Here’s a reminder:
In April of 2007, Romney said, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,” but quickly changed his mind after bin Laden was killed. “Any thinking American would have ordered exactly the same thing,” he proclaimed earlier this year.
It’s rare for a politician to openly admit that they don’t think. But, really, it’s just one more flip-flop in a long string.
It depends what you mean by “chill.” Would I have sent in foreign occupying armies to do the job? No.
I guess it’s just my view of crime in general. Is it worth the cost, how can we prevent future crimes from being committed. I’m a lot less concerned with retribution and punishment.
POTUS – whoever occupies the office – must be concerned with punishment and retribution when it come to those who attack this country. The unambiguous message is this: “Mess with us and we will move heaven and earth to fuck your shit up. Trust and believe.” Many don’t appreciate the ceaseless of it, but putting boot to hindquarters is the American way, and I offer the last 180 years or so as evidence. We’re not 100% successful (Vietnam, Somalia, War of 1812, etc.) but it is how we get down.
Stupid iPhone autocorrect – ceaseless –> crassness
I don’t mind that there are people who are squeamish about hunting and down and killing people who attack our cities and our citizens and our military headquarters. We need kind gentle souls in the world. But we’re not putting them in charge of the country.
I tend to agree with you about weighing cost/benefit when dealing with crimes among our own citizenry, trade issues, etc.
But when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world and any attack against the country as a political statement (terrorism,) the message has to always be clear to any would-be perpetrator that they (and any conspirators/enablers) WILL be hunted down and appropriately punished at any cost, that we will never ever quit. That’s our deterrent.
Whether we actually follow through with those threats is another story, but all US politicians, diplomats, etc need to always send that unequivocal message in any public statement and in their political rhetoric. And if they play partisan politics with it, show anything but total unity on this issue, they should be publicly condemned for it.
Our real deterrent is a profound commitment to the rule of law, a sheaf of subpoenas, and the US Marshals Service.
Some progressive you are.
The latter two of whose writ does not run beyond the borders of this country.
Justice isn’t the Department of Justice, and justice’s writ runs everywhere.
But don’t take my word for it.
Can you get progressiver than that? I don’ think so.
That was low. But whatever…
Don’t you know, the only progressive position is to send subpoenas to foreign countries where people are trying to sew bombs into people’s underwear to blow up our civilian planes. Anyone who thinks it is reasonable to vaporize people who are actively trying to kill our people and destroy our public aviation system are clearly not progressives.
Also, too.
I think it was a low blow too and besides very exclusive. Not all progressives/Liberals march in lockstep like dittoheads.
In case no one figured it out, Davis is sarcastic when it comes to things like that. He’s mocking others. Not a low blow lol.
In fairness to Mitt (ha), in 2007 he was still parroting the master:
“I truly am not that concerned about him.”
George W. Bush on Osama bin Laden, March 13, 2002.
I also happen to think he was right. OBL by the end was not that important and I haven’t seen it have some sort of great psychological balm effect on the American people.
It’s a handy political stick, and probably made the world a better place but in the end, it’ll change little.
Let us not forget that that was not just something he said.
The Bush administration shut down the CIA’s bin Laden unit in July 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=0
President Obama had it reopened when he took office.
it’s just one more flip-flop in a long string