2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[rvg]

Many days ago in the GOP thread I asked you Romney fans to outline his platform for me. I still have no idea what this man stands for, and I suspect most of you don't either. If he stands for nothing, then he's just another tool of a party that hasn't really changed much since Bush left office.

Jon Stewart has been running quite a few clips of Romney stating a position, then following up with clips of Romney stating the exact opposite. He quite literally will say anything, it's it looks almost pathological. If Romney says tat the sky is blue, I'd have to check it out myself.

[gaelic cowboy]

Jon Stewart has been running quite a few clips of Romney stating a position, then following up with clips of Romney stating the exact opposite. He quite literally will say anything, it's it looks almost pathological. If Romney says tat the sky is blue, I'd have to check it out myself.

The apparent showcasing of this shutdown drywall factory lately as proof of Obama's economic ineptitude looked stupid to me.
On what planet would a drywall factory have being doing well during a house bubble crash anyway.

Your right he will say anything I bet his elction poster will just say "Not Obama Mkay"

[Lemur]

I bet his elction poster will just say "Not Obama Mkay"

Well, don't underestimate the power of "not Obama." I would guess somewhere around ~15%–20% of the U.S. electorate would vote for a transgendered squid on the basis of it not being Obama. But the president is not so toxic that "not Obama" is a straight-up win for Romney. He needs to sell his own brand, propose his own hopey changey sort of thing.

-edit-

Meanwhile, shocking news, Newt concedes. Mostly. Sorta. And Romney has a weakish series of wins, which portends ... dunno, really. This is going to be a strange contest.

Romney won only 56 percent of the vote in Delaware and 58 percent in Pennsylvania, home to Rick Santorum who dropped out on April 10th.

While Romney avoided the embarrassment of winning with a mere plurality, never has a presumptive nominee won a primary contest with such a low level of support at this stage of the race with his chief challenger no longer actively campaigning. [...]

GOP frontrunners have averaged 78 percent of the vote in contests conducted after the last credible challenger left the race.

[PanzerJaeger]

The politicization of the assassination of OBL has begun. Watching Clinton spin the easiest decision that Obama has had to make during his presidency into the hardest was quite impressive though. Bill's still got it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah I saw that too. Here's the context for the second romney quote:

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."

And iirc the first one was about how specific you get while you are still running for office, how close to your chest you keep your cards.

It's weird to suggest that a republican president would not have given the go ahead. I give Obama a lot of credit for things like that, but it's compared to other democrats/liberals.

[Lemur]

The politicization of the assassination of OBL has begun.

It's better than cookiegate or the tale of two dogs; at least this is something someone actually did that actually mattered. I find it impossible to imagine a Republican president not making a big deal about bagging Bin Laden.

I give Obama a lot of credit for things like that, but it's compared to other democrats/liberals.

As per usual, you have a unique slant on things. Note that a very hawkish Republican president had the better part of seven years and a functionally unlimited budget to do the same thing, and yet you only give the current president credit in relation "to other democrats/liberals." So he's okay as far as pinko queer liberal tree-huggers go, eh?

[gaelic cowboy]

The politicization of the assassination of OBL has begun. Watching Clinton spin the easiest decision that Obama has had to make during his presidency into the hardest was quite impressive though. Bill's still got it.

I was under the impression they didn't know for sure therefore the decision was hardly easy made Yes/No

Allied with the fact it took some effort to follow the leads to the actual place twas hardly a slam dunk smash the glass lay up for Obama. (leads that prob could have been found earlier if the will had been there)

[Lemur]

It's weird to suggest that a republican president would not have given the go ahead.

Yes, it's freakishly strange to suggest that an opportunity might be missed by a Republican president. Because, as we all know, Republicans get everything right on national security, as opposed to the crypto-communist Dems.

I'm sorry, the 1980s called, and they'd like their parachute pants back.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, it's freakishly strange to suggest that an opportunity might be missed by a Republican president. Because, as we all know, Republicans get everything right on national security, as opposed to the crypto-communist Dems.

I'm sorry, the 1980s called, and they'd like their parachute pants back.

Parachute pants!!! Much chuckle at this was had by me. I hadn't thought of that 80's ghastlyism of fashion in some time.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Note that a very hawkish Republican president had the better part of seven years and a functionally unlimited budget to do the same thing

The ad is "gutsy call", watch the intro again

and yet you only give the current president credit in relation "to other democrats/liberals."

and Ron Paul

It's not incomprehensible anyway, it's like someone giving McCain credit for being anti-waterboarding, but only vs other republicans, or something like that.

[Lemur]

Parachute pants!!!

And you can't enjoy parachute pants unless you also sport unreasonably large shoulder pads. This are important.

The ad is "gutsy call", watch the intro again

Watched the first 15 seconds again; didn't hear anything inaccurate (just some political coup-scoring for the op). Besides which, according to the most detailed reporting that has surfaced, the decision to perform the raid was very much President 44's call.

I don't understand how it's legitimate for Bush II to base his entire presidency on 9/11, which he had nothing to do with, but it's politicizing and wicked for President Obama to say, "Hey, I got OBL" (which he actually did). It's cheesy, sure, but it's not misleading or inaccurate or the usual sort of pettifoggery we see in campaigns. It's an actual event in which he made an actual decision with an actual result. OH THE HUMANITY!

[PanzerJaeger]

What elicits eye rolls from me about the ad is not the administration cynically using a nationally unifying event to score cheap political points or the selective editing of a Romney quote to make a completely baseless assertion about his willingness to OK such an operation. Obama & Co are just as sleazy and amoral as any other group of American politicos, and that's just American politics.

However, the claim that this was a 'tough decision' with 'a lot of downside' is insulting to my intelligence. I believe in their 'Mission Accomplished'-esce rollout last week, the administration even suggested that Obama bet his presidency on the raid.

As if. First of all, this was not - at all - a hard decision. As I said before, it was most likely the easiest decision the president has had to make during his 3.5 years - a decision any president of either party would have made without hesitation. It had a huge upside and practically no downside. Anyone familiar with our operations in the region knows that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these raids conducted by SOCOM each year, both inside and outside official combat theatres and especially in Pakistan. Many of those raids are unsuccessful. The American public never hears about them. Had OBL not been at the compound, we likely never would have known about the raid. Even a worst case scenario - the raid being stopped by Pakistani forces and the SEALS captured and/or killed - would have been an obscure international incident, a dust-up between two international frienemies that would have struggled to make it to the top of GoogleNews and would have been resolved with several trunks full of crisp $100 bills, as every problem with Pakistan is.

Besides which, according to the most detailed reporting that has surfaced, the decision to perform the raid was very much President 44's call.

I would be careful citing David Corn as a reliable, objective source on the president. Fred Barnes wrote a fun book on the Bush presidency, but I wouldn't call it a critical assessment.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And you can't enjoy parachute pants unless you also sport unreasonably large shoulder pads. This are important.

Take my breath awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Watched the first 15 seconds again; didn't hear anything inaccurate (just some political coup-scoring for the op). Besides which, according to the most detailed reporting that has surfaced, the decision to perform the raid was very much President 44's call.

From david corn, author of:

The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003.
Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. New York: Crown Publishers, 2006. (Co-author with Michael Isikoff.)
Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party - William Morrow, 2012.[15]

Most detailed reporting that has surfaced? Who cares about how many details?

This blog interview with an alleged insider has plenty of "details"

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/0...ama-bin-laden/

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED MAY 3RD, 2011
Note: This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.
______________________
Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?
A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.
Read more in News
« Obama Lies – Mitt Romney Never Said He Wouldn’t Go After Osama Bin Laden
I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.
Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.
What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via militarycontacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.
This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’soffice. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.
At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it “…much more confident. Much more certain of himself.” He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.
In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.
Stay safe.

But obviously the question is whether they are accurate details that tell the whole story, or whether, for example, someone distorted things or made them up whole sale to credit/discredit obama.

But none of the above matters for the question at hand...

Implying that other presidents wouldn't have made the call is silly. Claiming that the Romney quotes reveal that he wouldn't have made the call is even sillier. Remember, the ad is about the moment of decision, when he's been briefed and just has to give the go ahead. Heck, what would the political backlash be from passing on a chance like that?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

However, the claim that this was a 'tough decision' with 'a lot of downside' is insulting to my intelligence. I believe in their 'Mission Accomplished'-esce rollout last week, the administration even suggested that Obama bet his presidency on the raid.

I think most right wing people had the bin laden killing down as a positive for Obama without even thinking about it. If anything that ad will make them disinclined to give him any credit.

[Lemur]

However, the claim that this was a 'tough decision' with 'a lot of downside' is insulting to my intelligence.

I seem to recall specials ops gone wrong having some impact in the past. Perhaps you're right and now would be different. But I shudder to think of the heyday Rushbo and the conservative media complex would have if Obama got a bunch of SEALS killed on a bum tip. Safe to say in that scenario the entire operation would have been a product of his fevered Alinskyite brain. But since it worked? Clearly he had nothing to do with it and/or it was so blindingly obvious a special needs child would have done the same. (Alternate: It could have been even better but OBOMBER screwed it up somehow, according ot our super-secret source. He deliberately allowed that stealth Blackhawk to crash so as to give the Chinese our tech, because he is a mulsin communist.)

I think most right wing people had the bin laden killing down as a positive for Obama without even thinking about it. If anything that ad will make them disinclined to give him any credit.

Because they were so on-the-fence before hand. These are largely the same people who believe that this administration's lack of movement on gun control is all part of a chilling Freemason scheme to take their guns away. Nah, I suspect those who turn purple with rage from this web ad are not the "persuadables."

Based on Obama's response to Team Romney's fit of apoplexy, I suspect this is a classic rope-a-dope. Obama's great political talent always has been inducing self-destruction in his opponents.

As for Corn, sorry for referencing, had no idea he was such a partisan hack. And SK, thanks for the gratuitous Tu Quoque of the screeching WMD-style article. Yay, two wrongs do make an omelet!

[Major Robert Dump]

Of course there were a lot of downsides. He is a Democrat. GWB can take us into a retarded, pointless war in Iraq thatcosts vast amounts of lives and money, and it's all good now. Meanwhile, 30 years later, I get to hear about Jimmy Carter's failed Iranian rescue mission everytime a "democrats suck at military stuff" debate comes up. It even happens on this board quite regulalry.

So yeah, it was a tough decision, because if Iraq had been started by a Democrat he would have been crucified 10x over now, and Obama certainly didn't want to become the butt of Republican jokes for the next 30 years because he didn't bring an extra helicopter.

[Lemur]

Meanwhile, Team Romney continues to score goals on the wrong side of the field. Were all of you aware that the GM and Chrysler bailout were, in fact, exactly what Romney wanted? That President Obama was actually following Romney's advice?

One of Mitt Romney's top advisers said Saturday that President Obama's decision to bailout Chrysler and General Motors was actually Romney's idea.

"[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that," Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said.

"The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."

The claim appears to be a shift from Mitt Romney's November 2008 op-ed in The New York Times, headlined, Let Detroit go bankrupt. [...]

But during the primary campaign, Romney repeatedly attacked Obama for lending billions of dollars in government money to the auto companies.

In a February op-ed in The Detroit News, Romney called Obama's auto bailout “crony capitalism on a grand scale.”

“The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse,” Romney wrote. “I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”

[Lemur]

Since I can't post it in the Game of Thrones thread (don't get the GWB reference, though—who is that character?):

[Kralizec]

Of course there were a lot of downsides. He is a Democrat. GWB can take us into a retarded, pointless war in Iraq thatcosts vast amounts of lives and money, and it's all good now. Meanwhile, 30 years later, I get to hear about Jimmy Carter's failed Iranian rescue mission everytime a "democrats suck at military stuff" debate comes up. It even happens on this board quite regulalry.

So yeah, it was a tough decision, because if Iraq had been started by a Democrat he would have been crucified 10x over now, and Obama certainly didn't want to become the butt of Republican jokes for the next 30 years because he didn't bring an extra helicopter.

Only Bush could go to Iraq?

[Major Robert Dump]

I dont follow your question.

Had the raid failed it would be a campaign sticking point of the right, much like what we still hear about Carter, despite there being a far worse military blunder started since Carters failure, that being Iraq, which we have already brushed under the rug because that campaign was not started by democrat

[Tellos Athenaios]

(don't get the GWB reference, though—who is that character?)

Someone whose entire vocabulary consists of a single word "Hodor" which is also his name.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I seem to recall specials ops gone wrong having some impact in the past. Perhaps you're right and now would be different. But I shudder to think of the heyday Rushbo and the conservative media complex would have if Obama got a bunch of SEALS killed on a bum tip. Safe to say in that scenario the entire operation would have been a product of his fevered Alinskyite brain. But since it worked? Clearly he had nothing to do with it and/or it was so blindingly obvious a special needs child would have done the same. (Alternate: It could have been even better but OBOMBER screwed it up somehow, according ot our super-secret source. He deliberately allowed that stealth Blackhawk to crash so as to give the Chinese our tech, because he is a mulsin communist.)

It wasn't a tough decision with a lot of downside, especially compared to the downside for passing up on it. "perhaps panzer is right" yes I think so.

Because they were so on-the-fence before hand. These are largely the same people who believe that this administration's lack of movement on gun control is all part of a chilling Freemason scheme to take their guns away. Nah, I suspect those who turn purple with rage from this web ad are not the "persuadables."

Most people give him a big thumbs up for it, but people are naturally put off when politicians try to sell their accomplishments too much.

Based on Obama's response to Team Romney's fit of apoplexy, I suspect this is a classic rope-a-dope. Obama's great political talent always has been inducing self-destruction in his opponents.

"Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order,” Mr. Romney told reporters at a campaign stop here on Monday...“Over these last several days, we’ve seen our president go across the country and bring up all sorts of extraneous items, everything he can do to distract from the issue people care about,” Mr. Romney told the crowd. “I wish the president would start talking about the economy and stop trying to divert with all this silliness.”

Is this what you meant by fit of apoplexy or some other quote (I assume). Obama's ad dishonestly smears romney. I wouldn't praise that. Obama's follow up "I assume people mean what they say" was pretty bad too.

I see another quote now, something about "feckless foreign policy". Good word but it seems pretty standard.

As for Corn, sorry for referencing, had no idea he was such a partisan hack. And SK, thanks for the gratuitous Tu Quoque of the screeching WMD-style article. Yay, two wrongs do make an omelet!

I have a dailymail article somewhere too, it's pretty nice. I had a pretty good idea the guy was a hack from reading the article but man just don't praise stuff just because it's detailed.

Of course there were a lot of downsides. He is a Democrat. GWB can take us into a retarded, pointless war in Iraq thatcosts vast amounts of lives and money, and it's all good now. Meanwhile, 30 years later, I get to hear about Jimmy Carter's failed Iranian rescue mission everytime a "democrats suck at military stuff" debate comes up. It even happens on this board quite regulalry.

So yeah, it was a tough decision, because if Iraq had been started by a Democrat he would have been crucified 10x over now, and Obama certainly didn't want to become the butt of Republican jokes for the next 30 years because he didn't bring an extra helicopter.

I'm not so sure about this. I remember another story about a raid in somalia. Presumably this kind of thing is done frequently and we're better at it than we wore. Times have changed. Bush was pretty harshly criticized and was mocked endlessly for the "mission accomplished" stuff. I would also think carter was unpopular for other stuff but I don't know the history for that era really. Way before my time.

I think obama should go for a broader focus and talk about what he's done with the drone strikes etc in combating terrorism on the whole, he would look much better. Especially since the context of the romney quote was about taking the problem as a whole and that was part of romney's response to the ad. Although the drone strikes are unpopular with some people I guess.

Meanwhile, Team Romney continues to score goals on the wrong side of the field. Were all of you aware that the GM and Chrysler bailout were, in fact, exactly what Romney wanted? That President Obama was actually following Romney's advice?

One of Mitt Romney's top advisers said Saturday that President Obama's decision to bailout Chrysler and General Motors was actually Romney's idea.

"[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that," Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said.

"The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."

The claim appears to be a shift from Mitt Romney's November 2008 op-ed in The New York Times, headlined, Let Detroit go bankrupt. [...]

But during the primary campaign, Romney repeatedly attacked Obama for lending billions of dollars in government money to the auto companies.

In a February op-ed in The Detroit News, Romney called Obama's auto bailout “crony capitalism on a grand scale.”

“The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse,” Romney wrote. “I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”

Huh, I went and read both the romney articles

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/op.../1x13HjVAzFRSg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ut-mitt-romney

And I don't really get the fuss. Perhaps the media is a little latched on to it's flip flopping romney story. Romney has serious criticisms of the way obama handled it, and there are significant similarities between his suggestion and what was actually done. I don't get economics but neither do political journalists as far as I can tell. If there's a problem it seems like it would have to do with romney being wrong about economics not some lightweight story about contradicting himself and claiming credit.

I tried to find the context for the Fehrnstrom quote but the video won't load, seems like it's from some press conference where they were talking about pranks and slow jamming the news and "the lighter side", so it seems silly to be so particular about the wording.

I dont follow your question.

Had the raid failed it would be a campaign sticking point of the right, much like what we still hear about Carter, despite there being a far worse military blunder started since Carters failure, that being Iraq, which we have already brushed under the rug because that campaign was not started by democrat

I remember bush getting hammered about that around the 2008 election and McCain working really hard to distance himself and obama working hard to connect him to it. I don't think it was brushed under the rug at all.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I remember bush getting hammered about that around the 2008 election and McCain working really hard to distance himself and obama working hard to connect him to it. I don't think it was brushed under the rug at all.

My recollection is that the 2008 distancing from Bush was nearly 100% economy driven. His 8 years of policies caused this bubble, yadda, yadda, yadda. Didn't hear to much about Iraq when everyone kept showing pictures of McCain with Bush along side that famous quote "The fundamentals of our economy are strong.".

[Kralizec]

Only Bush could go to Iraq?

I dont follow your question.




Had the raid failed it would be a campaign sticking point of the right, much like what we still hear about Carter, despite there being a far worse military blunder started since Carters failure, that being Iraq, which we have already brushed under the rug because that campaign was not started by #democrat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_goes_to_China

Only Bush could have mucked it up without losing all credibility

[Lemur]

It wasn't a tough decision with a lot of downside, especially compared to the downside for passing up on it.

Ah, so you're dead certain that sending Navy SEALS into a sovereign nation with uncertain intel was "not a tough decision." I admire your certainty, if not your reasoning.

Bush was pretty harshly criticized and was mocked endlessly for the "mission accomplished" stuff.

False equivalence is false. GWB chest-thumped over an accomplishment which was epically unaccomplished. BHO is chest-thumping over an actual accomplishment. Small but crucial difference.

Perhaps the media is a little latched on to it's flip flopping romney story.

Ah, those evil, evil media people. Is there any wickedness they don't promote?

-edit-

Here's a useful and accurate bit of perspective (from the EVIL MEDIA, natch):

You know who this puts Obama on par with? Every fricking Republican who has run for office since 2001. Oh, yeah, and Hillary Clinton, whose infamous 3 a.m. phone-call ad from 2008 is being revisited in the wake of Obama’s new one.

Let us take a brief stroll down memory lane to the 2004 Republican Convention. The not-so-subtle theme: vote for John Kerry and al Qaeda will invade your homes and eat your children. This is only a slight exaggeration. Dick Cheney hasn’t uttered a word in the past decade that didn’t raise the specter of terrorists at the door. And Rudy Giuliani? Joe Biden said it best when he noted that for a long stretch, every sentence that came out of Hizzoner’s mouth consisted of “a noun, a verb, and 9/11.”

Going even further back, who can forget President Bush’s much-ridiculed, flight-suity “Mission Accomplished” speech on May 1, 2003, from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln? But you know one of the main reasons that photo op was so widely ridiculed? It was bollocks. The “mission” in Iraq was anything but “accomplished.” Bush was touting an achievement he had not yet even achieved.

Osama bin Laden, by contrast, is very, very dead. [...]

Romney has been swinging at the president’s international cred of late. The governor has suggested he would be tougher than Obama on everyone from China to Iran, while his foreign-policy adviser Richard Williamson has flat out accused Obama of “naiveté and fecklessness.”

Those sound like fighting words to me. [...]

Is Team Obama’s ad a political punch to Romney’s magnificently chiseled jaw? Of course it is. It is harsh, exploitative, tacky even.

It is, in short, perfectly in keeping with today’s political climate.

A little more amusingness:

Republicans are — forgive the cliché — shocked, shocked to discover that a presidential contender is “politicizing” an important national event. In this sense, “politicizing” might be best translated as “beating us up and we don’t have anything much to say to stop it.” The ad itself raises intriguing, substantive, legitimate questions — and the ferocious, sputtering Republican reaction is proof positive that they know it, or at least suspect it.

And so on and so forth:

It couldn’t be more hilarious, watching these Republicans rend their garments over the Obama administration’s bin Laden video. Imaging the paroxysms we’d have been forced to endure if George W. Bush had iced the dreaded one is all we need to do to understand how hypocritical it all is. But what obviously gets under Republicans’ skin is not the fact of this video’s existence, but the fact that Barack Obama got him and they didn’t, which destroys their assumption of the past decade that they are “the 9/11 party."

And my personal favorite, which appears to be addressed directly to Sasaki and Panzer: "So the Republican position on the operation that took out Osama bin Laden is that it was no big deal? Good luck with that one."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ah, so you're dead certain that sending Navy SEALS into a sovereign nation with uncertain intel was "not a tough decision." I admire your certainty, if not your reasoning.

Why do you think it was a tough decision?

False equivalence is false. GWB chest-thumped over an accomplishment which was epically unaccomplished. BHO is chest-thumping over an actual accomplishment. Small but crucial difference.

MRD was saying republican war goofs were ignored and democrat war goofs repeated over and over. I was arguing against that kind of disparity.

Ah, those evil, evil media people. Is there any wickedness they don't promote?

Yes. But it's bad that they latch on to an easy narrative and churn out "here's more of so and so being X" stories. It leads to a simplified and false image of the presidential candidates being broadcast to the american people. My favorite Kimmel joke from the WHCD was a "non joke":

"Some people say journalism is on the decline, you've become too politicized, too focused on sensationalism. They say you no longer honor your duty to inform America, but instead actively try to divide us so that your corporate overlords can rake in the profits… I don't have a joke for this, I'm just letting you know what some people say…"

Here's a useful and accurate bit of perspective (from the EVIL MEDIA, natch):

You know who this puts Obama on par with? Every fricking Republican who has run for office since 2001. Oh, yeah, and Hillary Clinton, whose infamous 3 a.m. phone-call ad from 2008 is being revisited in the wake of Obama’s new one.

Let us take a brief stroll down memory lane to the 2004 Republican Convention. The not-so-subtle theme: vote for John Kerry and al Qaeda will invade your homes and eat your children. This is only a slight exaggeration. Dick Cheney hasn’t uttered a word in the past decade that didn’t raise the specter of terrorists at the door. And Rudy Giuliani? Joe Biden said it best when he noted that for a long stretch, every sentence that came out of Hizzoner’s mouth consisted of “a noun, a verb, and 9/11.”

Going even further back, who can forget President Bush’s much-ridiculed, flight-suity “Mission Accomplished” speech on May 1, 2003, from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln? But you know one of the main reasons that photo op was so widely ridiculed? It was bollocks. The “mission” in Iraq was anything but “accomplished.” Bush was touting an achievement he had not yet even achieved.

Osama bin Laden, by contrast, is very, very dead. [...]

Romney has been swinging at the president’s international cred of late. The governor has suggested he would be tougher than Obama on everyone from China to Iran, while his foreign-policy adviser Richard Williamson has flat out accused Obama of “naiveté and fecklessness.”

Those sound like fighting words to me. [...]

Is Team Obama’s ad a political punch to Romney’s magnificently chiseled jaw? Of course it is. It is harsh, exploitative, tacky even.

It is, in short, perfectly in keeping with today’s political climate.

A little more amusingness:

Republicans are — forgive the cliché — shocked, shocked to discover that a presidential contender is “politicizing” an important national event. In this sense, “politicizing” might be best translated as “beating us up and we don’t have anything much to say to stop it.” The ad itself raises intriguing, substantive, legitimate questions — and the ferocious, sputtering Republican reaction is proof positive that they know it, or at least suspect it.

And so on and so forth:

It couldn’t be more hilarious, watching these Republicans rend their garments over the Obama administration’s bin Laden video. Imaging the paroxysms we’d have been forced to endure if George W. Bush had iced the dreaded one is all we need to do to understand how hypocritical it all is. But what obviously gets under Republicans’ skin is not the fact of this video’s existence, but the fact that Barack Obama got him and they didn’t, which destroys their assumption of the past decade that they are “the 9/11 party."

And my personal favorite, which appears to be addressed directly to Sasaki and Panzer: "So the Republican position on the operation that took out Osama bin Laden is that it was no big deal? Good luck with that one."

What "intriguing, substantive, and legitimate" questions does the ad raise? Why did you link and quote four people who are just saying the same things you've been saying?

I get it, to you any kind of dishonest smear job by obama is fine because as long as it shows he's a "clever politician" who's "taking it to the republicans". You often focus on the polls and how some political move might go over with the public rather than whether it's actually good or bad and you consistently have this wildly exaggerated impression of how "hard obama rocked" the republicans. They are rending their garments, getting beaten up, in apoplexy, ferocious sputtering, etc.

It's a weird situation where the rest of the people (not just me and panzer, the forum as a whole) are here talking about politics and events etc, metaphorically sitting around a fireplace, and you're here campaigning like we're in the political trenches, throwing out blog-grenades willy nilly, scrabbling around for ammunition to use against the "enemy", and ducking imaginary salvos.

[Lemur]

Why do you think it was a tough decision?

By most accounts there were two options put forward on the uncertain intel: Bomb or go in with a team. The safe option was to bomb. Do the math. (Of course, the far-right blog post you credulously repost entire probably says differently (I take it wingnut, unsourced conspiracy theories are part of your fireside chat ethos?). I'm going with mainstream accounts. And yes, a joint op with Pakistan was considered, and I hope laughed out of the room.)

I get it, to you any kind of dishonest smear job by obama is fine because as long as it shows he's a "clever politician" who's "taking it to the republicans".

Thank you for articulating my entire worldview! I can rest easy now, much less hard thinking to do.

You often focus on the polls and how some political move might go over with the public rather than whether it's actually good or bad

Needs citation, as the Wikipedia folks say.

It's a weird situation where the rest of the people (not just me and panzer, the forum as a whole) are here talking about politics and events etc, metaphorically sitting around a fireplace, and you're here campaigning like we're in the political trenches, throwing out blog-grenades willy nilly, scrabbling around for ammunition to use against the "enemy", and ducking imaginary salvos.

I'd suggest that speaking for the Org as a whole is a dicey bit of business, which you'll probably want to retract or "clarify," not to mention the unintentional comedy factor of telling me my own motives. You do, in fact, appear to be rending your garments.

-edit-

P.S.: Romney has updated his rhetoric, recognizing a losing fight for what is is. Might want to adjust yours as well.

Mitt Romney today praised President Obama for giving the order to kill Osama bin Laden, a day after saying "even Jimmy Carter" would have done so.

"I commend all those who planned and conducted the bin Laden raid, and I applaud President Obama for giving the go-ahead for the mission," Romney said in a statement to mark the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's death.

Going back to your response to Team Romney being the guiding light in the Detroit bailout:

Romney has serious criticisms of the way obama handled it, and there are significant similarities between his suggestion and what was actually done. I don't get economics but neither do political journalists as far as I can tell. If there's a problem it seems like it would have to do with romney being wrong about economics not some lightweight story about contradicting himself and claiming credit.

Everyone agreed that GM and Chrysler needed restructuring; the question was how. Obama believed that the feds needed to be involved, Romney did not, and writes about finding private investors. Economists then and now pointed out that private investors were running scared, and that delaying everything to find them would result in an unstructured bankruptcy for two of the big three American automakers. Details:

The major questions here are (1) whether it was feasible for the companies to find private financing to restructure and (2) whether the associated job loss and economic ripple effects would have been acceptable. While Romney is correct that the restructuring was what he suggested, his idea at the time was hardly unique; there was a consensus that the companies needed to be significantly reshaped. The question was how to do it, and he said the answer was without federal funds.

[PanzerJaeger]

I seem to recall specials ops gone wrong having some impact in the past. Perhaps you're right and now would be different.

It would be very different. The Carter Administration, being the Carter Administration, announced the failure of the mission to the world on the night that it happened and detailed pretty much the entire affair. The Iranians were not even sure what was going on until they read the administration's statement, which caused them to split the hostages up - making future rescue missions nearly impossible. These days, SOCOM raids on HVTs in the AfPak region are quite common and the military has developed a public relations architecture to deal with any eventuality, which is essentially silence followed by denial followed by outright lies. And maybe long after any potential story has died in the news cycle, some relevant half truths are dumped on a Friday afternoon before a holiday. This can be done because pretty much everyone in these missions is SOCOM or absorbed into SOCOM before they go, which did not exist in its current form in the '70's. Carter used lots of regular forces and there is, or was (the military keeps plenty of stuff they do hidden these days too), a perceived duty to be more transparent about their circumstances.

And my personal favorite, which appears to be addressed directly to Sasaki and Panzer: "So the Republican position on the operation that took out Osama bin Laden is that it was no big deal? Good luck with that one."

Bah. The backroom is searchable now. Go look at the thread I started about the killing of OBL. I made it clear that it was a big deal and gave the president plenty of credit for doing it - and I still do. I simply take issue with the notion that it was a particularly tough decision that only a president with Obama's resolve () could have made. Any president would have loved to get the man. As Romney said yesterday, 'even Jimmy Carter would have made that call.'

[Lemur]

I simply take issue with the notion that it was a particularly tough decision that only a president with Obama's resolve () could have made.

I guess I don't understand the outrage. Two thoughts: (1) Saying, "Hey, I did this thing and I'm uniquely cool for doing it" is pretty basic stuff, politically. It's not remarkable or abhorrent. (2) Sending in a team was riskier than bombing. Bigger risk for bigger reward, in terms of intel gained. I don't see how that's arguable.