President Obama is the most divisive president evah! says Ed Gillespie. George W. Bush using footage of himself with images of the World Trade Center in a campaign ad shows - leadership. President Obama (through VP Biden) reminding America that Mitt Romney wouldn't have gone after bin Laden - 'a bridge too far'.
"You know, David, this is one of the reasons President Obama has become one of the most divisive presidents in American history. He took something that was a unifying event for all Americans, an event that Governor Romney congratulated him and the military and the intelligence analysts in our government for completing the mission in terms of killing Osama bin Laden. And he's managed to turn it into a divisive, partisan, political attack that former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci for President Reagan called "sad."
You know, Gov. Romney has already congratulated President Obama for getting Osama. So that's enough said on the subject.
But George W. Bush used images from 9/11 in his 2004 campaign ad:
Using images from the World Trade Center. A lot of people see that as the very same thing. Is it not?Especially, considering that GWB didn't actually accomplish anything regarding the 'war on terror'? Other than getting us into a trillion dollar boondoggle in Iraq which had nothing to do with it?
Yeah, I think there's a little bit of a distinction here, though, David. I think if President Obama had said-- even though he said we wouldn't spike the football at the time of this momentous occasion regarding Osama bin Laden. Had said, "I'm proud of this." I think people would have said he should be proud of this. We're proud as a country that this happened.You see, it's different. President Bush can 'show leadership' by showing images of himself superimposed on the WTC. And not mentioning anyone else who might have been less leader-like in the ad.
It's the extra iteration. It's the attack that Governor Romney wouldn't have done it. I can't envision having served in the White House, any president having been told, "We have him. He's here. Should we go in?" saying, "No, we shouldn't." So the difference here is you see in the Bush ad saying he's a strong leader. You don't see him saying, "And that guy would have done something different." I mean I think that's--
But wait, Dick Cheney said a John Kerry presidency would leave the US in a more vulnerable state and national security would be compromised. Isn't that the same, calling someone out?
David, what we talked about-- and, again, we can go back and talk about, what's that now? Eight years ago. The record of Senator Kerry, which is what I remember talking about on this show a number of times, was the record. This is an attack on something that might have not happened. It's a bridge too far.Don't you see how that's different? They talked about Kerry's record. Record of what? Who knows. But it's different than talking about what might have been with Romney even though Romney said it wasn't worth it going after bin Laden.
Again, I think the American people will see through it and I think that Secretary Carlucci, when he said it, sad and Senator McCain said it's shameful, I suspect most Americans would look at those comments and probably not disagree with those assessment.
An attack on 'something that might have not happened'. That's nothing at all like saying America would be unsafe and subject to attack under a President Kerry. And does that then imply Gov. Romney has no record? Thus, no foreign policy experience? So what makes him qualified to be Commander in Chief?
Of course Mitt Romney would have approved the order to kill bin Laden, had he been on the golf course and someone came up to him and said bin Laden was in their sights. Sure, go ahead and kill him. It would have been that easy. Because, of course, President Obama had nothing to do with ordering the search and having him found, and the difficult decision to use Seals, and helicopters, and extra helicopters, and overriding the advice of some his top advisors, and anything else.
So is America safer under President Obama? Well, yes, if you insist on framing it that way but you know, we're just not as strong as we could be.
I think we're safe. We haven't been subject to attack. But I don't know enough in terms of the intelligence. I used to know that. But I don't believe that under President Obama we are as strong as we should be as a nation. And I believe that under a President Romney we would be stronger.
ABC News gets in on the act too, claiming 'President Obama is fighting for his job', and adds
On ABC World News David Muir said the President is "fighting to keep his job" and so "not surprisingly, team Obama [is] pointing to" the bin Laden raid. Muir reported that Mitt Romney said, "a couple of years back," that "we shouldn't be spending billions to catch one person, referring to bin Laden." ABC's Rick Klein added, "While Mitt Romney's folks are saying that this is inappropriate politicizing a moment of national unity, the Obama campaign doesn't care at all."Well, I thought that's what politics was - questioning what your opponent would or wouldn't do - especially based on what they said they would or wouldn't do.
The Obama campaign, meanwhile, has taken a more aggressive tack as a general-election opening gambit. His campaign is using former President Bill Clinton to highlight President Obama’s decision to move in to kill Osama bin Laden — and going a step further by questioning whether Romney would have made the same call.
It’s true that by explicitly bringing Romney into the ad, the Obama campaign veers from the subtle to the unnecessarily heavy-handed. Yes, Romney said the things Obama says he said in the ad, like “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”