On Anniversary of Bin Laden Death, Etch-A-Sketch Romney Flip Flops From Against Raid to For It

On Anniversary of Bin Laden Death, Etch-A-Sketch Romney Flip Flops
From Against Raid to For It

Gibbs: Romney wouldn't have ordered bin Laden raid

By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 4/29/12 11:59 AM EDT
Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs on Sunday defended the suggestion
by the president's reelection campaign that Republican rival Mitt
Romney might not have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in
Pakistan.

"Look, just a few years ago, President Obama – then a candidate – said
in a speech that if we had actionable intelligence of a high-value
target in Pakistan, we'd go in and get that high value target," Gibbs
said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Mitt Romney said that was foolish.
He wouldn't do such a thing. That he wouldn't move heaven and earth to
get Osama bin Laden."

Gibbs hedged – but only slightly – when pushed by host David Gregory
about whether "President Obama believes that a President Romney" under
the same conditions and with the same intelligence "wouldn't take that
shot."

"I don't think it's clear that he would," responded Gibbs, who served
as Obama's lead spokesman during the 2008 campaign and then in the
White House. "Again, he criticized Barack Obama a few years ago when
Barack Obama said if we have actionable intelligence about a
high-value target – and let's be clear: nobody was bigger, nobody was
a more high-value target than Osama bin Laden."

Gibbs also suggested that if Romney views have changed on the issue it
means he should admit that his assessment was "wrong or he's flip
flopped on yet another issue."

And Gibbs turned the question around on Gregory, asking "do you have
any doubt that if the mission would have gone poorly… that Mitt Romney
wouldn't be out there attacking the president for it?"

More:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/04/gibbs-romney-wouldnt-have-ordered-bin-laden-raid-121975.html

Would Romney have gotten bin Laden? Well, maybe
4:48 pm April 30, 2012, by Jay



In 2007, then-candidate Barack Obama made it clear what he would do as
president if he learned that Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan
and that U.S. forces had a chance to take him out:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets
and (Pakistani) President Musharraf won't act, we will."

His then-opponent, Hillary Clinton, took a similar stance:

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other
high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were
targeted and killed or captured."

However, another presidential candidate took issue with such
statements, as Reuters reported at the time:

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an
ally of ours… I don't think those kinds of comments help in this
effort to draw more friends to our effort," (Mitt) Romney told
reporters on the campaign trail….

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican
front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the
world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and
nature across the world," Romney said. "We want, as a civilized world,
to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help
those nations reject the extreme with them."

In 2008, as the primary season heated up, the debate continued.

"It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars
just trying to catch one person," Romney said in a GOP debate. After
that statement drew harsh criticism from John McCain and others,
Romney toughened his language a few days later, suggesting that he
would indeed target bin Laden.

Obama, on the other hand, stuck to his original position:

"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator
drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if
Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist
targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

Based on the evidence, it's too much to argue that Romney would not
have committed the manpower and money needed to track bin Laden. You
also can't argue that Romney would have balked at sending troops into
Pakistan to kill the terrorist leader. Maybe he would have.

But against that "maybe," you have the fact that another man had told
us quite clearly what he would do if given the chance, and then did
it.

– Jay Bookman

More:
blogs.ajc.com

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy



--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.