Skip to content

A Few Words For Chicken-Hawk Romney

May 2, 2012

There has been a lot of coverage of the Obama campaign’s decision to trumpet the attack that “took out” Osama Bin Laden while questioning what decision Mitt Romney would have made. While I’ll admit the ad in question hits a little below the belt, I also don’t doubt for a second that, were the roles reversed, the Romney camp would have done exactly the same – and then some. So the crocodile tears coming from Romney gain no sympathy here.

I do, however, have a few bones to pick with Mr. Romney.

#1 “Of course…Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.”

Perhaps the draft-dodging chicken-hawk in him just can’t help himself, but this was a profoundly stupid thing to say. While I know President Carter gets a bad rap for being a nice guy (sigh)  it is also a fact that Jimmy Carter graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and served from 1946 to 1953. There’s also the inconvenient fact that President Carter made the tough call on a covert operation of his own. While the attempted rescue of the American hostages in Iran may have been unsuccessful, Carter was not afraid to make that call. Implying that Carter is a coward, and attempting to lump Obama into that category just doesn’t play.

#2 “I think politicizing it and trying to draw a distinction between himself and myself was an inappropriate use of the very important event that brought America together”

Gimme a break. As I’ve already said, we all know that if Romney had the OBL raid in his quiver, he would have used it, too.

The part that really gets me, though, is the idea that the killing of anyone, even Osama Bin Laden, should be viewed as a unifying event that brings the American people together. I know we can be barbarous at times, but for a major party candidate for the highest office in the land to suggest that an assassination be treated as a soul-stirring, galvanizing American event is simply wrong. (Yes. Please take to the comments section and tell me what a wimpy bleeding-heart liberal I am – I’m ready.)

#3  “I think people know pretty well that he’s a guy who has a hard time finding which side of a position to come down on. But I’m going to focus on the fact that our nation needs strong leadership. We’re under attack, militarily, economically. Our very way of life is under attack.”  (Think Progress)

That quote is actually from 2004. Romney was acting as a surrogate for George W. Bush attacking Democratic nominee John Kerry.  Setting aside the delicious irony of Mitt Romney calling someone else a flip-flopper — this would appear to be a case of Mitt Romney politicizing the attacks of 9/11, would it not?  In short, now that the shoe’s on the other foot, the pearl-clutching is a tad hard to buy. “I’m just shocked. Shocked, I tell you – that Obama would run on this singular accomplishment!” 

Whatever. What Romney’s really upset about is that this is the single accomplishment of the Obama presidency which he cannot be seen to attack.

5 Comments leave one →
  1. May 2, 2012 10:54 pm

    Well of course I agree with 99% of your post. Back when we covered the event live on “Leaning Left” I did find your menu item #2 a bit much, even for a liberal. OBL was a human being. Fine. But he was also a symbol of hate and of murder and the relatives and friends of 3000 Americans will never be the same because of what he masterminded. His death brought closure to many many Americans.

    On NBC’s Rock Center tonight, Obama draws the distinction that I think you would endorse. He said that seeing the picture of dead Osama did not make him happy per se (no high five moment as he put it) but it DID please him that so many Americans who suffered a loss would now have some justice.

    • May 3, 2012 7:02 am

      There’s a difference between justice and revenge. Capturing OBL & bringing him to trial might have brought justice. Assassination may have been cathartic for some, but it’s a stretch to call it justice.
      After all, aren’t we supposed to be the ones ruled by law? Isn’t that what makes us better than the terrorists?

      • May 3, 2012 7:48 am

        Well of course this gets us into an entire discussion of “the rules of war” which I won’t do. In principle I agree with you 100%. A capture would have been preferable to a killing. But then imagine how politicized the trial would have been? It would make the current politicization of the killing look like a walk in the park.

        • May 3, 2012 8:36 am

          Ah…well…sure…we wouldn’t want it to be politicized, would we. Better to just shoot him in the head.

        • May 3, 2012 10:41 am

          LOL … touche!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: