Obama Campaign’s Attack on Romney over Bin Laden: An Ad too Far?
Even liberal Arianna Huffington objected to a recent Obama campaign ad suggesting that Mitt Romney might not have issued the order to send in the Navy SEALs to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. She called the ad “despicable.”
Standing with 9/11 mayor Rudy Giuliani by his side at a New York firehouse that lost 11 men on Sept. 11, Mitt Romney, who has attacked Obama for allegedly politicizing the OBL killing, basked while Giuliani praised his national security credentials and while Giuliani couldn’t help himself but to bring up the OBL issue: “Mitt Romney, anyone else, would have made the same decision,” and, saying that Obama deserves credit for ordering the raid, he added “but I wish [Obama] wouldn’t use it as a source of negative campaigning. I think that’s a big mistake.”
Hillary Clinton’s campaign used national security to attack Obama during the 2008 elections questioning then-candidate Obama’s national security credentials and capabilities with the (in)famous “3 A.M. phone call” ad.
And then we had George W. Bush’s “9/11-centric 2004 re-election campaign.”
And so on…
Is impugning a candidate’s patriotism by another candidate right? How about impugning a candidate’s judgment?
Is it a good or bad sign when a political ad “provokes cries of outrage from the opposition”?
How about when a candidate’s own supporters express disappointment or disgust with their candidate’s political ad, à la Arianna Huffington?
According to Ross Douthat at the New York Times, “the Republican Party’s foreign policy rhetoric can seem so opportunistic and confused,” with “incoherence” resulting.
So, would it be “political malpractice for the president not to exploit this kind of confusion with national security attacks on his opponent”?
I am sure our readers have their own ideas on this. To see what Ross Douthat at the New York Times has to say about this, please click here.
To look at a different perspective, please click here.
Image via shutterstock.com
Share This
Related Posts
-
Obama Must Face Up to Post-Assad Syria Now! (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Saudi Arabia)
Posted on Apr 11, 2013
-
Jay-Z Releases New Track “Open Letter” Mocking Republicans Outrage Over Cuba Trip
Posted on Apr 11, 2013
-
For Himself and Palestine, Obama Must Now take Historic Risk (Al Hayat Al Jadidah, Palestinian Territories)
Posted on Mar 24, 2013
-
The 3 Things Holding Up John Brennan’s Nomination
Posted on Mar 4, 2013
Arianna Huffington, Liberal? Please. She’s a conservative and always has been. HuffPo was created as a “Liberal” outlet because it was finacially profitable to be so at the time. Her rag (and it’s nothing more than tabloid trash linking) has consistenly been critical of Obama for the past 4 years. Research.
I really don’t get the problem with this other than Republicans really wishing there was a way to not have Osama death and Mitt Romney’s earlier comments just not come up. Back in ’08 the GOP were trying to paint Obama as a guy that didn’t have what it takes to make calls like this. So Obama stated he what he would do. Romney of course issued a statement saying Obama’s plan was bad. So Romney needs to live with that.
Its so obvious that the GOP doesn’t know what to do with this. They are basing a large part of their campaign on the fact Obama didn’t do anything. Some of his accomplishments they can gloss over because you need to actually pay attn to see them, but taking out Bin Laden is something even the most simple minded of voters is going to have to count as getting something done. It doesn’t fit into the GOP make believe narrative so they are trying to say “politicizing” the event is a bad thing. As if somehow it was just not going to be brought up during the campaign. We’ve got this media mixture of wishful thinking, sour grapes, and hypocrisy coming from the right trying to somehow make us forget that this happened on Obama’s watch. The GOP is just going to have to eat this one, cuz Obama got it right.
@djshay:
OK, she is not a liberal, if you say so,
Any thoughts on the subject of the post?
“Is impugning a candidate’s patriotism by another candidate right? How about impugning a candidate’s judgment?”
–I never thought the ad questioned Romney’s patriotism, just his judgement, which is totally fair since the job of president requires judgement. During Obama’s 2008 campaign it was clear that he would make such a strike. To put things in perspective he said this even though many in his own party were critical and wanted a candidate who would say troops would be pulled immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama made clear his position and he stuck with it.
Romney has never given an indication that he would have made such a call…. until he had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. That’s not leadership and that’s not showing courage on the campaign trial. In other words, if Obama can make his policies clear on the campaign trail and say that he would make such a call, then why can’t Romney be clear? If Romney’s position was to strike at bin Laden in such circumstances, he has had plenty of chances to make that clear. He never did.
“Is it a good or bad sign when a political ad “provokes cries of outrage from the opposition”?”
–As long as it is true, yes it is absolutely good. And I think this ad is good. There should be no fuss… except that it hurts Romney, which is kinda the point.
“How about when a candidate’s own supporters express disappointment or disgust with their candidate’s political ad, à la Arianna Huffington?”
–Many in the media do support Obama’s ad. Many of Obama’s supporters support the ad. I haven’t talked to anyone “non-media” who does not support it. Obviously I mean Dems.
“According to Ross Douthat at the New York Times, “the Republican Party’s foreign policy rhetoric can seem so opportunistic and confused,” with “incoherence” resulting.”
–Agreed. It’s their pandering, chameleon policy.
“So, would it be “political malpractice for the president not to exploit this kind of confusion with national security attacks on his opponent”?”
Obama should be clear on his positions. Then he should contrast them with his opponent’s policies. If the Romney camp isn’t clear on his policies I think it is essential that Obama point out all the flip-flopping and encourage the American people to have Romney give a straight answer. Yes it is absolutely political malpractice for a president not to exploit either the confusion or the stupidity of his opponent’s policies.
The reason America is in the shape today is that many politicians (especially Republicans) do and say whatever to get elected. They do not clearly express their priorities and true objectives on the campaign trail. So when they do a 360 once elected people get turned off. Take for instance basically every Republican who came to power in 2010 stating loud and clear their number one priority would be jobs. They have instead focused on culture wars and promoting the same tax cuts and policies that led to the greatest recession since the Great Depression. Another example is Scott Walker in Wisconsin. He took office and is facing a recall due to his policies. If he was clear about his policies and priorities he would not be facing a recall.
So yes, it would be political malpractice (and just plain irresponsible) for a president – or any candidate – not to try to get to the bottom of his opponent’s policies. And to use the opponent’s confusion for one’s own benefit. But that candidate has to be clear on what he wants to accomplish, too. He just can’t run “on or against” his opponent’s confusion.
@StockBoyLA:
Thanks for taking the time to give your opinions on this subject and doing it in some detail.
I agree with most of what you say. When it comes to impugning a candidate’s patriotism or judgement, I believe that it is very easy to cross the line from questioning judgement to calling a candidate unpatriotic, and Democrats should be very careful having been all too often at the receiving end of such accusations — especially our President.
While I have not made it a point to research it, there probably have been a few other Democrats — in addition to Huffington — who have criticized the President and/or his campaign on this.
Thanks again.
Thanks for your comments, Slamfu
People like Huff n Puff need to realize that they cannot win an election living in idealism land. Rove has worse things planned for Obama and Dems will have to get down in the mud in order to compete. Of course, that has always been the problem with liberals….their need to feel superior trumps winning.
Apparently Obama Inc knows better…and good for them.
As for the general comments on AH… she was a conservative, then her conservative husband went gay… probably a good reason for anyone to switch sides. I cant stand the woman. I think she is bad for progressives…actually, she is everything that is wrong with movement.
Here’s another Dem that is uneasy with the Romney part of this ad. To imply that one candidate can mindread another’s possible action is dicey. It often backfires, as it did on Hillary with the 3AM ad.
This ad comes from a website set up to correct any untrue attacks from the Romney camp or the Super Pacs of the GOP (barakobama.com/truth-team – “The Truth Team is a network of supporters of President Obama who are committed to responding to unfounded attacks and defending the President’s record.”)
It seems this is a preemptive strike. No attack had been launched about Obama’s security creds (except from the far left).
This sounds more like political hackery than the President’s own critique. He’s too clever and poliitcally adroit to make as large a misstep as this. I suspect he needs to be more in touch with the ad people before they release anything else in his name. It’s not like they don’t have plenty of other attacks to refute.
I hope the Obama people do more of this kind of stuff. It shows they are not so high and mighty. They can overreach just like the Reps do. During the primary season, the Dems could sit back and snipe at the Reps (of course forgetting their 2008 field including Edwards and Sharpton). Now it will be harder not to stumble as this may be an example of.
BTW: If AH gets a three-AM call, she will probably say she is a moderate.
At the point where it’s considered political dirty tricks to imply that one’s opponent might have done what that opponent said he would do…well, I’m just outclassed at this point I guess.
Romney, 2007: “I wouldn’t go into Pakistan” (paraphrase)
Obama, 2007: “I would go into Pakistan if there were actionable intelligence”.
Obama 2011: [goes into Pakistan to kill OBL]
Obama 2012: “Would Mitt have gone into Pakistan?”
Romney 2012: “How DARE you say I wouldn’t have gone into Pakistan! You political dirty trickster! You SUCK!” (also a paraphrase)
Yep, I just don’t know which way is up.
Thanks for all the comments. @ Roro: LOL (In plain English: Funny, and true — even paraphrased)
Reminds me of Gingrich’s tactic of saying anyone that quotes him is lying.
I’m gonna close Gitmo, I’m going to hold a show trial for the Sheik in lower Manhattan.
I will not intrude on peoples privacy, I’m gonna get a HCR bill passed (well he did, a turkey), all earmarks will be banned in the recovery bill, I will renegotiate NAFTA., I promise immigration reform in 2009, I promise net Neutrality (huh), and I will sing with B.B. King.
I know these are from a rightie blog, but what the hell:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/ten-promises-broken-or-un_n_344633.html?slidenumber=JLtkEvQCmBA%3D&slideshow
Reminds me of all the fear mongering done by the GOP during the Bush administration. That was despicable, to use a popular word. Most people here probably complained about it. Remember the wolves circling in the woods waiting to pounce if we didn’t reelect Bush?
Now the implication that we should be afraid of Romney because he might not do the “brave and honorable” thing, and we would be in danger if he didn’t. It can’t be dispicable when one side uses fear mongering and not when the other side does it. It’s kinda like that torture thing.
I have no problem with portraying the President as a decisive leader, he is when it counts in things like this – and the GOP lowered the bar completely underground on using patriotic fervor in their ads. I don’t like it, but I accept it. But not the “be afraid; be very afraid” implications. That way lies demagoguery.
And it’s fully ok to criticize him for the promises he made and didn’t keep, dduck. However, you seem to be missing the point, which is that the GOP is criticizing him for doing what he said he would do, pretending that they’ve never ever used war for politics, and saying that OF COURSE Mitt Romney would have done the same thing as Obama, despite him saying he wouldn’t have, and therefore we should all pretend that the killing of OBL didn’t happen or something.
“It can’t be dispicable when one side uses fear mongering and not when the other side does it.”
Who is fear mongering, Ohioan? Saying “I said I would do this and I did, and he said he wouldn’t have” is not fear mongering. If he were saying that electing Romney would mean the terrorists win, or electing Romney would mean that we’ll be attacked again, or that Romney doesn’t love America, or that anything but full support of the president is unpatriotic and supportive of terrorists — and then saying all that for a decade — that would be about equivalent to what the GOP did.
The ad questions whether Romney would do the same thing were he actually President. The implication is that he might not do the thing that has made us safer; thus we will be in danger since the big bad Osama will still be out there.
Using the He said, He said (I was for it before I was against it) technique is called swiftboating.
Hi roro:
Sometimes it pi**es me off that you can cut so well through the crap, get to the crux of the matter and expose the nonsense others spout.
Even when I disagree with you, I admire it.
Seriously, I wish I had that knack.
Thanks for your help.
Roro, “However, you seem to be missing the point, ”
The point is, candidates promises and statement/sound-bites are worthless.
No one knows what a president will do with an important national security matter until he in the actual situation.
I said on a previous thread that a sincere answer (a non-candidate one) would be that I will take all the facts and my advisers opinion’s under consideration making this decision.
BTW: I am only against the lack of security aspect of this operation not its intent or conclusion: murder/assassination.
No one knows what a president will do with an important national security matter until he in the actual situation.
Not to mention that since Romney’s comment Pakistan proceeded to crap on our heads for four years. The circumstances had changed. Obama has every right to use his decision in his campaign ads and I don’t have a big problem with him calling out Romney, but I think he’s wrong that Romney wouldn’t have made the same decision.
I think Obama does have to be careful not to overplay his hand. While he made a courageous decision, it pales next to the personal risks taken by the soldiers.
You get no argument from me there….
“No one knows what a president will do with an important national security matter until he in the actual situation”
Except they proposed just such a national security matter to Obama in ’08, he said what he would do, and when it actually came up, he did it. So, at least one person knew. For a change it wasn’t a talking head after the fact with 20/20 hindsight, it was the guy in the Oval.
Dorian — that might be the nicest thing anyone’s ever said to me on this board.
Hugs and kisses.
I’ll take them, Roro
And I did mean every word of it.
Did you take up debating in college or elsewhere?
What Obama said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/21/john-mccain/a-distortion-of-what-obama-said/
What Romney said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/30/barack-obama/obama-ad-says-mitt-romneys-view-killing-bin-laden/
We report, you decide.
Ah shucks. No, never did debate. Lots of speech contests…not sure if “My Voice in America’s Democracy” or “The Rotary Four-Way Test” at age 17 really applies to sniping at political opponents over the intertubes, though.
Ohioan — So we’ve got that McCain was super ugly about Obama’s comment, and we’ve got that Romney was able to walk back his comment at a later time in a different debate. K?
The Republican party line at the time was that they hadn’t caught OBL at the time because it wasn’t important — OBL was such a passe concern with which they just couldn’t be bothered — which sounded a lot like sour grapes to absolutely everyone. Or at least to me. Was it stupid of Romney to jump onto that bandwagon at the time, seeing in retrospect what happened? I don’t know. Was it all just posturing in an I-meant-to-do-that sort of Republican face-saving game? Is it really what he meant? I don’t know. The GOP doesn’t make any sense to me so I won’t try to analyze whether that was dumb or not from a GOP perspective. It was kind of funny, though, to watch the warmonger ZOMG THE TERRORISTs ARE COMING FOR YOUR BABIES AND WE MUST STOP THEM AT ALL COSTS party fall all over themselves about how OBL was suddenly no big whoop and we shouldn’t spend money to get him.
Thanks, Ohioan for the links. So Romney was against targeting bin Laden, then was for killing him, then was against using resources to go after him. LOL! I guess The Reason Politifact rated the charge against Romney as “half true” was that he had that position at one point in time.
Slam, I’ve said my opinion of candidates opinions/sound-bites, is they are 99% BS.
This is the way I understand it, I think TO and roro are both somewhat off the mark. My understanding is the question was would the candidate enter a sovereign country without permission in order to get OBL. Obama said he would and was criticized for it. Romney said he would not enter a sovereign country.
Obama ended up following through, which he deserves credit for. Where I think the characterization of Romney is a little unfair is that in the intervening time it became clear Pakistan was playing both sides and it was IMO barely more ally than they were enemy. Given that, it is tough to guess what Romney would do in a 2011 situation based on 2008 comments.
Yep. Go to the source, if you can find it. Sins of ommission are as unhelpful as sins of exaggeration. I’d rather the Dems rebut, than attack, quickly and decisively (and I think this group has learned from Kerry’s experience), but then I’m a peaceful sort.
I’ve no doubt the Obama crew will have plenty of chances to shoot down any misrepresentations and won’t need to make any misrepresentations of their own while doing it.
Thanks for the links, Ohio. It is hilarious to hear the man who made his campaign tune, “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,” falsely claim that Obama wanted to bomb Pakistan.
For my money, slamfu hit the nail on the head.
Bin Laden’s case of lead poisoning put the lie to the GOP’s charge that Obama would be not just weak on defense, but so feckless he’d inspire widespread terrorist attacks on our soil.
The thing that blows my mind is they’ve had a year to figure out how to deal with this fact, and the best they can come up with is that Obama is “politicizing” the victory or “spiking the ball” over it. Seriously?
If I remember correctly the Bush administration made quite a big deal over the capture of Saddam Hussein. They spiked the ball, and then the media picked up the ball and did an end zone dance right up until the point where Saddam wound up on the business end of a rope.
And Saddam didn’t even attack us on 9/11.
What DaGoat said….plus…
To the point dduck raised about empty campaign rhetoric, no one at the time or now actually thought that Romney would have passed on an opportunity to get OBL. What the campaign rhetoric was about was pointing out Obama’s departure from normal diplomatic finesse in announcing what normally would be done under cover. And at the time, most everyone understood that our alliance with Pakistan was a sham marriage of convenience but no one was quite so openly saying it. Between then and now, as DaGoat mentioned, the the veil has been lifted so ignoring all of that context is pretty disingenuous. iOW it’s not wrong to hold a candidate accountable for what he said in the past but they are accountable for all that everyone understood the comment to mean, not just a literal reading of a quote that now reads differently out of context than the meaning that everyone attributed to it at the time.
And c’mon, roro, on the Ohian’s point about fearmongering….what would be the point of drawing a comparison between Obama’s decision and what Romney’s would have been, other than to say that we’re safer than we would have been because of Obama’s action?
Also, the flip side that conservatives are making hay over on this issue is that many in the intelligence community are saying that the intel wouldn’t have been there if we’d been following Obama’s policies, and if that’s accurate than OBL’s killing wouldn’t have even been a decision that came to Obama’s desk if we play the counterfactual game.
Personally i wish that both candidates would have avoided all of this by marking the anniversary with a simple salute to the intel and military personnel who made it happen. First of all because that would have been more appropriate, second because it’s a more unifying measage, and third because the campaign efforts at assigning credit or implying that other policies and decisions would have thwarted success are by nature selective looks at the candidates positions and policies, so it leaves partisans on both sides ample opportunity to spin.
“Also, the flip side that conservatives are making hay over on this issue is that many in the intelligence community are saying that the intel wouldn’t have been there if we’d been following Obama’s policies, ”
I believe you are referring to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e.torture.
Who are “these many in the intelligence community,” Are these intelligence officials, or just pundits?
Do you have any reliable, non partisan sources to back up your claim?
Thank you
CS, “What the campaign rhetoric was about was pointing out Obama’s departure from normal diplomatic finesse in announcing what normally would be done under cover.”
Yup.
Dorian,
First to be clear, i’m not stating my personal opinion, just pointing out the different spins on the topic.
I think probably all of the people in the intel community who supported the enhanced interrogation program woukd assert that information gained that way played a significant role in getting bin Laden. I assume that opinions on the program were divided but it is also possible that some opposed the program on principle but would concede that valuable information was gained through it (which is pretty much my personal opinion.)
The recent prominet person speaking out is Jose Rodriguez. And the obvious place to look for a link to prove his assertion is to ask how we found out about the courier that led to OBL’s compound. rodriguez claims this information came from a lower level detainee (sorry, i forget the name) and that this person had been subjected to some of the controversial methods (and i believe was detained at one of the “black sites”)
So if he is truthful about this, the argument has merit. That still leaves me feeling that the ethics of interrogation shouldn’t be decided on the basis of efficacy, but an honest debate doesn’t have to distort or ignore certain facts, either.
Here’s one source:
http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/04/did-torture-get-the-us-osama-bin-laden/
I believe he was interviewed on 60 Minutes as well.
Dduck- and just to put a finer point on it, when you habpve the kind of tenuous alliance that we’ve had with Pakistan, it really is problematic to telegraph things the way Obama did in 2008. As much as we would have liked to have had an ally with no reservations about going after al qaeda, the reality is and has been that the domestic audience for the Pakistani leaders is not anti- al qaeda. It puts those leaders in a difficult position to maintain an alliance when the future actions of the ally are so openly stated.
Thanks, CS, to divine what a president would, or wouldn’t do, in a particular situation is always tenuous, but in this area of the world with its mercurial politics and alliances, it is foolhardy to not decide in the present.
P.S. your debating skills are also OK.
Thanks, dduck. My typing skills, not so much though.
Good point. Agree. We all tend to spin
“All” is probably a very strong quantifier.
For example while Mr. Rodriguez, who served under Bush/Cheney has his opinion, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, serving under Obama has a different opinion: “There is no way that information obtained by [EITs] was the decisive intelligence that led us directly to bin Laden. It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound and reach a judgment that bin Laden was likely to be living there.”
Thank you for saying it is your personal opinion.
“So if he is truthful about this, the argument has merit.” “IF he is truthful,” is the key phrase here.
Agree
Thanks for your reasoned comments
“Do you have any reliable, non partisan sources to back up your claim?”
That’s a fool’s errand, DDW.