Listen to Ross and Burbank weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Ross+Burbank


Is it shocking that a president would use a military decision for political gain?

May 1, 2012 @ 8:36 am

A new Obama campaign ad reminds us just who gave the order to get Osama bin Laden.

But it doesn't stop there.

It uses a Romney quote from 2007 to imply that Romney might not have done the same. There's no audio of the quote so the ad shows Wolf Blitzer repeating it:

"It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," said Blitzer.

Mitt Romney was downplaying the importance of focusing on Osama bin Laden. But he certainly wasn't alone. Remember this:

"The idea of focusing on one person. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country."

That was George Bush just six months after 9/11.

But what the Obama ad leaves out is that after taking flak from other Republicans, Romney said this just a few days later:

"Of course we get Osama bin Laden, and track him wherever he has to go and make sure he pays for the outrage he exacted on America," said Romney.

[Will we move heaven and earth to get him?]

"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. It's more than Osama bin Laden, but he is going to pay, and he will die," said Romney.

It's not about one person, but we will move heaven and earth to get the person that it's not about. So it's a more nuanced position.

But as to the original question, is it somehow shocking that a president would use a military decision for political gain?

Hmmm...let me see:

"The party of FDR, the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run," said Bush.

Shocking.

More Ross and Burbank

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (64)


  • Add A Comment

  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Not shocking....
    May 1, 2012 7:58 am
    Military decisions are curiously intertwined with political argument.

    During the 2008 Campaign, one of the recurring knocks on Obama was "He doesn't have the stomach to be CIC. He will cut and run in Afghanistan and Iraq!"

    Shortly after the election, the knocks became "He has failed to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq!"

    It's a no-win situation, regardless how the decision goes down. By listing the cost of the wars in his budget (rather than running them off the books as "emergency appropriations) Obama even took a lot of heat for "increasing government spending"- when (for part of the increase, anyway)- all he did was decide to be honest about what we had been spending all along.

    Don't forget that when Bill Clinton was sending launching missles against Al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan (prior to 2011) he was severely criticized by the Republicans for the cost of each attack. That was back during the impeachment era, and nobody was missing a chance to attack Clinton for anything. Then, of course, when during the first year of Bush II's administration we had the 9-11 attacks, the same people were loudly blaming Clinton for not doing more to deter terrorism during his term.

    Military decisions, victories, and disasters will always be used as elements of political campaigns.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Had it failed, it certainly would have been used against him
    May 1, 2012 8:12 am
    So, no he didn't "do" anything but make the decision. That is what CEO's do. Was Willard out on the floor of Staples selling pens? But he takes credit for their turnaround.

    CEO's make decisions, in this case a gutsy one that would have cost Obama the election had it gone bad.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Dave - welcome back to Earth. Are you staying, or just visiting ?
    May 1, 2012 8:14 am
    This story is almost fair and balanced - just like the old days. .......... .......... But all that aside, OF COURSE presidents(and all world leaders) use military situations for political gain. ... The classic is Abe Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclamation. Written a few months earlier - and with the specific intent of avoiding Britain and France from endorsing the Confederacy as an independent nation (and maybe even sending troops, as England toyed with), Lincoln waited until the battle of Antietam to proclaim he was freeing the slaves. .. Of course, it only freed slave in areas fully still under the control of the Confederacy, but that's OK because Antietam was basically a draw, anyway. So no slaves were actually freed, but Europe stayed home. ................. Certainly every president in every war thereafter (and before) has used war and battles for political gain. ... Fair ? - doesn't have to be and usually never is. .......................................................... So, Barack Obama now has his day in the sun, again, for killing bin Laden. .. But the country will little note nor long remember what either Obama or Romney say this week. Especially with another 6 months of political battle to go yet.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    And Clinton...
    May 1, 2012 8:24 am
    ...failed to get OBL when he had the chance and was directly asked to give the order.

    Even after the first World Trade Center bombing.

    Even after the bombing of US Embassies in Africa.

    Even after the bombing of the USS Cole.

    All of which were attributed to OBL and al Queda. That was long before 9/11.

    Heck, the running joke in the White House was that Clinton wouldn't even meet with CIA Directly Woolsey.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2001/11/12/clinton-usatcov.htm

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    CIA Director...
    May 1, 2012 8:27 am
    ...Woolsey
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Why don't we ask...
    May 1, 2012 8:47 am
    ...the people who really do the dirty work?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/Osama-bin-Laden-death-SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit.html

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Roark wrote...
    UK is wise to Obama
    May 1, 2012 10:43 am
    Funny that it takes a UK newspaper to get to the root of the issue while the American press sits around with their thumbs up their....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • demo wrote...
    I agree
    May 2, 2012 12:05 am
    Darn that Fox Entertainment Network.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mpgunner wrote...
    Obama's policies would not have made this decision, right?
    May 1, 2012 8:48 am
    This is our real president: He would apply Miranda rights to all terrorists. And, he was on the golf course and was pulled in. An Admiral made the decision 2 weeks ago. And thanks to all of the interogation done under Bush to find out where Bin Laden was. Obama wouldn't have done that, right?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    @messiah
    May 1, 2012 9:28 am
    I'm sorry, but who is it that's in this ad touting how brave it was for BO to send in the SEAL team?

    I think it's guite valid to point out Clinton's complete failure to get OBL. Had he done a better job at CIC, there's a good chance 9/11 never would have happened. And that's the #1 defining event in our nation's recent history.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    messy101. Answer this.
    May 1, 2012 9:53 am
    Why did obama sit on Osama fo so many years? I believe the military finally made the move. If not Osama would still be alive and obama would still play dumb. Which he is really good at.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    BO has every right to gloat...
    May 1, 2012 10:07 am
    but suggesting that Romney wouldn't make the call is putting a political twist on something even Ms Huffington finds offensive.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }