Had Bush gotten the job done during his many, many years following his failure to prevent terrorist from executing an attack on our country you bet we would have seen John McCain endlessly parading Binladen's corps throughout the prior election, and you know it.

Had Obama not gotten the job done during his 4 years in office following Bush's failure to prevent terrorist from executing an attack on our country you bet we would seen Mitt Romney endlessly parading Binladen's grainy video messages throughout the current election, and you know it.

This is not about whether Presidents Clinton or Bush could have prevented 9/11 or whether MCain would be complaining now if bin Laden had not been killed. It is about the vital interests of the United States now and in the future and the most appropriate policies to serve those interests. Can we set aside short-term politics for even a moment?

During an election year, expecting to "set aside" politics is kind of an unrealistic idea, if you ask me.

And you conflate the war in Afghanistan, and its failures and unpopularity, which is pretty widely agreed upon, with a partisan Romney viewpoint that Obama should somehow not be using his advantage, the presidency, to campaign.
Every incumbent president for generations has done similar things- Its politics the way it has always been played.

Romney is on the record, when running in 2008, clearly stating he would not go after Bin Laden, and that he would not send troops into Pakistan. Obama did not "crudely suggest" that Romney didnt have the nerve- he was citing public record, on multiple interviews and speeches.
Romney is attacking Obama on this kind of subject, and Obama is responding. Thats politics. Its a lot cleaner now than it was in the days of LBJ or Nixon.

Bad taste in the mouth? Each to his own taste, TVD. Good comments by Ries. Buzzflash had a good response today to those who criticize the Obama campaign for touting the successful Bin Ladn raid:
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13472
When Republicans go for the jugular in politics, the media calls it playing hardball, when Democrats go for the jugular in politics, they call it inappropriate and despicable. I dare anyone to say publicly that had a Republican President been in the White House when Osama Bin Laden was killed that Republicans would not be using it to bludgeon Democrats upside the head in this election and to tout the Republicans so-called super-human strength on national security. And I dare say that many on the Right would not only say it was fair game, they would chide the Democrats for whining about it and would tell them to "get over it!"

Perhaps what is so jarring to TVD is Obama's respect for his political opponents, highlighting their legitimate differences of opinion with himself. This therefore puts his statements in the realm of mere politics.

The Bush/Cheney equivalent would be to warn that Democrats are a grave threat to the nation, and their policies if enacted would lead to certain defeat and destruction. This is not politics, but an urgent warning of the highest importance, delivered with the moral certainty of a great leader. Much more appealing to the pundit class.

I would like to point readers to this story:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/03/killing_bin_laden_and_smearing_mitt_romney_114039.html

The writer starts with the line of argument commentators have written above, basically, politics is bad stuff and everyone is trying to get extra credit. But then he goes on to say:

"Barack Obama did not create this milieu, and shouldn’t be unduly blamed for it. But there’s another aspect to trumpeting the I-killed-Osama story line this week that even some liberals find harder to excuse. That’s the part in which the president’s re-election team cuts a negative campaign ad not only bragging about Obama’s decision to give the order to kill the terrorist leader, but also strongly implying that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have done the same thing.

Then this comment also has some solid insight:

Huffington believes that macho political attacks like the Obama campaign’s hit on Romney make it more difficult for commanders-in-chief to act prudently on foreign policy, she said, “because they’re so afraid to be called wimps.”

Touching on the same objection once registered by friends of Al Gore, Huffington also asserted that it is simply unfair to cast aspersions on Mitt Romney for a decision he had never actually confronted. “There is no way to know whether Romney would have been as decisive,” she said. “And to actually speculate that he wouldn't be is, to me, not the way to run campaigns -- on either side.”

========

I would like to ask the various commentators: do you agree or disagree with Ariana? Why? Is it appropriate to use 5 year old quotes? What amount of speculation on what a candidate would do when the candidate can not possibly have had the same information is appropriate?

Basically, I am sick and tired of "Bush did it so Obama should do it too", except maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Or "that just the way things are." What ever happened to trying to make things better??? What ever happened to hope and change, not the old petty politics of division? Maybe from a short term tactical perspective "it works", but only if people keep accepting it and don't speak up for principles the way Ariana is doing.

sjenner... are you not aware that Mitt Romney specifically attacked Obama in the previous presidential campaign, after Obama said he would unilaterally attack high-value terrorist targets inside Pakistan? Here is a contemperaneous Reuters story.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/03/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0340211820070803

John McCain also cited these statements as an example of Obama's dangerous lack of foreign policy expertise.

No, I was not. So, what's the solution for international affairs and elections? How do we get to outcomes that allow us to build a foundation for success in the world? It does not seem like the type of "ads" that are being run are the way to reach that goal.

I think it begins with people questioning what they are being told. You do not like the ads, but the article you cited above seems little different from an advertisement itself. The basic facts of the situation are swept under the rug where they do not advance the argument, leaving the reader less informed than before.

TVD's article above does the same thing, grievously mischaracterizing the president's words (no one said Romney lacked "nerve").

Real Clear Politics has a strong conservative slant while presenting itself as middle-of-the-road reasonableness. The site's catch phrase is "The Only Source You Need" but its ungrammatical name seems to be mocking those readers who take this advice seriously. The link to National Review in the article you cite is telling (and the whole passage regarding Dietrich Bonhoeffer is bizarre). Really, how hard is it for the reader to see that he/she is being messed with?

If something outrages you, I suggest checking it out from a few different angles. Take a look at talkingpointsmemo.com or mediamatters.org for example. Maybe the other side has a point too.