Mitt Romney's Re-writing History on Pakistan, bin Laden

Remember last week when Republicans were making a big deal about President Obama taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden?

Who cares that he had to make the final decision whether to go in or not.  I mean, we don't elect Presidents to make decisions, do we?

And then Republicans were all up in arms when Democrats had the nerve to point out that Mitt Romney wouldn't have made that decision.  I mean, how could Democrats know what Mitt Romney would do?

Well, because Mitt Romney version 2007 told us:

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.

What had been an internecine foreign policy battle between rival Democrats Obama, an Illinois senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, spilled into the Republican arena in the heavily contested state of Iowa.

"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."

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them."

Oops.  Of course, Mitt has been known to change his mind once in a while.  It's the only thing he is consistent on.

John McCain Speaks the Truth on Torture and Bin Laden

I can't think of anyone in government more qualified to speak on torture than Senator McCain.

This Day in History; Constitution, "Dead or Alive"

I love days that are full of history, like today, September 17:

1787: U.S. Constitution signed.
1814: Francis Scott Key finishes this little poem called the Star Spangled Banner
1908: First Airplane fatality
1920: NFL Organized
1947: James V. Forrestal is sworn in as the first Secretary of Defense of United States
1976: Space Shuttle Enterprise unveiled by NASA
1978: Camp David Accords are signed
2001: George W Bush declares Osama bin Laden "Wanted: Dead or Alive"

Who would have guessed that seven short years later, we would be further away from finding him.

-Bob

Mit Mixes up Obama, Osama

OK, maybe if he has said just Obama, it would have been funny and OK. But, he said "Barack Obama."



He started to say the correct thing, but then changed his mind and went with the wrong thing.

Mitt's doing this on purpose, and I want to know why people aren't raising the same kind of heck over this one as they did over General Betray Us.

-Bob

Mitt: Obama = Al Qaida victory

Mitt Romney, on FoxNews:

'Well, thank heavens Barack Obama was not
president over the last year, because had Barack Obama been president
over the last year, Osama bin Laden would have been declaring victory in
Iraq. We would have had Al Qaida as a dominant player in Iraq.'

Actually, Mitt, I'm sure that every day he remains on this Earth, Osama declares victory.

Also, I may be wrong on this, but isn't Al Qaida a dominant player in Iraq? Isn't that why we're still there?

[UPDATED 9/13/07 1946: Thanks to the Romney Campaign for posting the video on YouTube for me.....

New Bin Laden Tape shows Bush sucks at anti-terror matters

Bin Laden plans 9/11 video message

For the first time in three years, Osama Bin Laden has dared to show his face - in a video to be released for the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The cave-dwelling creep looks markedly older in a photo lifted from the video, even though he had apparently dyed his gray-streaked beard all black.

The fact that we are quickly approaching that memorable day when he masterminded the killings of nearly 3000 people on our soil, and he is still running around makes me sick.

And it proves that the US is no safer today than it was six years ago.
In fact, we are more than likely worse off.

President Bush and most of the Republican Presidential candidates remind us that the "terrorists will follow us home from Iraq." However, those who were in Iraq six years ago weren't terrorists (and, by definition, still aren't terrorists, but that's a discussion for annother post.) They were quite content with their lives, and probably didn't hate our country near like they do now, after we've blown up their houses. Those terrorists that were terrorists six years ago followed us into Iraq, and will follow us out whether we leave tomorrow or in 2050.

Because at the rate we're going, they'll still be around.

When you've spent 75% of your time tilting at windmills versus fighting the main terrorists, you're not going accomplish any missions.

Now, I know that some yahoo is going to write that "Sure, Bush hasn't done anything to stop bin Laden, but neither did Clinton."

I already have my response for that:

If Clinton had sex with an intern, does that make it OK for Bush to do so?

-Bob

[UPDATE: Ironically, this was post #911. The numerologists amongst you can have a feild day....]

I'm Not Surprised -- Crandal Canyon, Chinese Lead, Katrina, Iraq, Osama, Hanging Chads

I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised that the government seems so clueless on mine safety. Upset, but not surprised.

This is, after all, the same government that can't seem to keep lead-contaminated toys off our shelves. The lead is coming in from China. China. The Communists. Surely, you would think that neocons could figure out that communists can't be trusted. That's what they won election with for many, many years. They'll still throw the C-word out when they are backed into a corner. I'm surprised they haven't tried to say that Saddam was a commie.

But, at the same time, I'm not surprised.

This is the same government that couldn't figure out how to get life-saving supplies like food and water into New Orleans. For 100 hours, they said it was impossible. Who cares that NBC and CNN were able to get private cars in and out. Fox News was able to get two satellite trucks in. But, the government, they couldn't figure it out. And that's not to mention they fact that we can airlift food and water into Pakistan 36 hours after an earthquake, but we can't pull it off in our own country. Let's not mention the fact that they turned private-sector charities away at gunpoint from going in.

Guess What? I'm not surprised.

After all, this is the government with the most powerful army in the world that has taken four and a half years to wage a war that we are no closer to winning than we were four and a half years ago.

But, I'm not surprised. This is the same government that has taken 6 years to catch the man who masterminded the worst terrorist attack on our soil. Except we haven't caught him.

But really, should I be surprised? This is the same government that, in answer to an election fiasco, has never addressed the causes of that fiasco. The problem wasn't the hanging chad, it was the fact that there was no definition of what constituted a vote on the ballot. Should we be surprised to learn that there is still no definition in most states?

No. Because it's par for the course.

-Bob

If I only had a brain....

"And, more importantly, we've stopped a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein. Nobody denies that he was supporting al-Qaida."

In a clear attack on Democrats, [Sen Orrin] Hatch added, "Well, I shouldn't say nobody. Nobody with brains."

That was in an invitation-only event last Saturday in Cedar City covered by The Spectrum of St George.

First, the Spectrum misspelled the name. It's al-Qaeda.
But, that's not the problem here:

The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks. [2] [3] This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA. The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.

In addition, President Bush received on 21 September 2001 a classified Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any collaborative relationship between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda.[4] (Source: wikipedia)

====

Interviewer, 31 January 2003: "Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?" President Bush: "I can't make that claim." (source: whitehouse.com

====

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell, when asked whether there had been a "connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attack of 9/11". 20/20 interview, September 9, 2005.

=====

So, Orrin Hatch just called President Bush and Collin Powell brainless.

What a nutcake.

Oh, and annother golden Hatch quote from Saturday:

"They're moaning and groaning in Congress because he didn't abide by what's called the FISA Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That act is very important, but it was enacted in 1978 and it is not applicable to today's world,"

It's good to know that I don't have to abide by laws that were passed in 1978. I wonder what else I don't have to keep obeying. Oh, and may I point out what Hatch was doing in 1978: He was serving in the U.S. Senate that passed the law.

-Bob

Another Terrorist Attack?

William Lind, via Part of the Plan:

Osama bin Laden’s latest message. Most observers, including the White House, seem to have missed its significance. In it, bin Laden offered us a truce (an offer we should have accepted, if only to attempt to seize the moral high ground). The Koran requires Moslems to offer such a truce before they attack. The fact that bin Laden himself made the offer, after a long silence, suggests al Qaeda attaches high importance to it.

An interesting senario plays out: AQ attacks again, say in Los Angeles. This gives Bush a huge, much needed boost in popularity (because most Americans will miss the fact that this is proof that he has FAILED in the War on Terror). This then gives him the excuse to attack not AQ, but county #2 in the Axis of Evil: Iran. The writing is on the wall.

-Bob

Weak on Terror.

Bush/Cheney and the Republicans have failed us in the War on Terror. AmericaBlog has a timeline that shows why:

1) The US was attacked on 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden.
2) The US invaded Afghanistan ostensibly to find Bin Laden - "dead or alive."
3) The US toppled the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden.
4) So, of course our next move is to pull troops out of Afghanistan and search for Bin Laden where? Iraq. Where Bin Laden isn't.
5) Bin Laden and al-Qaeda bomb trains and busses in the UK.
6) Bin Laden releases a tape saying:
"The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of European nations," he said "The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission."
7)The CIA confirms that the tape is indeed Bin Laden.
8) The US decides NOT to raise the terror threat level after the man who attacked us on 9/11 releases a tape saying he's going to attack us:
U.S. security officials said Thursday there were currently no plans to raise the nation's security threat level because of the new tape.

It has been 1,595 since September 11. Thats 4 years 4 months and 12 days.

1,595 days can be converted to one of these units:
137,808,000 seconds
2,296,800 minutes
38,280 hours
227 weeks (rounded down)

-Bob