Mitt Romney - prep school bully

[Hoss]

It was really directed to RM, but it applies equally to all those who honestly believe Bush wasn't interested in getting/killing bin Laden. Cripes, all we heard about Bush was that he was a warmonger, killer, etc., yet he had no interest in killing the one guy probably most deserving???

While I don't believe he wasn't interested in it, he sure put on that front.  Doesn't exactly resonate well.

[Conan71]

No, but I do have a news story from 2007:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/world/americas/08iht-web.0708intel.6547158.html?pagewanted=all

Pretty rich for a guy who has since stated that such a call was an easy one, now that it's politically expedient. I take no stance on that part of it.

Nice way to cherry pick the story.  Also you said Rummy rejected an opportunity to get Bin Laden.  Bin Laden wasn't even there.  Now for the reason's why it was called off for those of you who won't click the link:

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group's operations.

Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and CIA operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

Pentagon officials familiar with covert operations said that planners had to consider the political and human risks of undertaking a military campaign in a sovereign country, even in an area like Pakistan's tribal lands, where the government has only tenuous control. Even with its shortcomings, Pakistan has been a vital American ally since the Sept. 11 attacks, and the militaries of the two countries have close ties.

The Pentagon officials said tension was inherent in any decision to approve such a mission: a smaller military footprint allows a better chance of a mission going undetected, but it also exposes the units to greater risk of being killed or captured.

Officials said one reason Rumsfeld called off the 2005 operation was that the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred, including Army Rangers, members of the Navy Seals and CIA operatives, and he determined that the United States could no longer carry out the mission without Musharraf's permission. It is unlikely that the Pakistani president would have approved an operation of that size, officials said.

And of course the sources are all confidential:

About a dozen current and former military and intelligence officials were interviewed for this article, all of whom requested anonymity because the planned 2005 mission remained classified.

[guido911]

While I don't believe he wasn't interested in it, he sure put on that front.  Doesn't exactly resonate well.

Bush deciding not to commit 100,000 special ops forces to hunt down one guy, bin Laden, is a FAR cry from not wanting him killed or a refusal to give the order to do so if Bush knew his whereabouts. If that is going to be the tack you are taking, the more suited analogy is that Obama DID dedicate 100,000 special ops forces to get bin Laden and was successful. Otherwise, the argument collapses on irrelevancy.

[Hoss]

Bush deciding not to commit 100,000 special ops forces to hunt down one guy, bin Laden, is a FAR cry from not wanting him killed or a refusal to give the order to do so if Bush knew his whereabouts. If that is going to be the tack you are taking, the more suited analogy is that Obama DID dedicate 100,000 special ops forces to get bin Laden and was successful. Otherwise, the argument collapses on irrelevancy.

Either way, the statement he made resonated the wrong way.  I was not the one who said he was disinterested.  The President himself inferred it with his words.  I remember it pretty clearly and how many of my right-leaning friends were a little baffled at the admission.

Bush could have committed those troops had he not made the decision to invade Iraq.  He chose the wrong front.  My opinion, of course.

I'm also guessing that your statement would be reversed if the political parties in power were reversed.

[erfalf]

I think most just found it baffling that a military as powerful and high tech as ours couldn't find this guy. Or at least I, and some that I converse with think so. I mean seriously, I hear about some of the things they do pull off and then ponder that this guy evaded us for ten plus years. Unimaginable if you ask me. I understand working across unfriendly borders is complicated but still.

Honestly though, who could say with a straight face that any sitting President wouldn't want to take out the most hated criminal on the face of the planet. Politicians are politicians first, and this would be worth way too many points in elections to pass up for any hair brained reason.

[Red Arrow]

Care to post any direct quotes from Rumsfeld saying as much?

Don't be silly.  Bush bashing requires no documentation.  It's just all true.

[guido911]

I'm also guessing that your statement would be reversed if the political parties in power were reversed.

Nope.

Exhibit A:  My not continuing to harp on the nabbing of KSM, Padilla, Zubayda, or Saddam Hussein. Did Clinton keep taking credit (victory lapping) for the arrest of McVeigh? How about FDR when the German spies/saboteurs were caught in 1942?

As for Bush's message resonating. Not quite sure how to get past the earlier warmonger/torturer label he has. I also cannot get past the damned crickets from the left over Clinton's inability to get bin Laden when he had the chance(s).

[nathanm]

Nice way to cherry pick the story.  Also you said Rummy rejected an opportunity to get Bin Laden.  Bin Laden wasn't even there.  Now for the reason's why it was called off for those of you who won't click the link:

Choose to ignore the Secretary's plain language when he stated that the intelligence used to capture bin Laden was developed from waterboarding if you like.

People have been convicted of murder with less evidence than this.

Guido, the only victory lapping is in Roger Ailes' head.

[Hoss]

Nope.

Exhibit A:  My not continuing to harp on the nabbing of KSM, Padilla, Zubayda, or Saddam Hussein. Did Clinton keep taking credit (victory lapping) for the arrest of McVeigh? How about FDR when the German spies/saboteurs were caught in 1942?

As for Bush's message resonating. Not quite sure how to get past the earlier warmonger/torturer label he has. I also cannot get past the damned crickets from the left over Clinton's inability to get bin Laden when he had the chance(s).

McVeigh - Al Qaeda is apples and oranges.  McVeigh, in some circles, in considered a patriot.  A patriot because he stood up to the government in some eyes.  In other words, not a foreigner.  He was still a terrorist.

And I'll give you the issue with Clinton.

But Bush can't get away with this one...first week of his Presidency.

https://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

[RecycleMichael]

It is clear that even video of Bush saying we wasn't all that concerned with Bin Laden will convince the Bush spooners.

Bush stop trying to get Bin Laden once he had made the case to go after Saddam Hussein. After all, he promised his dad he would finish the job and take back that oil.

Thank goodness we now have a president who made the call to take out Bin Laden. The world is a safer place now.

I really don't care if you deny Obama any credit or not. In a free country you are allowed to be wrong all you want.

[we vs us]

Nice way to cherry pick the story.  Also you said Rummy rejected an opportunity to get Bin Laden.  Bin Laden wasn't even there.  Now for the reason's why it was called off for those of you who won't click the link:

And of course the sources are all confidential:

Interesting, then, that Obama did what Rummy wouldn't -- send troops into Pakistan to capture/kill Bin Laden. 

[Conan71]

Interesting, then, that Obama did what Rummy wouldn't -- send troops into Pakistan to capture/kill Bin Laden. 

Did you bother to read the difference in mission scope and the amount of risk involved?  As well as there being a difference in our relationship with Pakistan 3 years into the WOT rather than 9.  I suppose that point was lost on you.  Secondly, Bin Laden was not even suspected to be at this high-ranking meeting of AQ operatives.  This was the difference in committing several hundred troops to capture underlings, not committing a couple of dozen servicemen to capture the head of AQ.   Huge difference.

[Conan71]

Bush stop trying to get Bin Laden once he had made the case to go after Saddam Hussein. After all, he promised his dad he would finish the job and take back that oil.

[nathanm]

As well as there being a difference in our relationship with Pakistan 3 years into the WOT rather than 9.

Yes, our relations with Pakistan are much worse now.

[RecycleMichael]

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-27/politics/bush.war.talk_1_homeland-security-senators-from-both-parties-republican-phil-gramm?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad'