Obama Wonders if Romney Would Have Taken out bin Laden?

[David]

I for the life of me I don't see any POTUS deciding to avoid taking out bin Laden. This hunt went on under Bush and Obama. Navy Seals were preparing for this mission for many months. Obama gets deserved credit. But, by asking the question would Romney have done the same is just crude and demagogic.

[Mad_Dog]

Maybe he wouldn't have.

I have the gnawing suspicion that bin Laden's location has been known for some time. His communication network was thoroughly compromised... so why kill the guy when you can get the heads up on the internal plotting of that terrorist network? If you read between the lines on the Bush administration's talk about bin Laden, it would certainly be a possibility. And ordering the killing of bin Laden so that you can brag about your massive **** is something Obama would do as well.

</conspiracyrantoff>

[FoundingFather]

Originally Posted by David

I for the life of me I don't see any POTUS deciding to avoid taking out bin Laden. This hunt went on under Bush and Obama. Navy Seals were preparing for this mission for many months. Obama gets deserved credit. But, by asking the question would Romney have done the same is just crude and demagogic.

It's another act of desperation.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

It's another act of desperation.

It's another one of those wierd Obama statements that makes normal thinking people heads explode. You wonder why Obama makes these crazy statements, but you have to understand in the most basic terms, how libtards think. You see, Obama who hates the United States, at the very least in its current form, knows that most of the people of the country, whom he also despises, you know "clinging to God and guns" and such like the action as Osama was responsible directly for over 3000 American lives, indirectly for the War in Afghanistan with US and Afghni causualties. If you recall, shortly after the attack, former president Clinton demanded that we "understand" the attackers, and blaming it on slavery ended over 100 years earlier and sixties racism.

Anyway it isn't complicated, it sounds convoluted simply because it is. So Obama hoped to persuade the masses who liked Obama meeting his eternal tormentor, thinking himself clever. Meanwhile his supporters, who really don't like the idea that Osama had to die, simply play along. Had Bush killed Osama, they would have been screaming bloody murder, like they would with anything that Bush did. They pretend to oppose war, but they only really oppose Republicans. If you think this is already in bad taste, Just wait for the Movie!

[David]

What 'Gutsy Call'?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission

SOURCE

[Mad_Dog]

Originally Posted by David

I for the life of me I don't see any POTUS deciding to avoid taking out bin Laden.

Unless, of course, Obama means "take out" as in going to a fine restaurant with bin Laden then perhaps later to Osama's back seat for a bit of rumpy pumpy...

[FastEddy]

I think Romney would have taken just as much political advantage of that situation as any politician. Either Bush would have as well, Clinton and then some.

It might be noted that Reagan dodged taking credit for bombing Qualudaffy's Libya, but He did take credit for getting the 100+ American hostages freed from Iran.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's another one of those wierd Obama statements that makes normal thinking people heads explode. You wonder why Obama makes these crazy statements, but you have to understand in the most basic terms, how libtards think. You see, Obama who hates the United States, at the very least in its current form, knows that most of the people of the country, whom he also despises, you know "clinging to God and guns" and such like the action as Osama was responsible directly for over 3000 American lives, indirectly for the War in Afghanistan with US and Afghni causualties. If you recall, shortly after the attack, former president Clinton demanded that we "understand" the attackers, and blaming it on slavery ended over 100 years earlier and sixties racism.

Anyway it isn't complicated, it sounds convoluted simply because it is. So Obama hoped to persuade the masses who liked Obama meeting his eternal tormentor, thinking himself clever. Meanwhile his supporters, who really don't like the idea that Osama had to die, simply play along. Had Bush killed Osama, they would have been screaming bloody murder, like they would with anything that Bush did. They pretend to oppose war, but they only really oppose Republicans. If you think this is already in bad taste, Just wait for the Movie!

Let's examine history:

"Christian" Clinton prosecuted Muslims for the WTC attack of 1993. Furthermore, he dropped some missiles on a suspected Bin Laden location.

"Christian" George H.W. Bush attacked Muslims who invaded Kuwait.

Then "Christian" George W Bush initiated the war on terror.

Next, "Christian" Obama continues the War on Terror, and even kills Bin Ladin (proving once and for all he is NOT a Muslim, because why would a Muslim off Bin Ladin, let alone wage war on other Muslims?)

Now, to judge from this site and others I have monitored, most "Christians" think Mormons are not Christian, and since it is "Christians" who are waging war on Muslims, Why is anyone surprised that a "Christian" would not believe that a (non "Christian") Mormon would not pursue the war on terror?

[GeronL]

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who said NO when snipers had thier scopes on OBL?

[redhead]

Originally Posted by GeronL

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who said NO when snipers had thier scopes on OBL?

There was one time when Bill was at a golf tournament and was too busy to take Bill Richardson's call about going after OBL. Nope can't take the call right now. Later. Another time, he and Madeline were concerned about not having any legal authority to snatch him. Something along those lines. I don't remember the specifics, just that he had at least a couple of opportunities, and took a pass.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Bemused

Now, to judge from this site and others I have monitored, most "Christians" think Mormons are not Christian, and since it is "Christians" who are waging war on Muslims, Why is anyone surprised that a "Christian" would not believe that a (non "Christian") Mormon would not pursue the war on terror?

What pompous leftist spin!

Did "Christians" bomb a building killing thousands? You spin defense as attack. If Mormons bombed a building like that, I would expect we would go after those Mormons like we go after Muslims who continue to attack others and plan such attacks. If the Mormon religion supported such terrorism, I would think we would regard it with little respect.

I suspect someone like Romney would disavow that religion if they endorsed such a thing. You would surely sign up to be one of their propagandists.

[David]

Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. is a 31-year veteran of the CIA and the author of “Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives.”

As we mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, President Obama deserves credit for making the right choice on taking out Public Enemy No. 1.

But his administration never would have had the opportunity to do the right thing had it not been for some extraordinary work during the George W. Bush administration. Much of that work has been denigrated by Obama as unproductive and contrary to American principles.

SOURCE

[BFDwarf]

Any President would have authorized the mission to take out Bin Laden. Also other Americans.

Al Gore would have. So would Hubert Humphrey and Herman Cain. Adlai Steveson and Pat Paulson are on board.

A Freakin Ham sandwich and a order of onion rings would OK the mission.
Well, maybe not the Onion Rings, they tend to support Ron Paul, but you get my drift.
Shheesh

[FastEddy]

Originally Posted by jtdc

... If Mormons bombed a building like that, I would expect we would go after those Mormons ... If the Mormon religion supported such terrorism, I would think we would regard it with little respect. ... I suspect someone like Romney would disavow that religion if they endorsed such a thing. ...

Fur sure. And our government has done just that several times in the past. Consider Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge Montana ... And those were "get even with 'em" and not violent felonies like bomb throwing terrorists.

Historically, our government has become the significant aggressor in many cases against citizens, religious groups or not, whenever there is a threat to government, especially to government revenue streams. (Check out the Whisky Rebellion.)

If the taliban were to strike against our country or our citizens, directly, by means of acts of terrorism, the "war" in Afghanistan would have been resolved years ago ... and no quarter given. (See http://www.goldtalk.com/forum/showth...766#post308766 )