Contact Us at: Penigma2@hotmail.com



Friday, May 4, 2012

Double Standard Much? Right Wing Presidential Candidates Conveniently (Intentionally) FORGET Our Right Wing President FAILED to get bin Laden WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE

There has been a lot of sour grape griping from the right because they begrudge the triumph of President Obama in making the decisions that resulted in the end of an enemy to this country, Osama bin Laden.
They demonstrate the political right's willful ignorance of history.  They routinely make botched attempts to create a revisionist history that is falsely favorable representations of their actions.
Not only did Mitt R-money state that he would NOT 'move heaven and earth' to get bin Laden, he made it clear that he did not consider bin Laden a target worth the effort and cost in resources for such a pursuit......until it became an unpopular position.
Quoting from politifact.com's analysis that looks at multiple statements made by R-money stating his position, clarifying his position and elaborating on his position, the preponderance of what he said was that he would emphatically NOT make the choice that President Obama made. 
From politifact.com:
The quote comes from an Associated Press story on April 26, 2007, about a Romney interview with reporter Liz Sidoti that covered a range of topics. Here’s the related passage:
In the interview, Romney also:
Said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.
...Still, Romney suggested just a few months later that he wouldn’t do what Obama ultimately did  — call for a secret, unilateral Navy SEALs strike inside Pakistan. In 2007, Obama had said that if he were elected president, he would be willing to launch strikes against al-Qaida targets in Pakistan with or without Pakistan’s approval.
An Aug. 4, 2007, headline from Reuters — an article cited by Obama’s ad — says, "Romney attacks Obama over Pakistan warning."
Romney called Obama's comments ‘ill-timed’ and ‘ill-considered,’" Reuters reported, along with other news services.
"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said, according to Reuters. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them." Romney "said U.S. troops ‘shouldn't be sent all over the world.'"

Mitt Romney had made the clear statement that he would NOT have allocated the resources to pursue bin Laden.  When put on the spot, he changed his......spots.  (The man should be wearing reversible polka dot ties and magic Mormon polka dot underwear to facilitate those changes, since he makes them so often.)


This is a right wing pattern.  President George W. Bush did not pursue bin Laden when he had an opportunity to do so in 2001.  It appears that 'W' was playing politics with getting bin Laden.  I would argue it is more politics than foreign policy.   This seems to me to be effectively a decision about how Bush wanted our war in Afghanistan to play as PR spin, perception - similar to the efforts to distort perceptions about WMDs in Iraq. We did not have a sufficient relationship or performance basis to expect that leaving it to Afghan forces would be sufficient for success, in place of American forces.  This represents a major divergence, as noted, from our usual modus operandi in supporting our own armed forces.  
It is worth noting that R-money has been conspicuous in recruiting former 'W' personnel to his staff of advisers and other campaign positions, and presumably plans to do so for his administration, should he win the presidency. 

Foreign policy decisions under 'W' were disastrous, and would be so under R-money.  Domestic and foreign economic decisions were disastrous under 'W' and would be so under R-money.  The ONLY people who have benefited under 'W' benefited dramatically, the 1%, who grossly gained in wealth, while the 99% declined in wealth and endured very real suffering.  This is the path that R-money intends to pursue, and he will lie out of one or both sides of his mouth to do so, regularly and often.
In 2008, updated 2009, the CBS news program 60 Minutes



We do know now, from the material being released that was taken from the bin Laden compound that he was clearly afraid of the leadership of President Obama.  President Obama, in spite of the lies from Dick Cheney and others, has been a better president in his strategic and tactical decision.  He has exercised the leadership to make the correct decisions, even when he is disagreeing with his advisers - as he was in this instance, a calculated gamble on his part that was tremendously successful.  He has been successful not ONLY in his removal of bin Laden as a threat, but in combating terrorism generally, and very specifically in dramatically reducing the threat of Al Qaida.
Perhaps in the revisionist history that Mitt R-money has been spouting, when he makes a snide reference to former President Jimmy Carter, he has forgotten, or wishes to ignore, the reality of Operation Eagle Claw.  While it was a failed mission, unlike President George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter had the courage to make the attempt.  Unlike Mitt R-money, Jimmy Carter had a distinguished military career.   While an unpopular president, Carter left behind a far more distinguished list of successful foreign affairs accomplishments - notably the Camp David Accords, still holding - but many others than George W. Bush and his administration (the people R-money is recruiting).  And unlike President Obama, R-money doesn't appear to be a savvy strategist or tactician.
Sadly, instead of any form of new thought or better concept on the right, we have the same old same old failures.  We have the right wing blogosphere parrots blithely quoting the most disreputable of sources without either fact checking or multi-sourcing, so long as it disparages Obama and advances the right wing revisionist history effort.  One of those terrible anti-Obama laments was this one, quoting the UK rag that is so poor I wouldn't use it to wipe up puppy poop, for fear it would contaminate the dog excrement. 

The Daily Mail is THAT BAD as a source; if a right wing nut sees a story in the Daily Mail, and it appears NOWHERE else in reputable news sources (as distinct from the far right wing echo chamber), even the most credulous should recognize it is a HOAX, a FAKE, a FRAUD.  It is a step LOWER than the National Enquirer stories or the Weekly World News, back in the day.  In the 90s it was silly derogatory stories about the Clintons; now it is the same crap about Obama.
To give you a little perspective on how BAD that really is, here are a few sample covers, a blast from the REAL past, showing what sloppy news and fake derogatory anti-democratic President accusations look like -- the predecessor to what you're used to if you watch Fox News or rely on other Murdoch media.  There are legitimate reasons to criticize Barak Obama's presidency; there were legitimate reasons to criticize the Clinton presidency, but nonsense like this, made up silliness claiming to represent Seal Team 6 is not among them.  It is too bad it is acceptable to conservatives supporting Mitt R-money.




No comments:

Post a Comment