Romney Lies in Welfare without Work Attack Ad

In the post-truth world where candidates like Mitts on R-money can just make shit up, and expects to get away with it, he ignores that we have records - paper records, Internet records, video records. Mittens Etch-a-sketch thinks he can just lie, shake and rattle, and no one will notice anything from before. Just 'poof' and it's alllllllll gone. Except it isn't.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mittens doesn't want to talk about his time as governor of Massachusetts, because he sucked, except for Romneycare. Mittens doesn't want to talk about his taxes or his off-shore money parking. Mittens doesn't want to talk about putting his taxes in a blind trust, run by his wife, because he's said publicly that people actually still control them, and that it's for suckers. Up until just now, Mittens wanted ONLY to talk about how important his so very successful business career has been -- if you only measure it by how much money he made. Except that every time it comes up, issues of government hand outs and corporate welfare are raised, and he won't document exactly how many times he outsourced jobs or bankrupted successful long existing companies with impossible debt loads while sucking all the cash out of them, leaving them with underfunded pension funds and no benefits, and communities that were badly damaged economically. Every single one of the Romney ad 'we built it ourself, without help' ads has run, it turns out all those Romney supporters had the same kinds of assistance, and relied heavily on government contracts and government business welfare. So, boohooo hoo, NOW Mittens doesn't want to talk about his business practices either. When Mittens says he only wants to talk about issues, the problem is, he won't give any details. His policies consist of more corporate and personal welfare for the rich, more taxes on the poor and middle class, and no details whatsoever on how he plans this economic explosion of growth he promises but which experts consistently assert is an impossible promise. We're just supposed to take his assurances on his taxes, and on his economic policies that it will all happen. Don't ask how he plans to pay for anything, don't ask for specifics of any kind. Just shut up. Because Mittens doesn't want to talk about it. Mittens tells us we don't need to know. What that really means is Mittens doesn't want us to know, about any of it, because it is all bad.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!  He DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT!  Really!

TOO DAMNED BAD.

Mitts on R-money - Greedy AND Dishonest, and bad for the nation

Apparently the only Americans that matter AS AMERICANS to Mitt R-money are the wealthy; the rest of us are only apparently useful as cannon fodder for the military, and for exploitation as his victims.  That is true as well of the rest of the GOP and the Tea Party.

Here's why.  The unanswered questions, the media strategy of only dealing with soft-ball questions by the right wing media......should be unacceptable to the voters in this country --- ALL voters.

Second only to his dishonesty, voters should reject the lack of transparency and accountability for the plans that Mitts on R-money is running on, the ones he won't tell us about.  We had someone in office from the right who told us what he did was none of our business - that was Richard Nixon.  Remember how THAT worked out?  R-money is already being caught in dishonesty again - we don't need this, we don't want this.

And we sure as hell don't want someone who blames everyone else for mistakes, and who takes more credit than he is due for successes.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update on Mitt Romney's Black Republican Stooges at the NAACP convention.

I'm now seeing references to Mitt Romney's 'black kitchen cabinet' while Governor of Massachusetts as the source for the politicos who supported him as plants at the NAACP convention.  It is these former advisers who appear to have met with Mitt, not members of the NAACP.

I want names, and their current positions on the right.
But I wanted to update our readers that I HAVE contacted the Washington DC office of the NAACP, by email, inquiring who these approximately 20 black Republican non-members of the NAACP are.  I don't know at this point if they have the list of those names, or if they can tell me the answers to some of my other questions - like who paid for their travel expenses, did they attend any other NAACP events other than Mitts on R-money speeches, among others.
If I here back by email, I'll share here.  If I don't here back by email in a reasonable time, I'll try calling them, and if that doesn't work.....we might try something else before giving it up!

Mitts O' Money, Mitt-stakes R-Money, is a Dishonest Man Will HE rival Michele Bachmann for being pants on fire 'fact averse'?By fact averse, I mean LYING

Mitt lies; he lies a lot. He gets caught, and he keeps on lying, sometimes the same lies, sometimes new lies. Is THIS what we want? No. The best description I have heard to date applied to Mitt R-money was he is a hollow power craving man. Add in the adjective lying, and you have a full picture.

Memories of R-Money, 'W', and Chimpanzees

Of course as this video shows, what you remember is also a factor of what motivates you; so apparently Mitt R-money cared less about that fellow student he bullied, where he had to rely on outnumbering the gay kid and ambushing him to find the courage to act badly, than these chimps cared about peanuts.  If Mittens cared, he would remember, and he would make a real apology, not a non-apology apology like his fellow Republicans. (Remember Rush Limp-bow in his Fluke fiasco?)  Somewhere I came across an old pen and ink two frame cartoon showing a chimp doing this test, better than George W. Bush as President, but now I can't seem to find it again.  (If anyone has it, please forward it on to me here.)

I used to be distressed at the frequency of images unfavorably comparing George W. Bush to chimpanzees, especially in foreign media where it illustrated how intensely our leader, as distinct from our nation and people, was disliked.  Although to be fair, his counterpart in the UK during the same period was characterized derogatorily as a poodle.

'W' was regarded with well-deserved contempt, for his frequency of saying stupid things, which caused the rest of the world to doubt his ability to formulate sound policy, both foreign and domestic.  An opinion that was more than justified, given the disastrous results of those policies, both foreign and domestic.

'W' did not make a good impression on the world stage, as was evidenced most recently by the warm hugs of greeting to the Obamas from Angela Merkel, leader of Germany (in contrast to her stiff shouldered anger at the inappropriate touching by 'W').
But given that Mitt R-money has selected most of his advisers from the George W. Bush administration, and unlike 'W', no one is going to excuse him on the grounds of stupidity.  When you factor in additionally that Mitt R-money shows far less compassion and consideration for others than 'W' at least gave lip service to caring.  No one is accusing job destroyer Mitt R-money of being a compassionate conservative; but he may be finding himself unfavorably compared not to other primate intellect, but other primate's compassion by which we deem ourselves human and humane.

Although the news largely passed beneath media radar, former President George W. Bush did recently acknowledge he was endorsing Mitt R-money on May 15, when he yelled to a reporter through a closing elevator door, rivaling a middle of the night damned with faint support endorsement by Rick Santorum.

From abc news:

“I’m for Mitt Romney,” Bush told ABC News this morning as the doors of an elevator closed on him, after he gave a speech on human rights a block from his old home — the White House.

People who worked in the Bush administration say they doubt the former president will be campaigning for Romney this year. Even in his post-presidential life, Bush still gets a lot of the blame for the poor economy, according to polls,

 Ya think?  It is worth noting that George W. Bush back in July 2010 was voted the worst president of modern era, dating back to when Warren G. Harding died in office, and one of the five worst presidents of all time.  So we have to wonder why it is that R-money wants to duplicate that massively spectacular failure by bringing on the architects of so very many of those failed policies to advise him.  Even the spokeswoman for the RNC refers to the R-money positions as simply up-dated Bush / Cheney policies.  Apparently in the Republican lexicon, updated means the same, as in unchanged, unimproved and not any more likely to succeed than the last go-around was a collosal disaster for this country and for the larger world.  If anything, R-money is MORE extreme, more far right and far wrong than Dubya, which means the scope for new disasters with Mitt are greater, not less.  The very definition of insanity is to repeat unsuccessful behavior, expecting a different outcome.  It certainly suggests a failure to learn from past mistakes.

Here is a short list of Bushies on the R-money brain trust:

Council of Economic Advisors - Glenn Hubbard, Greg Mankiw
National Security Council - Robert Joseph (of the fake Niger buying yellow cake uranium fame)
Iraq Provisional Authority / Bremer - Dan Senor
Bush Pentagon - Eric Edelman
CIA - Cofer Black

ALL of R-money's staff are reputed to be pro-Iraq war, pro-Iran war, pro- more Afghanistan war at a time when these are unpopular positions with right, left and center.  That would be.....because it was such a loser policy under 'W' and Cheney.  It's not going to get any better with R-money Bush retread ideas, and the same cast of catastrophes all over again.

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them; guess we have that failed memory of R-money to blame.

Black Liberation Theology and Republican Hypocrisy

The right wing political tacticians are testing the waters to see if the strategy and tactics of the 2008 election they lost can be retooled.  There were lines drawn, ethical boundaries which to his credit John McCain would not cross.  Not so much his fake family values Vice Presidential candidate, popsie half-term governor Sarah Palin, the queen of twit and quit.
Let examine what the two main areas are that the right is trying on for size, calling Obama a Muslim, and black liberation theology.  But if he was Muslim, that's fine; we have no religious test for office.

We have liberation theology, and we have faux pundits like Sean Hannity trying to link the president to Islam through religious figures like Louis Farrakhan.  Herman Cain, the right wing's token negro and full time Uncle Tom has come out and condemned Obama as well for his affiliation with Reverend Wright's church .........why does Cain get a pass for the same thing?
It is true that President Obama grew up exposed to a greater first hand knowledge of Islam, living in other parts of the world during a part of his childhood.  At no time did he join that religion, and if knowing about it, more so than any of the other candidates,which is likely to be incredibly helpful in his role as President, is wrong, are we to condemn everyone who has a familiarity with other religions? to be consistent, we then have to condemn everyone who has studied world religions or taken comparative religion classes.  Those are required at some religious affiliated institutions of higher learning, and they are elective classes used to fulfill humanities requirements in others.
What the tame conservative liar Cain DOESN'T happen to mention, which makes him a flaming hypocrite as well as an apparent serial sexual harasser and possible adulterer, is that he himself is prominently affiliated with and claims to have been strongly influenced by a black liberation theology church with ties to Islam, Malcolm X.  That would be the prominent Antioch Baptist church in Atlanta, Georgia, under the leadership and preaching of Rev. C.M. Alexander.  According to this bio, Cain is an associate minister of the Antioch Baptist church (my emphasis added - DG):

Cain also serves as an associate minister at Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta, which he joined at the age of 10.^[37] The church is part of the National Baptist Convention^[38] and is politically liberal and theologically conservative; the church's senior pastor, Rev. Cameron M. Alexander, does not share Cain's political philosophy.^[39][40]

So apparently Herman Cain is all too familiar with being a long time, active member of a church that preaches black liberation theology, while disagreeing with the senior pastor.  Except in this case it was the senior pastor who repudiated the politics of Herman Cain, unlike Obama repudiating the views of Rev. Wright.

I don't recall ever seeing or hearing a single right wing pundit criticize Herman Cain or question him about his religious association with a church that has been prominent for black liberation theology.
Newsvine's Bonos Rama did an excellent article on Herman Cain and his religious views, which make Cain's puppet speech recently criticizing Obama all the more clearly hypocritical.  From the newsvine piece:
If it is true that a person can be held responsible for the words of their preacher and can be said to embrace their preacher's philosophies by sitting in a pew, why has no one on the right spoken out about Herman Cain's pastor, Reverend C.M. Alexander? Reverend Alexander is affiliated with the extremely liberal Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta, Georgia. The main page of Antioch's web page mentions how Alexander was drawn to liberation theology:

Like early African American preachers, Alexander is drawn to the power of those texts. Indeed, during slavery, black prophetic preachers saw the Bible as a tool for social justice. Rejecting the racist politics of the white church, which erroneously taught that God ordained slavery, early black preachers chose to worship a God of liberation.

The church's website also mentions that Alexander considers Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X to be one of his influences:

Influenced by civil rights luminaries like Malcolm X, Mary McCloud Bethune, Dr. Benjamin E. Mays and Rosa Parks, Alexander says he’s always been involved in civil rights in one way or the other.

http://www.antiochnorth.org/ourpastor.htm
Now, Malcolm X was an avowed racist who taught that white people were a race of devils, and also proclaimed the following:

"The common enemy is the white man."
and
"I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American.... No I'm not an American, I'm one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy.... I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of a victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare."

So why has Cain been sitting in this church for years, listening to his preacher, who espouses liberation theology and counts Malcolm X as his influence -- and IS HIMSELF A MINISTER IN THAT CHURCH? If the right is correct and sitting in a church makes you responsible for all of the philosophies espoused by its preacher, and if liberation theology is, as they claim, racist, then Cain should have to answer for sitting in a church that espouses the philosophies of Malcolm X and liberation theology. So why has the right given him a pass on this?
******************
President Obama seems to have conducted himself in a manner far more consistent with family values than Herman Cain has.  President Obama has done more to clarify how his views differ from those of Reverend Wright than Herman Cain has.  And as for being 'anti-American', as distinct from being legitimately critical of some aspects of America, including government, I would point out that Rev. Wright has a very distinguished CV in terms of performing his patriotic duty, one that is rather more distinguished than that of Herman Cain:

In 1961 Wright left college  and joined the United States Marine Corps and became part of the 2nd Marine Division attaining the rank of private first class. In 1963, after two years of service, Wright joined the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.^[11][12] Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Wright was assigned as part of the medical team charged with care of President Lyndon B. Johnson (see photo of Wright caring for Johnson after his 1966 surgery). Before leaving the position in 1967, the White House Physician, Vice Admiral Burkley, personally wrote Wright a letter of thanks on behalf of the United States President.^[13][14][15]

I think that service gives Wright the right to have a constructively critical opinion of some aspects of the United States.  Further black liberation theology is just one subset of a larger theology of Christian Social Justice that is not race specific.
Apparently the right is only concerned with anti-white racism; anti-black racism is perfectly acceptable in religious bigotry in their candidates.


I don't have a problem with Mitt R-money's religion; I have a problem with Mitt R-money being a liar, and espousing disaterous economic policies, I have a problem with him not standing up for what is right against Rush Limbaugh, and for his past apparent racism and bullying.  And he was cruel to his dog.. I believe R-money is, as Rick Parry called him, a vulture capitalist, or more correctly a vampire capitalist (sucks all the resources out of companies until they are dead). I think Herman Cain is simply a pig with incredibly poor ideas about economics who should learn to keep his hands to himself, along with his more private body parts, and who should be less of a flaming hypocrite. He will never be president of the United States; I doubt he could get elected local dog catcher, and that is unlikely to change. His time to be the token black person the GOP trots out to replace Michael Steele, is likely to be short lived until they can find some other black conservative to take his place.

To give you an example of what is so objectionable about Mitt R-money and Herman Cain, and what THEY think is ok, Big money man Ricketts, who is spreading around big amounts of cash all over Wisconsin on behalf of Scott Walker, and who put up millions for the campaign to smear Obama, including the criticism of his association with Reverend Wright, is seeking corporate welfare for the upgrades and repairs to the stadium where his baseball team plays THAT HE OWNS.  Because while he spends his own money to play politics in the millions of dollars, he wants the city to subsidize his business assets.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The Ricketts family, the eighth ownership group  in the 136- year history of the Cubs, acquired a 95 percent controlling interest in the team, Wrigley Field and 25 percent of Comcast Sportsnet Chicago in 2009. Joe Ricketts' children -- Pete, Tom, Laura and Todd -- are on the board.   

The Cubs team, which claimed back-to-back World Series titles in 1907 and 1908 and hasn't won the championship since, is seeking support for a proposal to relax Wrigley's landmark status and boost its advertising and sponsorship revenue.

The possible changes range from more outfield signs to street closings every game day to make space for street fairs. The stadium is among the city's top tourist attractions.The team also wants to use about $200 million in projected growth from existing amusement taxes to construct a building near the stadium to house its offices, a restaurant, parking, hall of fame, pro-shop and ticket windows.

Because this is how Republican policies work - spend money to end government spending for others, while hijacking as much public money for personal profit and advantage as possible, without regard to the hardship taking money from the pockets of ordinary, 99%er citizens might cause.  The right are hypocrites, supporting hypocrite policies and hypocrite politicians.  It's a bonus for them when they can throw in a little racism, religious bigotry and general intolerance and divisiveness.  THIS is why I oppose the right.  This is why YOU should oppose the right too.

World Bank definition of corruption - use of public office for private gain.  Sounds like Ricketts to me; he appears to be paying for the election of public officials to contribute to his private gain.

Do We Want a Real Bully in the Bully Pulpit?

Mitt R-money was promoting anti-equality in marriage over the weekend, as more occasion of his anti-gay courting of right wing religious fundamentalist voters.  Romney seems to have in his conduct and his proposed policies, to utterly miss the point of his own religion specifically, and the message of Christianity generally.  This may be the one area in which Romney has managed to be consistent, his willingness to say whatever he believes will appeal to an audience, but it doesn't indicate good character.
Humor often makes the point very well.  We have a lot of bullying, we have a lot of pulpit-style religious speech, and we have an utter failure from the right to do anything but hate with bigotry, fear, anger, and intolerance, and  rather than unite.

The term bully pulpit originated with President Teddy Roosevelt; he used it to describe his position as president, the influence and prestige of the office, as a platform to address issues, but it doesn't ONLY refer to the Presidency.  It refers to any position of authority or broad recognition from which one speaks, which in this case would clearly apply to Romney as a prominent political candidate for the office.
Mitt R-money is not so old that he has no memory of his high school years, given that he has five friends who remember the incident in question so vividly are approximately the same age.  His "I don't recall" statement doesn't fly, it is not credible.  Rather it appears to be a deliberate, calculted LIE. 

His non-apology apology doesn't fly either.  A central part to any genuine apology is to take the responsiblity for an action, and the results whether intentional and/or unintentional - Mitts Grabbing R-money doesn't do that.
I do believe that people change, they can change a lot in the years after high school and college.  People should grow and develop.  Mitt R-money doesn't seem to have made those kinds of changes to his character.  He will still say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear.  His Christian fundie audiences on the religious extremist right want to hear that it is ok to bully someone who is gay.  In point of fact they HATE the idea that any legislation might prevent or penalize them from exercising their freedom of religion to harass and terrorize another human being....except that is NOT in fact a core teaching or precept of Christianity.  Love thy neighbor as thyself is the central teaching, not stone people who have a same-sex orientation, not drive people to suicide, not be hateful and hurtful.
But that doesn't play well to the righties, so Mitt won't actually admit he did what he appears to have done, and he stops short of denying it too, which suggests to me he is worried about getting caught in too adamant a denial as a lie.  No Mitt just tries to use having abused another person, or being accused of doing so, to appeal to other people who like to do the same thing.
Here we have Mitt R-money, speaking from what amounts to a pulpit addressing Bible Thumpers who are apparently illiterate regarding the actual writings in the Bible.  The Bible, Judaism, of which Christianity in the first few centuries or so was a sect, preaches polygamy; that's also why it is the custom in Islam, because it comes from the same polygamist Abrahamic origins.  Not 'one man one woman'; NOWHERE is that in the Bible. 

In   1979, in Loring Park in Minneapolis, Minnesota,  we had a gay bashing incident that killed a man named Terry Knudsen; in 2010, 2011 and continuing into 2012 we have had bullying incidents leading to an epidemic of suicides.  The religious right doesn't want to take responsibility for the damage, the hurt, the harm, the death that they cause - shame on them for failing to take that responsibility.  The blame is at their feet no matter how they try to tap dance around it.
Whether they do the killing or just cause the killing, the bullies love their pulpit that excuses their hatred, that pats them on the back and praises their hatred.

We should not now or ever put them in charge, or give them any authority to act on their hate or to legitimize their hate.  They will keep on trying, they will throw words like love and God and Freedom into their efforts, but there will be none of those things in their politics or their governance. NONE.  Nor will their be honor, or integrity, or service to the majority of people in this nation, only service to themselves, to conformity rather than critical thinking, and to putting corporations and a few very wealthy people in control.

If you have any doubts about the folly of doing that, about the failures, the desperate failures of those very people, look to the J.P. Morgan billions of losses that were perfectly repeating the disasters, the UNREGULATED disasterous financial decisions that brought us the financial collapse of the country, and following our fall, the rest of the world under the Bush administration.

Make no mistake, it was not ONLY the Bush administration that was at fault, but it was primarily the Republicans and other conservatives who systematically dismantled the safety provisions to regulate our economy so as to prevent this occurrence after the collapse that brought on the Great Depression.

It is like a giant game of Jenga, dismantling regulation instead of little bits of wood, and the collapse when too many regulations removed reach a tipping point is what has happened to our economy --- a lesson obviously lost on the high priced not-as-smart-as-they-thought talent on Wall Street.

The reality is that the religion that is practiced is greed, the theology they follow is outward social conformity, which has no more genuine spirituality than skipping down a sidewalk, avoiding the divisions between segments of concreate, because of the childhood verse that stepping on a crack will break your mother's back.  It amounts to superstition, the superstition that if you conform to the way that their false history depicts society, where blacks and hispanics and women are subordinate and white males are dominant, and there was prayer in schools, and we hunted godless commies and hounded people like the soulless McCarthyism did, that God will mysteriously wave a magic wand like something out of the fictional Harry Potter series, and make us richer than the rest of the world, and give blessing to ignoring science, raping and pillaging the environment, and that we can look the other way at Jim Crow laws.  They are already embracing similar efforts to prevent people from voting to what was done in the worst days of southern oppression.

There is nothing worthwhile in the Bible rantings of Romney or other righties; the only miracle is that lightning doesn't regularly strike them.  The photo on the right is of Roy Sullivan, who according to rarelyknown.org, was struck by lightning seven times, more than any other individual.  This is what should be happening figuratively, if not literally, to people who make the utterly false statements that we see promoted as Biblical or as representing religion when it is not in fact an accurate reflection of the known texts.  I would never sincerely wish anyone harm, but in the case of Mr. Sullivan, the consequences of being struck by lightning involved losing his eyebrows, losing the nail of one toe, and in one case having his hair catch on fire.  While I wouldn't REALLY wish any harm to any other human being........the thought of R-money's hair on fire -- say CGI, not really injuring him, or of Rick Un-Saintly-whorum, or the chronically untruthful Michele Bachmann------ IS a funny image, one that satisfies  a little some of the frustration they engender.  "Liar, liar, pants on fire" or "Liar liar ZAP! hair on fire", both work for me as a momentary mental image to vent.

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.