That new Obama campaign video

| April 29, 2012

So, here’s that video that you’ve all been reading about this weekend in which Bill Clinton hints that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have made the decision to pull the trigger on Osama bin Laden last year;

I think it’s rather funny that Bill Clinton, who didn’t take advantage of his own military intelligence in the pre-2001 days to kill bin Laden, probably removing the 9-11 attack from our history, but now he’s praising Obama for doing what Clinton didn’t have the courage to do. And oh, yeah, as long as we’re looking at the leadership in the White House, don’t forget that Joe “Bite Me” Biden advised the President to not take advantage of the opportunity;

Vice President Joe Biden jumped on the Obama leadership bandwagon Friday when he revealed that he cautioned the president against signing off on the raid on bin Laden’s hideaway. Despite his reservations, Biden said the president made the decision all alone.

So, we know how the president’s closest adviser and potential successor would have handled the decision.

I think it’s fairly disingenuous of the Obama campaign to use comments that Romney made five years ago against him as prof that he wouldn’t have made the decision. Especially when the comments were clearly made about the entire war and not that one aspect.

While I commend the president for ultimately making the right decision, calling it “audacious” and making it the centerpiece of the entire 2012 campaign is a bit of hyperbole. Everyone who wouldn’t have made the same call, raise your hand. Yeah, that’s what I thought. From the video;

Clinton added, “The downside would have been horrible for him, but he reasoned I cannot in good conscience do nothing. He took the harder and the more honorable path and the one that produced in my opinion the best result.”

No, Obama made the same decision that most Americans would have made if they had an opportunity to make, except that we would have made the decision based on the realities of the world, and Obama made the politically expeditious decision. As we have all witnessed, if the mission had somehow failed, someone besides Obama would have been heaped with blame, as the blog formerly known as Blackfive mentions.

But in preparation for their celebratory spike, the Stars & Stripes reports that the Obama Administration is taking NBC News on a victory lap through the “situation room” at the White House.

I think it’s pretty funny that the Obama crowd is making a big deal about this whole thing when, if they had been in office on 9-11, we wouldn’t have gone after anyone who had attacked us. We’d probably be shoveling protection money to bin Laden instead of killing him.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War

Comments (85)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. insipid says:

    @49- So that youtube of GWB is a figment of your imagination? What about the 911 commission report? What about the foreign policy article? You have NOTHING Andy. You Conservatives have fucked up the economy, fucked up on National Security and all you do is cry and wail when someone points out the obvious fact that you can’t govern.

    So yeah, bring on substance-free attacks like that, I’m loving it. It proves what i’ve always suspected: you got nothing.

  2. Just Plain Jason says:

    I really don’t know why insipid comes here between flipping burgers…

  3. insipid says:

    More class warfare, Jason?

  4. Just Plain Jason says:

    Somebody has to do it, guess it may as well be you.

  5. insipid says:

    I don’t have a problem with someone who flips burgers expressing an oppinion, you do.

  6. NHSparky says:

    Insipid, despite what you want to think in your world, not all opinions are created equal. I leave it to you to figure out why. Slow night at the slap fights for you tonight?

  7. John says:

    you are exactly as your name states, insipid.

  8. JustPlainjasin says:

    Insipid, are good for comic relief if nothing else. I love Rodney Carrington’s joke to a heckler, “I don’t throw rocks at you while you’re mowing…”

  9. insipid says:

    Ha!Slap fight! Ha! I love it when you make bigoted stereotypical references to gay sexuality! Right-wing humor(?)! Love it!

    I also love the fact that you’ve repeated the same joke without embelishhment (can’t i have a lisping “I’m going to give you the BIGGEST PINCH” at least?) over and over. Because as you right wingers know, saying something over and over will somehow make it true! Like cutting taxes on rich folks and raising them on everyone else (they call it broadening the base) creates jobs! Or George Bush is the one responsible for getting Osama Bin Laden! And Jimmy Carter caused the housing crash!

    But really keep repeating that same joke over and over, because jokes are like fine wine, they just get better with age. Plus it reveals the fundamental truth: you’ve got nothing.

  10. insipid says:

    @57- Somebody gave John a dictionary!

  11. UpNorth says:

    Give John a Dictionary? Why not give him yours, you have yet to use it.
    Raising taxes on everyone else? Would that be the 50% who pay no federal taxes?

  12. Adam_S says:

    Insipid, go to and watch the video of Romney saying he would go after Bin Laden in Pakistan and then shut the fuck up.

  13. insipid says:

    What’s funny, Jasin, is this faux-indignation. Our you honestly saying, with a straight face that if GWB, or John McCain or Mitt Romney had gotten the SOB Jonn Lilyea would be writing articles stating that “anyone could of done it”. Or writing fall-down hysterical lines like this one:

    “I think it’s fairly disingenuous of the Obama campaign to use comments that Romney made five years ago against him as prof that he wouldn’t have made the decision. Especially when the comments were clearly made about the entire war and not that one aspect.”

    That one aspect? The killing of Osama Bin Laden is now just an “aspect” an inconsequential little thing that really is no big whup? I mean, it’s just an “aspect”. Like the assassination was an “aspect” of My American Cousin or the invasion of Russia was an “aspect” of WWII. I mean i’m surprised anyone even talks about it. And really what were all those people celebrating for? Didn’t they know it was just an “aspect” on the war on terror?

    Hysterical also is the time limit. Romney’s remarks weren’t stupid as hell because Romney said them five years ago! Because Al Queda was barely a threat at all back then! And the three thousand people he killed were only dead about 4 years, i mean they’d have to be dead 8 years before Romney’s remarks could be considered stupid as hell. Really what has changed in the past 5 years, other than Al Queda being made a whole lot weaker BY A DEMOCRAT that has made Romney’s remarks not dumb?

    The fact is that if a Republican had gotten Osama Fox News would be shouting the clarion call of “Dems weak on terror” every 10 minutes, Rush Limbaugh would be opining about the verility of whoever it is and lambasting the femininity of Democrats. But now when a Democrat points out the FACT that it is the GOP that is weak on terror you all are falling on your feinting couch’s or typing the keyboard in extreme poutrage.

    Watching you guys get outraged over losing your national security binky is completely fall-down funny.

  14. Hondo says:

    I’m guessing our “friend” insipid here never heard of a guy named Richard Miniter. Or a book named Losing Bin Laden.

    I’m also guessing that the naive youngster has no idea how long it takes to develop actionable intelligence regarding an OPSEC-aware foreign threat.

    But I’d really though he’d have been smart enough to realize that the reason we were able to bring the folks who perpetrated the 1993 WTC bombing to US justice was because they stayed in the US – and were stupid enough to believe they wouldn’t get found out. Stupidity like that makes it much easier for law enforcement to do its job.

    Oh well, I guess I gave the youngster too much credit when I believed he had low-normal intellect. But we’ll need Starbucks baristas and McDonald’s fry specialists for the foreseeable future, so I guess he’ll be able to get/stay gainfully employed.

  15. insipid says:

    @62: Yeah, if the magic intelligence fairie told him exactly where Osama was he’d smoke his ass. Of course how that was going to happen since he also made it clear that he’d continue the policy George Bush had of not looking for him is anyones guess. I’m sorry, you’re the ones who need to shut the fuck up. You had 7 years to get him and take out Al Queda and failed miserably. Our guy did it in a little over 2.

  16. insipid says:

    LoL, Hondo, in right-wing land is incredibly biased and Richard Miniter isn’t a right wing hack and “Losing Bin Laden” wasn’t a right wing hit piece. The only guy who served in both administrations was Richard Clarke. And while he’s no fan of the Clintons he was right to point out just what a HUGE fuck-up Bill Clinton was.

  17. Adam_S says:

    Yeah that video completely disproves your talking point but just try to marginalize it as best you can, which isn’t very well.

  18. insipid says:

    Sorry, that last line should of been what a huge fuck up George Bush was.

    Well enough fun and frolick for one night (there’s a new put-down for ya, Sparky, i’m a giver!). Gotta go to bed before Hondo starts “informing” me about the book that reveals where President Obama was REALLY born.

  19. insipid says:

    No, my talking point is that he wouldn’t put any time and energy into getting him. That video does NOTHING to address that. But nice try.

  20. Adam_S says:

    Oh so a talking point with no evidence to back it up, nice to know, I’m just going to ignore your asinine comments from now on, have a good night.

  21. insipid says:

    The Romney interview backs it up, dumb ass.

  22. insipid says:

    @61- UPnorth- get your stupid talking points in line. EVERYONE pays Federal taxes in SSI and Medicare/medicaid. Funds which Republicans LOVE to steal from to pay for their wars. You meant to say that they don’t pay income taxes. While that’s true, you left out the fact that this is because the vast majority of income in the top earners.

    You guys don’t want to measure income in the only FAIR way of measuring income total taxes paid as percentage of income. If you did that you’d see that the average person in the bottom 50%, when you add up payrole taxes, sales taxes etc. etc. pays as much in income as the wealthy folks you guys love to such up to. But you’re not interested in being fair, you’re interested in playing class warfare and demonizing the poor.

  23. insipid says:

    I forgot to mention, the rich don’t pay nearly as much in their income in ssi/medicare because that tax stops at the first 160k of income. So, no I’m not in need of a dictionary, but you could use a calculator.

  24. Hondo says:

    Uh, insipid . . . only social security taxes stop at an upper income limit. Medicare haven’t since 1993.

    Oh, and $160k isn’t the upper limit for social security taxes. And you did know that social security payout isn’t linear, and is weighted heavily towards favoring low-income earners over higher income folks?

    Once again, you were either too lazy to bother with getting the facts right – or were too clueless to know you hadn’t. I guess you couldn’t find something both already written and accurate to cut-and-paste.

    You also just took the bait and proved yourself biased, amigo. If you’re going to defend using a reasonable source, you have no standing to criticize others for whatever source they use. Regardless of his political views, Miniter’s book appears to be very well researched. And unlike, Miniter doesn’t lie and claim to be an objective source.

    It’s sad watching naive college students with no real-world experience try and debate those who actually were old enough to observe and understand the world during the Clinton administration. But it’s also kinda entertaining watching them flail around helplessly.

    Let’s see – you’ve said elsewhere that you are a college student, insipid. That means you are likely between 19 and about 25. What that means is that you were either unborn, in diapers/training pants, or at best in kindergarten when Clinton was first elected POTUS, and were about 13 or less when 9/11 happened. You almost certainly voted for POTUS the first after 9/11 – and if you’re a sophomore of normal age, you have never voted in a Presidential election during your life.

    So spare us the pronouncements about how Clinton knew what he was doing, “fella”. Many if not most of us are old enough to have lived through the Clintoon administration and seen firsthand how he screwed the pooch – repeatedly – when it came to governing the country in general and to ensuring US security in particular.

  25. UpNorth says:

    “this is because the vast majority of income in the top earners”? WTF, and no, that isn’t Obama’s campaign slogan. You’re correct on one point(only), I meant federal income tax.
    BTW, insipid, go back and check, I’m sure you’ll find that the dems/progs/commies were the ones who opened the SS “lockbox”. And, it’s Social Security, not SSI, dumbass.
    As for being fair, your definition is totally different from a rational, thinking person. Everyone should pay, after all that’s a core tenant of yours, isn’t it? “From each according to his means, to each according to his needs”.
    Now, do back and work on your BS in social work, or underwater basket weaving.

  26. Joe says:

    Enjoying seeing insipid attacked by the usual TAH tag team, and single-handedly beating them all.

  27. Hondo says:

    Did you have something intelligent to add, Joe the Rockclimbing Hero? Or are you just keeping to form and babbling to hear yourself talk?

  28. PintoNag says:

    Joe, while I don’t agree with everything you say, you at least think for yourself. I haven’t seen insipid post an independent thought yet.

  29. Joe says:

    Well Pinto,

    Just because a thought is not “independent” doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. I think all sides refer to previously published material and most postings are derivative. Truly original ideas are pretty rare.

  30. PintoNag says:

    @79 We all learn from our predecessors, that’s true. It takes maturity and guts to crawl out of the rut our predecessors carve for us and look around, however.

    Insipid isn’t talking to us but at us. He isn’t discussing; he’s spouting. You listen and discuss. True, you get raked over the coals when we don’t agree with you, but that’s the way it is here.

  31. NHSparky says:

    Pinto–nope, Joe is just as much a “swoop and poop” as insipid. You prove him wrong, he changes the subject. Like nailing Jello to a tree.

  32. Dai Uy says:

    The following article, although a year old, contains facts which some will find pertinent to this discussion… Before denigrating the source, address the facts presented. ***

  33. UpNorth says:

    Well, #82, I see references to MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, PBS and the 9/11 Commission. The time line was done by Judd Legum, a dem who couldn’t possibly have any axe to grind, for ThinkProgress, one of the proud sponsors of the 99%, AKA, the Occutards. And, Legum is close to John Podesta, of the “Center for American Progress”. One of the goals of C.A.P. is to “provide long-term leadership and support to the progressive movement“. So, no thanks, I’ll get my facts from better sources than that, mmm-kay?

  34. UpNorth says:

    Oh, and Joey, BwaHaHaHaHa. Insipid beating anyone here? Laughable. Go climb a rock.

  35. OWB says:

    After a couple of days reflection (OK, a few moments thought here and there), the realization dawned that more often than not the simplest explanation is the best one.

    What if this is just political pay back from one Clinton to the guy who treated the other Clinton badly? What if the she-Clinton really does want to retire, and taking out this usurper must occur first??

    Clinton HAS to understand the negative ramifications of this sort of campaign ad. The usurper understands street thuggery, but not the nuance of political reality that the Clintons have used effectively for decades.