A new low in American politics

#76
#76
GAVol said:
The comical thing to me is that Bill Clinton, the guy that wouldn't give the kill order for OBL in the 90s, is the guy asking if Romney would have had the guts to give the order.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the black hawk down incident definitely hamstrung Clinton's leeway to make calls like that.
 
#79
#79
Had the bin Laden operation ended in disaster, similar to the Iranian operation, the Republicans would be harping on that like crazy. Since it worked, Obama should get some credit for it.

Has he gone too far claiming Romney might not have?

Wouldn't be an issue except that Romney is on record criticizing Obama for having said he would do exactly what he did, which was go into Pakistan without permission to go get bin Laden.

Romney has only himself to blame for this.
 
#80
#80
wasn't the black hawk down mission also hamstrung by micromanaging?

also, Clinton didn't seem to mind firing tomahawk missiles into Iraq. couldn't he have similarly just bombed OBL's compound?
 
#81
#81
dreVol said:
wasn't the black hawk down mission also hamstrung by micromanaging?

also, Clinton didn't seem to mind firing tomahawk missiles into Iraq. couldn't he have similarly just bombed OBL's compound?
Click to expand...


I think probably qualitative difference between sending missiles into Pakistan versus Iraq.
 
#83
#83
If Carter had not started funding the mujahideen and Reagan escalating the support to a higer level, would/could OBL have become the terriost leader he was?
 
#85
#85
lawgator1 said:
Had the bin Laden operation ended in disaster, similar to the Iranian operation, the Republicans would be harping on that like crazy. Since it worked, Obama should get some credit for it.

Has he gone too far claiming Romney might not have?

Wouldn't be an issue except that Romney is on record criticizing Obama for having said he would do exactly what he did, which was go into Pakistan without permission to go get bin Laden.

Romney has only himself to blame for this.
Click to expand...
Romney clarified his remarks two days later in a debate when he said the US should always keep its options open but that it is irresponsible for a candidate to be cavalier about it when speaking about intervening within an ally's borders.

Romney has flip flopped on issues, but this wasn't one of them.
 
#86
#86
GAVol said:
Romney clarified his remarks two days later in a debate when he said the US should always keep its options open but that it is irresponsible for a candidate to be cavalier about it when speaking about intervening within an ally's borders.
Click to expand...


I'm always a little suspicious of remarks days later that "clarify" what he means. Romney tried to make it sound like his criticism was for Obama openly talking about it, which I think was part of it.

But, he also said he wouldn't want to offend an ally. That's the point of the criticism of him now. He can't "clarify" his way out of that.
 
#87
#87
just to clarify, there's no difference in Pakistan from 2007 to 2011?

and why is Obama in Afghanistan on this exact date? Guess it's just coincidence
 
#89
#89
GAVol said:
That's the other part it. To call Palistan an ally is a stretch.
Click to expand...

but in 2007 the view was that they were (or at least we wanted them to be). That's why saying it in 2007 during a debate is different than having info in 2011 and using it to make a decision.
 
#90
#90
GAVol said:
Romney clarified his remarks two days later in a debate when he said the US should always keep its options open but that it is irresponsible for a candidate to be cavalier about it when speaking about intervening within an ally's borders.

Romney has flip flopped on issues, but this wasn't one of them.
Click to expand...

This. The premise for this thread sucks.
 
#91
#91
utvolpj said:
but in 2007 the view was that they were (or at least we wanted them to be). That's why saying it in 2007 during a debate is different than having info in 2011 and using it to make a decision.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And of you happened to hear Romney's press conference a few minutes ago, you know his position that Obama was being naive was shared by Joe Biden.
 
#92
#92
The reason this hits home with Romney is two-fold.

First, Romney is saying the opposite of whatever Obama says unless it is superpolitically incorrect to do so, and he is so far managing to eek out of it.

Exhibit A: Romneycare versus Obamacare. Despite the fact that Romney clearly stated that the individual mandate was the key, and despite the fact that he said it should be done nationally, Romney has managed to throw up enough of a smoke screen to try to distinguish the two. Its crap, of course, but he managed to avoid getting tied to it.

Exhibit B: No bailout to the auto industry. Romney pretty clearly on record saying they ought to be allowed to go under. Problem is, it worked. And it worked in places like Michigan and Ohio, where electoral votes are at a premium. He is trying now to reframe and back off of his earlier remarks as saying it should have been some sort of "managed" bankruptcy, although he has yet to describe what that would have been like.

Exhibit C: Student loans. He said he was against keeping the interest rate low. Then one week later, he is for it. There's some wiggle room there he has been trying to use to get out of it. But its weak.

Exhibit D: bin Laden. Again, he just said the opposite of what Obama said at the time. Obama followed through on what he said, and so now we are left with "of course" he would have done the same when, the simple fact is, he said he wouldn't just so as to criticize Obama at the time.

This may ultimately be Romney's downfall. Its that he stands for nothing, really. And what he has stood for at some point in the past, he is willing to go back and parse words to try to keep from defending anything that in the current moment seems to hurt him.

Although our presidents over the last few decades have had differing degrees of resolve, and although we all take issue with what each was resolved to do, or was resolved about, they all at least had some degree of commitment to some thing, some ideal, some principle.

Romney just doesn't. And that is why support for him even within the GOP has been tepid and lacked enthusiasm. He can only run as the anti-Obama for so long. At some point, people are going to ask why he SHOULD be president, not simply why Obama shouldn't be.

As of now, anyway, he doesn't have an answer and, in fact, every time he offers one up someone can find him saying something pretty close to the opposite in the not too distant past.
 
#95
#95
KentheOrange said:
And was 6.25% the day Carter took office.
Click to expand...

You posted earlier:

High interest rates for years prior to Carter? The prime rate didn't hit double figures until October 1978, a year and a half after he took office
Click to expand...

That is not true. The rates were up and down during the Nixon term. The were 12% in July 1974.

They hit an all time high in December 1980 at 21.5% during the Carter years.

They were also up and down during Reagans term. They were 20.5% July 1981 and did not fall under 10% until June 1985.

Neither party has handled the economy very efficiently.
 
#97
#97
Hey everybody! I am in Afghanistan signing some BS paperwork on the 1 year anniversary of the OBL killing. This proves that I am tough on terrorists, so pick me in November!


Sincerely,
Obama
 
#99
#99
Lg, as a self proclaimed moderate, why do u hug obamas nuts so hard?

Seems that romney would be a perfect candidate for a moderate like yourself.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top