Slog Comments

 

Comments (31) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Jimmy Carter? Does Romney mean the guy who served in the military during a time of war instead of going to live in a castle, and who sent a secret message to the Iranian regime that if they actually harmed any of the hostages, we'd really fuck them up, and who actually understands the incredible risk involved in ordering a mission because he did just that and had the mission fail? That Jimmy Carter?
Posted by seatackled on April 30, 2012 at 10:31 AM
2
In addition to the sure-to-be-a-big hit "Obama is Carter (therefore Romney is Reagan, and Reagan won!)" storyline, it also contains a good measure of the highly successful "John Kerry's heroism was cowardice, and his patriotism was anti-American" storyline from the swift boat campaign.
Posted by Proteus on April 30, 2012 at 10:33 AM
3
Josh Marshall has a good analysis. I especially love this part, and he should trademark the term "bitch-slap politics":

Contemporary American campaigns are much more meta-battles over power, masculinity and dominance, what I once called “bitch-slap politics.” Not pretty perhaps but you’ll never understand campaigns without understanding things through this prism. And that’s very much what’s happening with the Obama campaign’s latest fusillade against Mitt Romney. This isn’t simply - maybe not even mainly — about the actual decision to risk so much to kill bin Laden. It’s a dance to - let’s not run away from what it really is - unman Romney in his contest with the president.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/20…
Posted by seatackled on April 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM
4
See? Now this is bullshit.
Posted by floater on April 30, 2012 at 10:35 AM
5
@2

Check out that link I posted @3. Marshall argues that Kerry problem was less the swiftboating itself, which people didn't believe, and more the inability to respond effectively.
Posted by seatackled on April 30, 2012 at 10:36 AM
rob! 6
Well, that's just mean. And after Carter said he would be "comfortable with Romney" as president. Humph.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on April 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM
BostonFontSnob 7
To me the real reason that Obama deserves the credit for the call was so very, very much could have gone wrong with the raid. He could have just ordered a drone strike. But he went the riskier route and we got a confirmed kill and tons of intelligence to boot. It's funny Romney brings up Carter because we know how well a similar high-risk raid went for poor Jimmy, and the damage it did to his presidency.
Posted by BostonFontSnob on April 30, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Theodore Gorath 8
It is kind of funny watching them desperately try to spin the unspinnable.

Posted by Theodore Gorath on April 30, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 9

Mitt would ask his parents to kills Osama bin Laden.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on April 30, 2012 at 11:08 AM
10
The first question is whether Romney would have invested the time and money to get the information on where ObL was located.

THEN you can ask whether he'd order the attack.

And in which form would he order it (cruise missile strike?).

I say that Romney would not even have pursued the information. The same as Bush did not. Having an enemy such as ObL alive and occasionally issuing taunting videos is politically useful in certain circumstances.

Without that information, Romney COULD NOT have ordered the strike.
Not "would not". COULD NOT.

Read what Bush and his people were saying about ObL.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/0…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on April 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Gay Dude for Romney 11
All this silly angst over silly hypotheticals.

Here's more about the context of Romney's comments in 2007:
The original quote came from an April 2007 interview with the Associated Press. Romney said in that interview he backs a broad strategy to defeat Islamic jihadists and that it's "not worth moving heaven and earth" for one person. Romney said catching bin Laden would make the country safer by a "small percentage" -- he added, a "very insignificant increase in safety." Romney's argument was that somebody else would replace bin Laden at the helm of Al Qaeda.

None other than Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee who is now defending Romney on the issue, criticized him for the April 2007 statement.

Read more


Days to election: 190

Posted by Gay Dude for Romney http://mittromney.com on April 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Will in Seattle 12
Jimmy Carter had more stones than Comrade Mittens "Frenchie" Romney or his sons ever will.

Period.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Will in Seattle 13
@1 for the Patriotic Win.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM
SpecialBrew 14
And, yes, after a happy hiatus in 2008 we have yet another election where we see candidate Baby-Boomer-Who-Didn't-Go-To-Vietnam try to show us how big and tough and warlike their cock is.
Posted by SpecialBrew on April 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM
15
@11
So how is that working for you?

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on April 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM
the idiot formerly known as kk 16
Mitt Romney is a spineless sack of shit and ambition. He couldn't tell you what he would do without checking with his pollster first. Google "Mitt Romney on the Issues" and see if you get a clear stance on ANYthing. His campaign mascot should be a wet finger hoisted high to detect which way the political winds are blowing.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on April 30, 2012 at 11:56 AM
17
I thought Ken dolls don't have any genitalia. Is that plastic POS claiming to have a low heavy bag? Doubtful. Romney is the perhaps the most outrageous phony I have ever seen. How sad is it the Gingrich and Santorum have more character then he?
Posted by Lew Siffer on April 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM
18
Gee, why would the Obama administration fake the Bin Laden killing? They certainly haven't cynically used it as the corner stone of their re-election campaign. Every aspect the fraud defies credibility.

First there had been a 40 minute shootout, then there was no shootout and just one man was armed, first Bin Laden was armed then he was not, first Bin Laden used his wife as a human shield and then he did not. First the compound was described as a “$1 million dollar mansion” then it turned out to be a rubbish-strewn dilapidated compound that was worth less than a quarter of that. Remember that awesome photo of Obama and his cabinet watching the live feed of the raid?....well it turns out there was no live feed.

Those crack special forces operatives panicked and killed supposedly the best source of intelligence of terrorism (even though the FBI did not include 9/11 on Bin Laden’s “most wanted” profile because there was no hard evidence connecting him to the crime) then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it and to this day refuse to release any photographic evidence and that decision has been backed in court by a federal judge

Then 25 Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six died in a freak helicopter crash....
Posted by Spindles on April 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM
chinaski 19
Are you saying bin laden is still alive? Seems he could make some people look rather foolish by posting a new video on youtube. Wonder why that hasn't happened...
Posted by chinaski on April 30, 2012 at 1:16 PM
20
He was near death from kidney failure and on dialysis in 2001. He's been dead for a while.
Posted by Spindles on April 30, 2012 at 1:24 PM
21
And all of this overlooks the fact that instead of even attempting to achieve justice -- by conducting a fair trial of the accused after his capture -- we allegedly assassinated the man in the dead of night.
Posted by Phil M http://twitter.com/pmocek on April 30, 2012 at 1:55 PM
22
Public records of the raid were lost, says the U.S. Dept. of War.
Posted by Phil M http://twitter.com/pmocek on April 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM
malcolmxy 23
Jimmy Carter would have been smart enough to keep bin Laden alive if at all possible, because he had important strategic information about any still existing Al-Queda cells out there and, I would have to guess, dates and times of expected, additional attacks.

Also, like most war vets, he probably is anti-assassination, torture and violence, in general, when he can help it.
Posted by malcolmxy on April 30, 2012 at 3:22 PM
24
I don't have much the stomach for the 'more macho than thou' game conservatives like to play but until their politicians are repeatedly called out loud and clear for being chicken hawks, they'll win the posturing battle every time.
Posted by anon1256 on April 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM
25
Malcolmxy, this one's for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h874BPSnb…
Posted by Spindles on April 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM
malcolmxy 26
back at ya, Spindles: http://youtu.be/N9SVr4uTtFo
Posted by malcolmxy on April 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM
27
Ha ha ha, awesome!
Posted by Spindles on April 30, 2012 at 4:22 PM
the idiot formerly known as kk 28
malcomxy@23: Jimmy Carter wouldn't have had access to the laptops and memory sticks, so your anachronistic speculation is kind of, you know, stupid.

And Spindles, isn't there a vaccination dispute somehwere you should be monitoring?
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on April 30, 2012 at 5:34 PM
malcolmxy 29
@28

I'm pretty sure there was still an intelligence gathering organization and network which functioned without laptops, memory sticks and cell phones between 1976 and 1980, but I could be wrong about that because I'm...ya know...stupid.

Also, for those of us on Linux, computers and hard drives are meaningless. If you're in a criminal organization, you run your OS off a memory stick and you microwave said memory stick when it's no longer of use to you and you move on to the next one (not me, but that's how one does it).

If they find anything of any use on those HDDs, then I will cease to believe that bin Laden was involved in 9/11, because he will have been a certifiable idiot for having left said info in retrievable form.
Posted by malcolmxy on April 30, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Free Lunch 30
@11 - Oh good! You're still around.

I thought maybe your handlers fired you, especially when you didn't show up to spin the Romney campaign's bald-face lie. (A few posts up, where he said Obama just followed Romney's advice on the auto industry.)

Tell me, how does it feel to support a candidate whose only chance of being elected is to lie so blatantly? You'd think such a paragon of piety would take a higher road, regardless of how anyone else behaves.

Then again, maybe Mormons don't have the same 10 commandments as traditional Christians do. Maybe lying your ass off is a Mormon virtue.

If that's the case, I'll retract all of the above and consider him spectacularly righteous.
Posted by Free Lunch on April 30, 2012 at 7:22 PM
31
Mitt Romney said in 2007 that he didn't support an unconstitutional revenge mission? Huh. It's too bad that isn't the Mitt Romney running anymore.

Barry violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation - one that used to be relatively friendly with us, compared to others in the region, before his presidency - to send US military in to exact revenge upon an unarmed man. He was not arrested. He was not tried. He was murdered and dumped in the ocean, mafia-style.

Why can't people see that Barry is Bush? Same unnecessary, unconstitutional, unsustainable, unending wars, same disregard for human health and love for corporations, same torture, same Patriot Acts, same love of Ben Bernake and the Federal Reserve, same bailouts, same everything.
Posted by joshuastevens on May 1, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Add a comment