Catching bin-Laden (or not)

April 27, 2007

In an interview with the AP yesterday, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney took a rather passive attitude towards the terrorist responsible for 9/11.

[Romney] said the country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,” Romney said.

Now, I think I know what Romney means by this, but it certainly sounds as if he’s saying capturing the architect of the 9/11 attacks is too expensive. We looked for him, we let him go at Tora Bora, and now bringing him to justice has proven to be a big hassle. Better to just move on.

To borrow a page from the Republicans’ rhetorical playbook, isn’t this a “defeatist” attitude? For a party that’s supposed to be “tough” on terror, isn’t this kind of complacency about a mass-murdering head of a massive terrorist network conveying the wrong kind of message to our enemies?

Eric Kleefeld noted that a Democratic candidate saying the exact same thing would probably generate national outrage.I suspect that’s right, which is why it’s even more interesting that Romney’s remarks seem to have gone almost completely unnoticed.

Kleefeld explained today:

A news search shows there hasn’t been any coverage of it beyond the original AP write-up yesterday, where the comment itself was buried towards the bottom of the piece.

There’s been almost no mention of it whatsoever in any of the places where one would expect such a thing to provoke outrage — that is, in the conservative media and blogosphere. There are no mentions of it on Power Line Blog, Town Hall, InsaPundit, Human Events, or notably the site of Hugh Hewitt, who has written a pro-Romney book.

Indeed, the only condemnation we can find of Romney’s remark comes in a single post on the National Review’s group blog, The Corner. Byron York writes: “Perhaps Romney should watch the tape of the planes hitting the towers again.”

York’s reaction is the one, I suspect, most Americans would have. Osama bin Laden slaughters 3,000 Americans, and Romney takes a blasé attitude about his capture? I find it hard to believe the public is onboard with this.

Then again, maybe people are less concerned than I realize. Six months after the 9/11 attacks, the president who once vowed to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” suddenly found the terrorist passé. Far from a commitment to bringing bin Laden to justice, Bush announced, “I truly am not that concerned about him.”

Neither, apparently, is Romney. At what point did the GOP decide that bin Laden no longer matters?

The media would act like the sky is falling if a Dem said this. There would be all sorts of talk of them having to pull out b/c no presidential candidate can say something like that…..unless you’re a republican apparently.

BTW, Steve, you write more blog posts than anyone in this “sphere”. Its truly amazing, I have a hard time keeping it. I love it! Keep up the great work.

  • I keep getting “Wordsmith” errors/pages when trying to access the site today. Anyone else having the same pblms?

  • Because a re-THUGliCON can say ANYTHING, and it’s fine. The first rule of being one is, in fact, that you must be a rank hypocrite, and a first-class lier. How did we ever come to this? And when did American ‘journalists’ start swalling garbage and ignoring fact? More importantly, we need to discuss how to restore credibility to the media, and how to stop our steady creep towards totally state-sponsored ‘news’. (Remember those garbage ‘newsreels’ that bu$$hCo put out, and the media just gobbled them up and aired them? Laws were broken, as usual, nothing happened.)

  • Somehow, I find it hard to believe that if we really did whatever was required to “get” bin Laden, that we’d only “get” bin Laden. He tends not to pop up on a beach in Argentina all by himself with a bottle of Corona. The key word in terms of taking down a terrorist network is “network.”

  • So, who is it now that’s giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Oh, yeah. The guy who claims that capturing/killing our enemy isn’t a priority. Thanks for clearing that up, Mitt.

  • Your typical ‘conservative’ uses patriotism and Amarica first rhetoric as a means to an end, which is basicly getting over on the rest of us. These ‘patriots’ don’t give a rat’s ass about anybody but themselves. They never have and they never will.

  • Off Topic, but I’m looking across the webpage at the ad section – that ostrich with its head in the sand has really been getting to me. No, not in the GOP sense of “the bubble”, but just a question: what does putting its head in the sand accomplish?

    I looked up ostriches in Wikipedia and found this:

    … the Ostrich is famous for hiding its head in the sand at the first sign of danger. The Roman writer Pliny the Elder is noted for his descriptions of the ostrich in his Naturalis Historia, where he describes the Ostrich and the fact that it hides its head in a bush.

    There have been no recorded observations of this behavior. A common counter-argument is that a species that displayed this behavior would not survive very long. Ostriches do deliberately swallow sand and pebbles to help grind up their food; seeing this from a distance may have caused some early observers to believe that their heads were buried in sand. Also, ostriches that are threatened but unable to run away may fall to the ground and stretch out their necks in an attempt to become less visible. The coloring of an ostrich’s neck is similar to sand and could give the illusion that the neck and head have been completely buried.[4]
    The Ostrich’s behavior is also mentioned in the Bible in God’s discourse to Job (Job 39.13-18). It is described as being joyfully proud of its small wings, but unwise and unmindful of the safety of its nest and harsh in the treatment of its offspring, even though it can put a horse to shame with its speed.

    And now you know.

  • So if we would only be slightly safer if bin Laden were caught or killed, are we any safer when they kill (and re-kill, and re-kill) bin Laden’s “top lieutenants”?

    And was Howard Dean right? I thought the official Republican position was that he should have been burned at the stake when he said that capturing Saddam didn’t make us any safer. Remember, Saddam wasn’t even associated with al Qaeda (except in the addled minds of the wingnuts).

    While we’re at it, somebody ask Romney 1) if he thinks we found WMDs after the invasion of 2003, 2) if Saddam was supporting al Qaeda, 3) if the rest of the world supported our invasion of Iraq, and 4) if he knows which of our enemies and allies are Sunni and Shia.

    I’ll bet he flunks even the simple questions.

  • Neocons and Bin Laden exist in symbiosis. Of course they don’t want to catch him.

  • Well, the Dems should start using Romeny’s comments in conjunction with Bush’s comments and tar the entire GOP with them. Put them on the defensive. Bitch slap them, if you will. Every Dem, when faced with a question on terrorism and/or national defense should find a way to say something on this. “OBL was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the deaths of almost 3,000 of our citizens. Yet despite this Pres. Bush intentionally called off the hunt for the murdering head terrorist OBL when we had him cornered in Tora Bora, so he could make a mess out of Iraq. President Bush and VP Cheney have said they are not concerned about OBL. Recently GOP candidate Mitt Romney has specifically stated that OBL isn’t worth the trouble or cost of bringing OBL to justice. This is how the GOP is better at fighting terror, apparently, and is more of what Giuliani would pursue. Yes, the GOP is tough on terror, just not on the terrorists who have attacked our country and while on their watch.” Or somehting hopefully much more concise than that.

  • So much for a sense of justice and closure to 9/11. For Romney, having old Osama to kick around and use as a prop for why everyone should be scared is too useful to end by capturing him.

    “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,” — that would have been a great line for Romney to use before we went into Iraq to get rid of Saddam. I

  • You go, Bubba (#12). The Dems should be beating this drum as often as the Repubs would if it had been a Pres. Gore who let Osama get away. Imagine the daily outrage from Rush, et. al. Day 1951 and Osama is still at large, plotting future terror attacks!

  • agree with #12 bubba

    The neocons never wanted to capture OBL at Tora Bora. They were in the process of making the Osama/Sadam connection to the gullible American people. If Osama were captured, the congress, as well as American people (I hope) would challenge more rigorously reasons to going for war.

  • Inner city nogs have caused more damage to our cities than the Luftwaffe could ever have done.

    Cheap beaner labor goes like this: Hire one and he brings along 15 dependents which will be supported by tax-payers.
    How long will the jews in Israel be content to guard Arabs? When they finally wise up, they’ll move back here.

    You missed the “i” key, asshole. It’s one key to the left of the “o.” Must be Friday–the morons are out in force.

  • I suspect it might also be true that Romney has noticed what an international joke Bush’s, “bring him/them to justice” vow quickly became as soon as it was apparent the administration was about as good at it as Michael Jackson is at arm-wrestling. Ol’ Mitt is too careful to make any such wild promises, and in fact is not beyond a little damping-down of expectations because the electorate is fed up with “leaders” who think saying something is the same as doing it.

  • Osama’s a Republican tool. He’s the terrorist we keep hearing about that will attack if we don’t elect Republicans. If they “caught” him, they wouldn’t have such an asset.

  • I agree, wholeheartedly, with Ron’s (#18)’s assessment: “If they (the Republicans) ‘caught’ him (Osama bin Laden), they wouldn’t have such an asset.” It shows their odd sense of patriotism, doesn’t it?

  • I actually agree with Romney and think some have quoted him out of context (especially McCain). Romney would still go after Bin Laden but believes that earth and heaven should be moved to bring down the networks and Al Qaeda franchises–not to go after a single marginalized guy who is probably hiding in a flat in Islamabad with no telephone.

    That said, a lot of you are right: had John Edwards said what Romney said, he would be FLAYED alive.

    This Romney dude is interesting…talking about micro credit and regional partnerships…quoting Thomas Friedman and Lawrence Wright books of the top of his head. What’s that all about?? Republicans haven’t had a smarty pants run since…hmm…Lincoln? I wonder, how many Repubs even know what micro credit is???

  • If one of the Democratic candidates for POTUS has said what Romney said, conservatives and Republicans across the nation would not only (figuratively) burn that candidate at the stake, but they would also probably demand that he/she drop out of the race

    • Comments are closed.