It's been a year since President Obama's bold decision to send the heroic U.S. Navy Seals in to Pakistan to kill the vicious, mass-murdering criminal Osama bin Laden. Recently, Willard has been saying that "any president" would have given such an order, to downplay the significance of this action. But once again, Willard is shown to be a liar by his own words. Let us travel back to 2007:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan.
"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," Romney told reporters on the campaign trail.
Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."
D'oh! Willard keeps forgetting that people actually record his various droppings. And is it really unfair to point out that Romney said, in April 2007, “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person” ? John McCain didn't think so:
Romney’s “heaven and earth” line proved a gaffe at the time as well. Sen. John McCain, who tried to portray Romney throughout the race as weak on national security, told blogger Jennifer Rubin that “it takes a degree of naiveté to think [bin Laden is] not an element in the struggle against radical Islam.”
Byron York, columnist for the National Review, held nothing back, writing at the time, “we have already spent billions and gone to a lot of effort to try to get bin Laden … it would be worth still more money and still more effort to kill the man behind 9/11.”
“I can’t imagine any serious Republican candidate for president would say otherwise,” York wrote. “Perhaps Romney should watch the tape of the planes hitting the towers again.”
Romney walked back his remarks in a Republican debate, saying “We’ll move everything to get him. But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person — Osama bin Laden — because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another.”
Now it’s coming back to haunt him, especially as Romney has tried to minimize the Navy SEAL raid by suggesting “any president” would have done the same thing.
No, Romney didn't really think it that important, certainly not important enough to enter Pakistan to actually kill bin Laden. The truth of the matter is, if it had up to Willard in 2011, bin Laden would still be living in his villa in Pakistan.
Oh, and more thing: in answer to radical right-wing criticism that Obama is "politicizing" the bin Laden raid, I would remind everybody that I had to live through draft-dodger Bush, AKA "Commander Codpiece" playing dress-up and prancing around on an aircraft carrier when he was proclaiming that the Iraq war was "over". I also remember the Republicans shamelessly exploiting the 9/11 attacks for their own advantage, including playing footage of them at the 2008 Republican Convention. So I don't think I'll listen to any whining about politicizing the bin Laden raid. I just remember that "Mission Accomplished" banner.
And I don't think I'll believe anything Willard has to say on any subject.