There is nothing that can unseat Obama for next presidential term – short of a big terrorist attack on US soil. If and when we do get one before the election – it will stink so bad – it will back fire on those setting it up.

May 01, 2012 4:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Regan while introducing the Mujahideen and early Al Qaeda leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985).

Reagan was a dedicated Al Qaeda supporter with cash, weapons and classified intel, and even dedicated a space shuttle flight to these ‘freedom fighters’ in 1982.


So yeah…. that went well. Putting Osama Bin Laden up there with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Oops! And Reagan is the same President who Romney has publicly admitted to being the ‘most influenced by.’ Good times. GOP is a sell.

May 01, 2012 6:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Chazz wrote:

I’m so glad to see the President’s plan to “unite” us is working as well as it is.

How, “Presidential.”

May 01, 2012 7:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Well Chaz, the President can only do so much for the cry babies. Would you rather he hang up a ‘mission accomplished’ banner and call up Fox News for a photo shoot?

Good times, GOP. Yoller jis jellis of Obama’s success. If Bush and Cheney done their job in the 8 years they had to do it, you wouldn’t be in this sad position. But they didn’t. And Obama did. So here you are.


May 01, 2012 7:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.