How Will The Media’s Double Standard Play Out Regarding Obama’s Osama Ad?

Bookmark and Share   To mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden receiving his just desserts, President Barack Obama decided to air an ad which suggested that his all but officially nominated Republican presidential opponent would not have given the go to the operation that allowed SEAL Team Six to do the job that brought bin Laden down.

The ad entitled “One Chance”, is based entirely on one quote made by Mitt Romney in an Associated Press interview back in April of 2007, some five years ago. The ad shows an incomplete quote from that interview as it reads “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person…”.

On its own, those words may seem to suggest that bringing justice to Osama bin Laden was not a priority for Mitt Romney, but for the record, the inference created by Team Obama after some very careful and artful political editing is totally incorrect.  When asked by the Associated Press,“Why haven’t we caught bin Laden in your opinion?”, Romney offered the following response;

“I think, I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person… Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is – it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin laden or a few of his associates.”

In other words, Romney suggested that while the capture or execution of bin Laden was desired, the AP reporter asking the question should try to not lose focus on the broader War on Terror which involves many more people than just Osama.  Clearly though, Mitt Romney did not suggest that he would not pursued bin Laden or that he would not have approved of the operation that led to his death, as inferred by the President’s ad.

But the story here is not that a rival candidate and his political campaign took his opponents words out of context.  This is politics folks and if you don’t know it yet, politics is all about perception.  Truth has little to do with it and reality is merely what those we elect can convince the majority of voters of.  Sad but very true.  And besides, Mitt Romney already did a similar thing to President Obama back in late November of 2011, when one of his own ads used a statement by the President to mislead voters.  Back then, the Romney campaign used video of the President giving a speech in which viewers saw and heard the President say;

“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”

The problem is that those words actually came from candidate Obama in 2008 when he was quoting something supposedly said by the McCain campaign.

Then Senator Obama’s full quote was;

“Senator McCain’s campaign said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”.

So I guess you can say that the President’s new ad was simply payback to Romney.  Or you might say it is just politics as usual.

Or is it?

The story here is not that politicians are playing politics.  The story is all about what President Obama is playing politics with.

By exploiting the efforts of the the mission to bring justice to the ring leader responsible for one of nation’s darkest days in history, with a deceptive, misleading, political campaign ad, President Obama has demonstrated that nothing, absolutely nothing, is sacred in his attempt to hold on to power.  He could have been the better man here and accepted the nearly unanimous approval and credit he deservedly received for doing the right thing and allowing SEAL Team Six to do their job and not making a Bill Clinton-like call that allowed Osama to live another day.  He could have accepted that feather in his cap which Seal Team Six handed to him after they succeeded at their mission. But instead the President decided to suggest that only he was brave enough to make the decision that allowed our Special Ops forces to risk their lives and take down the most wanted man in the world.

President Obama deserved credit for making the right decision.  Afterall, I would have been the first to blame him if he made the wrong one.  The decision to go through with the operation was one of the only right decisions this President has made and as such, it could have been one of the few things he could legitimately get some praise for.  However, now that the President has taken the anniversary of the end of bin Laden’s rule of al Qaeda and used it to exploit the real heroes behind the event in such a nefarious and unscrupulous way, he now opens himself up to criticism for the one achievement during his Administration that most Americans can agree was good.

After this disgraceful interpretation of the effort to capture bin Laden I can’t help but wonder if getting bin Laden was really a priority on this President’s agenda for the nation.  It now seems to me  that it was merely a priority for his eventual reelection effort?  Afterall, President Obama was simply carrying out the search and search process for bin Laden that his predecessor, George W. Bush already had in place.  You do remember George W. Bush, the guy that President Obama blames everything on?  The guy who’s policies in the War on Terror and in Iraq and Afghanistan he criticized and contradicted but ultimately followed through on?  All of which begs the deeper question which is, does Barack Obama have his priorities straight?

Such criticism relating to the Osama bin Laden capture and kill mission might not have ever been raised had President Obama not been so willing to act so unpresidential and spike the ball after doing cartwheels on the field of play.  But the decision by the President and his campaign team to run this disturbingly tacky and dishonest ad in connection with such a sensitive topic, reveals to me that both he and his staff are nothing but disingenuous, tacky, and incompetent custodians of the Oval Office.  It also shows me that this President is scared.  So scared that he will go to any lengths to try and create a fictional national narrative that paints him in a positive light regardless of how dim, dismal, and debilitating he and his policies have been for our nation.

In the end, politicians taking politicians out of context is nothing new and the practice won’t come to an end anytime soon.  So maybe we really can’t attack either candidate for playing politics as usual.  But we can attack them for what they play politics with and for crossing any new lines that their lack of judgement allows them to.  This is just such an occassion.

Still, it would be nice to see the media do their job and hold President Obama accountable for his disingenuous conducts and deceitful distortions.  Just as we see here, when Communist Chris Matthews, the DNC bullhorn who moonlights as a responsible commentator on MSNBC, went after Mitt Romney when he took President Obama out of context this past November.  But who am I kidding?  Does anyone honestly expect the media to drop their liberal bias and give up their double stereotypical liberal double standards?

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

Foreign Policy Reveals Different Strengths

Whether or not you think the GOP has a strong field, one thing is for sure.  Any of these candidates would be better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy.  That came across clearly from more moderate voices like Jon Huntsman in addition to the two front runners.  Overall it was a great performance by all the candidates.  The contrast between the GOP field, including Ron Paul, and Barack Obama was clear.  So, here are the winners and losers:

Mitt Romney won the debate because of his smooth ability to introduce ambiguity on some issues to give all Conservatives a cushion of comfort.  See Newt’s performance below.  Mitt also took on Ron Paul and I think Mitt won that debate.  It seems pretty clear that Al Qaida terrorists and Timothy McVeigh do not represent the same sort of threat.  In fact, I would argue that lumping McVeigh, a disgruntled anti-American government citizen attacking the system, in with the 9/11 hijackers, foreign terrorists attacking and targeting United States civilians, is a very dangerous way of looking at foreign and domestic terrorism.  I sure hope we would treat a foreign terrorist crossing our border illegally differently than a citizen radical trying to build a bomb in their basement because the IRS just sent them another tax notice.

Jon Huntsman demonstrated his firm control of foreign policy issues.  I think he overcame some fears when he affirmed our strong relationship with Israel.  Huntsman also expressed sentiments on Afghanistan that have been felt by many Conservatives who were mislabeled as “neo-cons” over the last decade.  Many Conservatives supported both wars, but do not support something for nothing nation building in nations that don’t respect us and don’t appreciate the sacrifices we have made.  Huntsman turned again and again to the economy and the failures of Obama and Congress to solve the problem.  Huntsman’s point on how we leave North Korea alone because they have a nuke, but invaded Libya after they gave up their nuclear ambitions is a great diagnosis of the inconsistency in America’s position towards nuclear ambitious countries.

Newt had a great, issue free performance.  Here is the problem.  Newt comes across hawkish, and he is far too honest.  In the end, Mitt agreed with him on long-time illegal immigrants, but Mitt said it in such a way that will be taken better by anti-illegal alien Conservatives.  Newt also hurt himself by endorsing and calling for an expansion of the Patriot act.  This could help guarantee that Ron Paulites stay home and let Obama get re-elected in 2012.  What Newt should have said was that he supported the Patriot Act, but recommends examining it for things that could be eliminated or added.  I think Newt is too straight forward on a subject that honestly Americans would prefer some ambiguity on.  Same with covert operations.  His answer regarding opening our oil resources is not new, but continues to be a very strong point for him.

Ron Paul continued to solidify his base and add some fringe Conservatives who are weary enough of the wars to want to radically change America’s relationship with the world.  For these people, Paul’s angry old man persona, scoffing and reacting to opponents’ answers, and idea that if we leave terrorists alone, they will realize the error of their ways and leave us alone, will not affect his support.  Still, Paul would make a better foreign policy President than Obama.  At least his disengagement would be total, not mixed with war hawkishness like Obama’s.

Rick Perry’s substance earned him a higher spot after this debate.  I still think his idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aid resonates with Americans.  His refusal to dabble in hypotheticals about illegals who have been here more than a quarter century is going to help him as people weed out Romney and Gingrich’s immigration comments and discover the softness there.

Herman Cain did well not to hurt himself in this debate.  He has come across as unknowledgeable on foreign policy.  In this debate he showed he has a recognizable set of foreign policy principles, although he kept things pretty vague.  He didn’t hurt himself and that is a victory for him on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum comes across as a neo-con.   This debate didn’t really change that, and only a change in that perception would cause his status to change as a result of this debate.  No mistakes, but also no movement for him after this debate.  He continues to maintain that we should be paying Pakistan for friendship.

Michele Bachmann is either a career politician or has issues with comprehension.  On multiple occasions she seemed to not be able to grasp her opponent’s position.  A glaring example was when she interpreted Newt’s soft approach to long-time established illegals as some sort of call for general amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens.  She played the same role in Rick Perry’s demise, but now it seems more like a desperate cry for relevance.  Rising and falling as the Social Conservative choice at this point will require superiority on the issues, not loud misunderstanding of opponents, even though that usually produces success with the general electorate.

No matter who the nominee is, what is clear from last night is that we cannot afford four more years of Obama’s foreign policy.

Osama bin Laden Dead! Thank You…No Matter What Party You’re In

Bookmark and Share White House 2012 is a blog that is openly partisan in nature. It is meant to cover the 2012 Republican presidential nomination contest and the general election from the Republican point of view. Its coverage and analysis is meant to address the means by which the G.O.P. can nominate a candidate who best represents the conservative ideology and can best apply that ideology to the practical application of government. But there are times when partisan politics must be brushed aside to allow for a united celebration of special moments in our United States, the nation that we have our political debates for. Today is such a time.

With the late Sunday evening pronouncement of the death of Osama Bin Laden by our President, we have come to realize that a slow but earnest pursuit of justice has been finally carried out. And while the men and women who have served in the still ongoing war against Al Qada warrant our eternal gratitude for their selfless efforts, we must also credit the national intelligence operatives who made it possible for our military to do their job. And we must also offer just praise and thanks to our President, President Barack Obama. No matter what, President Obama made the final decision that permitted our military to take advantage of the opportunity to bring Usama bin Laden to justice.

If critics of the President hope to be seen as having reasonable opinions, they must be willing to admit when a job is well done and in this case, President Obama deserves credits for a job well done. Had this particular operation gone wrong and been found out, President Obama would be taking a great deal of blame, so it is only right that he get credit, or at least have the chance to share the credit with those who carried out the mission and made it possible.

Osama bin Laden has been responsible for one of the darkest chapters in our nations history and while the story is far from over, he has been removed from it. For me personally, I am ecstatic. The events of 9/11 are ingrained in my mind and on my heart. Few people have inspired the type of open contempt from me and others that bin Laden did. So it should come as no shock when I say that for so many of us, few bullets have ever made so many as happy as the one that was fired in to Osama bin Ladens head on May 1. 2011. As a New Yorker who grew up and worked in the shadow of the World Trade Center, I know that for me, life will never quite be the same. I grew up believing that the type of events we saw on 9/11 only happened in far away places. I now know better.

But I take solace in also knowing that I live in a nation that regardless of race, religion, color, orientation or political affiliation, is blind when it comes to justice and the defeat of true evil. I take pride in the fact that we have succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and I thank President Obama for not letting him get away.

This does not mean that President Obama is now immune from any criticism. Indeed there are many fronts that I and tens of millions of Americans disagree with him on. But today we have witnessed one of those events that requires us to celebrate in union, not quibble over divisions.

As the dust settles on the details of the events which eliminated Osama bin Laden, we will come to learn that the tips which led to Sundays events, were first unearthed four years ago under President George W. Bush. Two years later those tips allowed our intelligence agencies to determine the names of two couriers for bin Laden. And yesterday, two years after that, that knowledge achieved the goal of our long, ongoing mission to find bin Laden.

We will also learn that the original tip of four years ago was obtained through detainees, like those at Guantanamo Bay, the very detainees that many have argued should not be held by America. President Obama had himself at one point argued against our detainee policy. Yet after taking office, to the dislike of his supporters, he failed to change that policy. Now maybe we can understand why. President Obama has kept intact Bush era terrorist policies and used them successfully to this point. Regardless of his original position, he deserves credit for doing what was right once he was made privy to all the facts and realities that only a Commander-in-Chief is privy to.

There is much more that we will learn and all of it will be quite important. For although bin Laden is dead, the evil he bred in radical Islam still lurks. For now though, we can only hope that the elation of knowing that justice has been done when it comes to bin Laden, will fuel continued vigilance and unity in the war against the Islamo-fascistterrorists that still goes on. Today it is with great optimism and pride that I believe we will.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: