Reply With Quote
Evidently it drives liberals crazy too. See HuffingtonPuffingtonPost.
Nothing aggravates Republicans like seeing nasty, effective tactics upon which they have so long relied being turned against one of their candidates. So when Barack Obama's re-election campaign aired an ad celebrating the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death — and suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn't have achieved that objective — the right exploded with outraged protests.
Evidently, the feelings of longtime hatchet men like Bush-era party chair Ed Gillespie, ex-Bush flack Ari Fleischer and the editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal, to name a few, were really, really hurt — because the Obama campaign exploited a moment of national unity for partisan advantage.
"This is one of the reasons President Obama has become one of the most divisive presidents in American history," said Gillespie, now a Romney adviser.
To anyone with a functioning memory, however, this whining is implausible. So are the dire predictions that the president will somehow offend voters by claiming credit for whacking bin Laden (or by smacking Romney). During the Bush presidency, Republicans used precisely the same approach and worse, over and over, without fretting whether their words and ads were "divisive."
It began weeks after the 9/11 attacks, amid sincere pledges of patriotic cooperation from congressional Democrats, when Karl Rove told the Republican National Committee that their party would "go to the country on this issue" to win the midterm elections in 2002. They won a historic victory by sliming wounded Vietnam hero Max Cleland and former Air Force intelligence officer Tom Daschle as stooges of al-Qaida.
Bush's 2004 re-election campaign amplified the same themes, with advertising and pageantry at the Republican convention in New York City grossly exploiting 9/11, a series of conveniently timed terror "alerts" leading up to Election Day and repeated warnings by Vice President Cheney that a Democratic victory would signal weakness to America's enemies. And it persisted into the 2006 midterm, with Rove falsely portraying Democrats as limp-wristed "liberals" trying to "understand" Osama bin Laden.
Until that election, the rough Rovian style succeeded brilliantly — despite the fact that Bush and Cheney had actually allowed bin Laden and Mullah Omar to escape at Tora Bora. Obama's cool order to kill bin Laden, in a moment of considerable risk to his presidency, finally debunked the decade of smears against Democrats as unpatriotic, wimpish and unreliable.
By contrast, the Obama ad's brief rebuke of Romney is at least factual and accurate: Not only did he say what the ad quotes, but he also said that he wouldn't go into Pakistan to get bin Laden, which is what the mission required. Had the president followed Romney's policy recommendation, bin Laden would almost certainly still be at large.
"Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order," scoffed Romney in response. But he shouldn't be so quick to denigrate the former Democratic president, who entered the Navy during World War II and then served as a submarine officer until his honorable discharge in 1953. Somebody may compare Carter's service with Romney's own military record, which doesn't exist — and remind voters that he avoided the Vietnam draft with a pampered stint as a Mormon missionary, in France.
Joe Conason is the editor in chief of NationalMemo.com. To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/why-obamas-bin...070000855.html
Or as Jon Stewart so aptly put it:
"WAH!"
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu.../victory-lapseVictory Lapse
On the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death, Republicans are unaware that the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex allows people the ability to store and recall past events.
(stewart does rightly note it is a bit tacky to be honest)
Evidently it drives liberals crazy too. See HuffingtonPuffingtonPost.
you read the huff? lol
I do. And Arianna was not pleased.
Funny how that's ignored in RG's soliloquy.
Hey...
Obama's bound to get a few things right.
how can you read the huff?
please don't tell me you watch msnbc.
I discovered these guys via Huff.
http://www.myspace.com/kingcity
Been reading ever since.
Considering Team Obama's behavior regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden, I can truly say, What a difference a decade makes.
In January 2002, as senior adviser to President George W. Bush, I told the Republican National Committee that "We can go to the country on this issue [prosecuting the war on terror] because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might." After the meeting, all broke loose.
House Democratic Minority Leader Gephardt called my remarks "shameful." House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi implied that I might be attempting "to exploit terrorism as a political issue." Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe raged that my comments were "nothing short of de able" and "an affront to the integrity of the entire United States military."
A few years later, in March 2004, the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign released its first ads. One of them, "Tested," began with the announcer saying "the last few years have tested America in many ways. Some challenges we've seen before. And some were like no others." During this last sentence, footage of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon appeared. The ads, including this one, were so inoffensive that FactCheck.org called them "downright bland." But once again, all broke loose.
The campaign of the Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, denounced the use of the 9/11 images as "astonishing." The head of the national firefighters union said it was "disgraceful," and a union resolution demanded Mr. Bush "apologize to the families of firefighters killed on 9/11."
The press corps joyfully pummeled Bush campaign spokespersons. And yet in both instances, critics responded harshly to what were simple, positive statements and images.
Now fast forward to President Barack Obama's re-election campaign, which is drawing attention to his decision to order the raid on Osama bin Laden's hiding place. It is completely legitimate that he and his campaign do so.
But Team Obama took it one massive step further, suggesting that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney would not have ordered the bin Laden raid. They made this charge on Sunday morning talk shows and put it in a video. Even Vice President Joe Biden was wheeled out to make the charge. But the voices that were so quick to condemn the Bush administration's alleged attempts to politicize the war on terror have been mute about this overt campaign slur.
My former White House colleague, Dana Perino, recently made this acute observation about Team Obama: Never underestimate their ability to overdo anything.
They diminished the commander in chief by putting his decision, which should unify the nation, in the same frame as a partisan political attack, which divides it. For Mr. Obama to repeat the charge about Mr. Romney at his Monday news conference with the Japanese prime minister made things worse.
Moreover, the attack on the former Massachusetts governor doesn't ring true. Mr. Romney was obviously right in responding that, given the intelligence, even President Jimmy Carter would have ordered the strike.
Nor does Team Obama understand that sometimes less is more. An acknowledgment of the day, focused on high praise for those who carried out the operation, would have been a masterstroke. Instead Americans got Web videos, television ads, a political offensive on cable and Sunday morning television shows, several prime-time interviews in the Situation Room, a cover story in Time, and a trip to Kabul. Someone forgot that too much hype cheapens the moment.
Finally, Mr. Obama showed again it's all about him—his decision, the stakes for him, and the ramification for his re-election. Lost was proper credit for the intelligence operatives who painstakingly traced the thin fragments of evidence to a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan; for the pilots and logistics and support personnel who carefully planned and made possible the mission itself; and of course the brave warriors of SEAL Team 6 who executed the plan to perfection.
The president deserves to take credit for his decision to move against bin Laden. But the way he is doing so will diminish the credit he will receive. Mr. Obama should have left well enough alone, but narcissists never do.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
When Bill McRaven told him a had a +50% chance of killing OBL he would have had to be an absolute idiot to turn it down.
If the SEAL team had been annihilated/captured he would have just blamed it on bad intel from McRaven and fired him.
This was the part of the ad that really struck me. Everything was about the 'great political risk' Obama was taking. Yeah - there was also the fact that SEALs could lose their lives in the mission, but it's good to know Obama had his focus on what was most important - the political implications. I couldn't believe they actually made an ad that came off so poorly.
It's also funny if he can only run on the decision that anyone in their right mind would have made. Congratulations - you had the chance to get Osama, and you didn't say 'No' like a twit. Well done. I heard the last time he was on Air Force One, he didn't try to (futilely) fling the door open in mid-flight. Good call. Run on that too.
I almost never read HuffPo.I do. And Arianna was not pleased.
Funny how that's ignored in RG's soliloquy.
I am guessing I missed something.
Romney said he wouldn't have gone into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.
Romney said that getting the guy was a waste of resources.
Not much of a "massive step" to think that Romney might not have done anything.
As Stewart pointed out, Bush himself directly implied Kerry was a wuss in front of a visiting head of state.
Meh. More fodder for the OP.
Frontal lobe... activate!
Was his opinion far off? We turned a madman who went into hiding, into a martyr. Now he will live forever.
I heard some translated material was released of do ents that were seized in the Bin laden compound. It seems that he was a fan of Obermann.
Of course....It seems that he was a fan of Obermann.
Occupy too...
'Vote for Obama because Romney wishes bin Laden was still alive!'
Originally I thought this election would be close, but if this is the best Obama has to offer, Romney may win in a blowout.
...Ubama has comfortable leads in both swing states and independent voters...
Right after a contentious Republican nomination process. Along with the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare (likely) and the downturn in the economy, Obama's going to have a rough time. Just wait for it / bump.
Why should anyone be concerned with Huffington's opinion? Are the people who are mentioning her using her as a credible source?
Bush was a war time president... didn't you hear? I am amazed at the level of hypocrisy from our bretheren on the right on this issue...
Next thing you know they are going to minimize someone's military service during a war.. insinuating that he manufactured injuries so he could run for president 30 years later..
oh wait..
the Supreme court is a good and consistent arm of the conservative party aren't they?
They are in the pocket of the Cons ution.
right the 'original intent' except when they interpret it to the way of conservative legislation... like the campaign finance law.. I still can't find where in the cons ution it states that corporations are people.. do you know where I can find that in the cons ution?
What is the purpose of the U.S. Cons ution?
Does the U.S. cons ution give the Federal government the power to make you buy something?
Campaign finance laws should be abolished because they make it more difficult for political outsiders to run for office,
20/20 Campaign Finance Segment
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
