No. Obama must think everyone is as gullible as his bathwater drinkers....

Maybe. Maybe not. Silly hypothetical.

It's probably the sole thing a big majority of people can agree on that Obama did right. So expect to keep hearing this.

Agree - and he could use it greatly to his advantage.

That said, to rely on a strategy of "my opponent wouldn't have done it" runs the risk of mis-spending this political capital.

Bush kept Osama alive and uncaptured so he could get reelected by keeping the American public scared of terrorisim. Funny how at election time he raised the terrorist thrreat level, remember. Either this, or the last republican didn't have the balls to capture Osama.

But it doesn't make sense by any stretch of the imagination, so I can only think he thinks people are stupid. The Democrats have long tried to paint the Reps as the "War Party". Now they are trying to say that he wouldn't have approved military action to get Bin Ladin. Just doesn't make sense. I think their quiver is out of arrows and the match hasn't even started. They are still using the Hope and Change BS. How can you still use that when you have been in power?

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I actually think Obama's right on this. Romney wouldn't have approved the capture or killing of Bin Ladin four days after he was briefed on the plan and intel. Romney would have given the go ahead right away.

I agree.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

When Obama said we would go into Pakistan to kill bin Laden if he was there and the Pakistanis wouldn't do it, did the Republicans running for president in 2008 agree or disagree with this statement?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

But Romney, being part of the war party, would have had Osama stuffed and mounted and hung in the Oval Office further inuriating the Muslim population.

Those Mormons are vicious bastards. Not only would Romney have had Obama whacked, but he'd have had the wives, the kids, the town, the country and the entirety of Southwest Asia -- with the exception of India, though Kashmir would've gotten it -- taken out, too. ;-)

Seriously, though. Romney answered that question well back in 2007. And if the Left would take the time to listen to the answer in its entirety there'd be no bout adout it. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

It wasn't that simple of a question.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ring=mccain;#3907768

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

The getting OBL thing is one of the few positive things that team Obama can trot out there, where do they go next.

The other thing that is ironic is that almost exactly 4 years ago Hillary and Bill were running an add saying that Obama wouldn't be able to handle that 3a.m. phone call. Now they've come full circle with this nonsense saying Obama is the only one capable of making the call?

"McCain, 10/7/2008: "in fact, [Obama] said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable...."

Thanks for the quotes.

While you are setting the record straight you may want to find where Obama said he would attack Pakistan

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

and now we can hear from Mitt, http://www.mediaite.com/...id-except-2007-mitt/

While Barack Obama’s rivals attacked him vigorously over the statement at the time, not all of them did so on the basis of opposition to unilateral action. What did Mitt Romney say then? A source from Priorities USA Action points out that he said this to Reuters 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,” 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.”

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

The fact that we are debating some hypothetical of what this guy or that guy would or wouldn't have done is a pathetic sign of where the Obama campaign is. If this is all your camp has, this isn't going to be the fight we were promised and a boring election with Romney the victor. Nobody except leftist are seriously buying that Romney wouldn't have done this same thing. In fact, he said it best when he said even Carter would have done it. ONly a partisan hack could imagine such a stupid line of attack. I guess that is what you do when everything else your king touched turned to shit.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

You are correct. I am sorry you brought this up.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

It makes total sense that I brought this up. My question was is anybody actually buying this. Well it appears so, so now we are debating. That doesn't mean we should be. It just means a somebody, AKA you are stupid enough to be buying it. So it is pathetic on so many fronts. Pathetic this was even concieved by Obama, pathetic you are defending it, and pathetic if this is how it is going to be in the next few months. I got a hypothetical. What if Obama really understood economics? Would the economy be better? Would unemployment have improved? Or better yet, would he have received the Nobel Peace Prize if the Committee would have known that he would have invaded a sovereign nation to assasinate an international criminal/terrorist? You see when we start dealing in hypotheticals we can make the debate get really stupid really quick so you defending him doing so suggest you are stupid, disengenous, or a hack. Maybe all of the above.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Not worth starting a new topic just to again point out that politicians are in campaign mode all the time, but I found this pretty funny:


http://www.latimes.com/...0501,0,5664444.story






I assume he doesn't see the hypocrisy of hitting Obama on politicizing the bin Laden death while he is campaigning in New York City on the bin Laden death anniversary feeding pizza to firefighters for a photo op with the former mayor.

I think we can all see that this is just politics. But, at least Obama is criticizing Romney for things he actually SAID. vs the early Romney commercial showing Obama stating "if we start talking about the economy, we lose"- which actually started with the words "John McCain said..." but that critical few words was somehow edited out, to make it seem like Obama said something very different than he actually said.

Can we all agree that that was worse? Taking words totally out of context and distorting their meaning?

Hey- this is fair game. Expect Obama to run on "Bin Laden is Dead and GM is Alive". Those are powerful things he did and decisions he made, and Romney is totally on record for opposing the GM bailout.

What has been going on, is that the GOP and Romney pretty much oppose anything and everything the president says or does. Some of those things may actually be popular, and it's fair game for Obama to call him out on those. I don't have a problem with Romney criticizing what Obama says or does, as long as they are real things that he says and does. For instance- Romney gave a speech at the NRA a few weeks ago that alluded to Obama coming after their guns. Turns out, that Obama, as president, hasn't said or done anything against gun ownership, and in fact, he has signed legislation which allows guns in national parks. Is that OK? Is it OK to claim that the oponent is something that he isn't?

That Romney wouldn't have approved the capture or killing of Bin Ladin.


I think he would have approved it and then changed his mind and disapproved it but finally would have definitely approved it because he was always strong on foreign policy and against bin Laden.

I mean seriously, a Republican who wouldn't approve military action.


A lot of Republicans were against military action in Libya. I realize they said that just to take an opposite stand to Obama which is what politicians do but you never know. Once the GOP left office they suddenly seemed far more focussed on cutting spending then engaging in foreign wars....funny how politics works.

You mean like Bush gave the go ahead right away to invade the wrong country?

I find it funny that you are advocating for doing before thinking. I also think its funny that any of you think you have any fucking clue what the risks were of the mission.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Before the raid, Romney would have downsized the operation, thereby enabling the few remaining SEALS to use their legacy synergy to more effectively compete. After affecting the hostile takeover of the building, he would have offered OBL a poison pill, then thrown him off the roof without a golden parachute.

The implication of McCain's comments is that when it comes to military intentions, presidents and presidential candidates shouldn't always say publicly exactly what they're thinking. Taking that into account, I don't see that the Romney comments you quote necessarily represent a viewpoint different from the McCain comments that I quoted. Like McCain, Romney emphasizes his desire to work with allies (and we do nominally consider Pakistan an ally, wink wink?), and he points out that remarks that might undermine that relationship are "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I am sorry you brought this up.

I thought the Obama campaign brought it up, in one of their TV ads?

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

While you are setting the record straight you may want to find where Obama said he would attack Pakistan

http://www.nydailynews.com/...ama-article-1.236575

We had quite a discussion on the other thread about just what constitutes an "attack," though.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

But the original bitch was why are we talking hypotheticals. But a campaign is nothing but a long series of hypotheticals.

I mean we could talk about what Romney has done but he disclaims his biggest achievement as governor now. And his record on creating vs. destroying jobs is spotty at best. I won't play the game of saying he doesn't have foreign policy experience to talk about since I do not think that is a fair criticism.

So if you don't want to talk about hypotheticals, come back in mid-November.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Kind of like how we worked with our ally the French for 8 years. What happened to you are with us or you are against us? Pakistan harbored bin Laden for years, they were clearly against us, so no ally, so according to the Bush Doctrine, fuck 'em.

If Romney and McCain want to be able to say they would have done the same thing they could have simply agreed with Obama in 2008, like the wise Sarah Palin did. If McCain actually agreed with Obama why were Palin's comments a story about how she disagreed with McCain on the topic?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

What happened to you are with us or you are against us? Pakistan harbored bin Laden for years, they were clearly against us, so no ally, so according to the Bush Doctrine, fuck 'em.

On the surface, it appears that you are suggesting that we should not treat Pakistan as an ally. Actually, I tend to agree with you, although the fact that the Pakistanis have nukes seems to necessitate that we treat them with kid gloves. Nevertheless, Obama as well as McCain both continue to uphold the pretense that Pakistan is an ally, so that obligates them to treat it as such. It's not as if the Pakistani government can't watch TV.

If Romney and McCain want to be able to say they would have done the same thing they could have simply agreed with Obama in 2008...

Wrong, for the very reason that McCain himself gave.

If McCain actually agreed with Obama why were Palin's comments a story about how she disagreed with McCain on the topic?

I didn't follow the Palin story, but if the airhead disagreed with the fossil, I'm sure that made great fodder for the media.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Pakistan is not an ally, everyone knows it, but we pretend they are in some sort of weird, endanger the world kind of kabuki theater.

"Wrong, for the very reason that McCain himself gave."
We could go on and on around this. I disagree. Hell, even Bush disagreed. He said that we would hunt him down no matter where he was.

And I found the Palin story when I was searching for Romney quotes. McCain did the namby pamby weak on national defense we will use diplomacy dance (I like using that on Republicans after 25 years of this bullshit strategy against Democrats) and when someone asked Palin what she would do she essentially said, "shoot him in the eye."

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Pakistan is not an ally, everyone knows it, but we pretend they are in some sort of weird, endanger the world kind of kabuki theater.

That's a good description. In a thread a while back, I referred to it as our "policy of pretense" and questioned whether it was in our long-run best interest.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.