given the fecklessness and misplaced priorities of the previous administration. i'm sure obama will tout it considerably - as he should.

nt

{{Denial is a terrible way to avoid the painful truth!}}

that is all.

I think they should have killed Bin Laden that way in the first place instead of starting two wars and killing hundreds of thousands.

Now Mitt can etch-a-sketch his old words and endorse what President Obama has done, giving the President a clear foreign policy victory...

Or he can double down by criticizing the raid that most Americans support wholeheartedly, alienating himself from them.

Sucks to be Romney.

Most Americans are disgusted with Special Forces soldiers executing an unarmed man in his pajamas after he was captured and then disposing of the evidence by tossing the body into the ocean claiming a "proper burial at sea", destroying all evidence of the murder.

A legitimate government would have brought a captured Osama Bin Laden back to the USA to stand trial. If he was still active as a terrorist which he apparently was NOT, he would have been a valuable source of information for all the terrorists under his control ... IF HE WAS STILL ACTIVE!

It is dishonorable and disrespectful to assassinate an unarmed enemy leader in cold blood (in his underware).

It is STUPID to kill ANY enemy leader who is a source of information on future attacks to your country.

Remember that silly process called a trial? All suspects are entitled to be tried for the crimes they are accused of, so they have a chance to tell their story. Osama Bin Laden continually denied responsibility for involvement in the 911 attacks after the first day when he took credit for them. I would have loved to hear the 911 story Bin Laden would tell in court, as well as his denials of sending warning videos to America twice just days before elections. These tapes were edited and shown to Americans on TV as authentic Bin Laden threats, so Americans could be frightened into voting for those who claimed the most security. Scared Americans allowed increased security measures which took away their privacy and freedoms via TSA and Patriot Acts for "safety"!

And there was plenty of actual intelligence seized at the Abbottabad compound.

"Most Americans are disgusted with Special Forces soldiers executing an unarmed man in his pajamas" -- Link to your scientifically balanced poll showing this? Most Americans were actually pleased and relieved upon hearing of bin Laden's death.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/

So you think Mitt Romney would have given bin Laden a trial? Heh. You keep thinking that.

First, to the extent that this is a trump card, it should be played much later.

But more important, I see no point indulging in speculation about whether a President Romney would or would not have done it. It's easy enough for Romney to say pretty much anything about what he would have done.

Now for something like saving the domestic auto industry, which Romney is on record as having opposed quite strongly, there's a genuine contrast based on their respective records that sends an obvious message to voters. But on this, it's comparing facts to words.

It should suffice to remind voters that Obama made eliminating bin Laden a priority and did so. Why even bring up speculation about his opponent? The facts speak for themselves, and are available as needed to rebut any attempts to paint Obama as unwilling to take bold action against our enemies.

To go after one guy. No speculation needed.

The Romney defense is already in place: in full context, the 2007 quote can be read fairly as one about allocation of resources, and came when he was trying not to criticize a sitting Republican while running for that party's 2008 nomination. I just don't think it has any traction with independents, and opens the campaign up to the exact charge the headline of the article in the OP suggests - that Democrats are exploiting the situation for political gain.

Going after what reads like a typical Romney throwaway line is much weaker than reminding voters of his vociferous denunciation of investing in the auto industry. While on bin Laden, Romney's reservation was against spending too much on a manhunt and not enough on broader "Jihadist" threats, he flat-out said supporting the struggling auto industry was wrong. We know for certain that saving it contradicts his core message, whereas he has a lot more plausible-sounding wiggle room on bin Laden.

I think you simply don't lead with this, you use it as a counterpunch. Wait for the inevitable charge of Obama not being the right man to assure the defense of the US and hit back with this (and I think it suffices to point out that Obama did in 3 years what Bush couldn't or wouldn't in 7). The timing is just wrong.

And the ads about every other thing Rmoney was and is wrong on will also be next, one after the other.

And they all can be broadcasted back again anytime until November.

Better start sooner than later...

If Obama made Bin Laden a priority, why did he do so? Bin Laden had made no threats to the USA for years that I know of. Why was killing Bin Laden so important to Barack Obama if Bin Laden had become a non-issue? Could it be that Bin Laden was used one last time for the benefit of those in power in America? With Obama's polls declining, was Obama told to pull this "Hail Mary" so he had something to show for his re-election instead of his awful record?

If you insist that Bin Laden was still an active threat to the USA, prove it to me. How? CAPTURE HIM and bring him home to STAND TRIAL. Were our elected officials afraid Osama Bin Laden would implicate them in any "inside jobs"? Osama Bin Laden was asleep. He was captured unarmed and in his pajamas. Osama Bin Laden was executed in cold blood after he was held for several minutes. Did our "brave" president order Bin Laden's execution after Special Forces captured him and called the president to ask for his preference?

If Osama Bin Laden was a real terrorist threat to America, it would have been mandatory to capture him alive so he could be questioned. This way his entire network would have been captured or destroyed and America would finally be free from worry about Bin Laden's "Bad Boys". All Bin Laden's future plans would have been neutralized and his associates captured ... this is IF Bin Laden was really a threat to America.

So which is it? Either way looks bad for our president. One could say the reason Obama gave four conflicting versions of the details of this execution is because it had to look honorable. No execution is honorable, least of all when the victim is unarmed, in pajamas, killed on the spot, then thrown overboard somewhere in the ocean to dispose of the body and any evidence on how this execution really went down. No autopsy possible. Isn't this suspicious?

Was it really Bin Laden who was killed? Why have there been no protests among his followers who were so devoted to this dangerous terrorist and leader? Is it because Bin Laden had been killed years ago? If Bin Laden was no longer active why execute him once he was captured?

Once more we have another administration we cannot trust. This one is a clone of the last one.

Do you really think Obama has something to boast about? Maybe you should wait to see how the administration "spins" the campaign movie they are making of this incident to make Obama look heroic? I bet they dress Obama in a fighting uniform to look fierce for the part he plays in the movie!

He claimed to be the mastermind behind 9-11. Thus, he is assumed to have attacked and killed Americans on American soil. That he may have "no longer been a threat" or "no longer active" is irrelevant (and likely not the case). He still did what he did (or claimed to have done it or orchestrated it).

As for his "bad boys", there were computers (hard drives at least) and books and papers confiscated from his compound. No doubt the DHS scoured through these items thoroughly and was able to pretty much unravel much of his business about his entire network ie: the rest of his "bad boys" as much or moreso as any trial would have. And, bin Laden could lie in a courtroom - but his electronic correspondence with others in his network and notes/books/records won't lie.

Let's talk about 'honorable'. Is it 'honorable' to orchestrate the hijacking and flying of airplanes into occupied buildings amidst a financial center in a country, killing 3000+ innocent, unsuspecting UNARMED people? bin Laden didn't afford his victims any warning. They weren't armed. Some of them may have been in pajamas - or diapers - or suits.

Why dump his body? Several reasons: 1) just exactly for the reason you mention - to prevent protests (including potentially violent ones) from his followers at the location of his gravesite and to prevent his buddies from gathering there; 2) to prevent embarrassing antics from Americans or American soldiers seeking to desecrate his grave (would make for really unsavory news stories and make America look bad). No autopsy is necessary when the exact cause of death is known. And I can hear the salacious stories from the GOP squawking about how our Democratic President is using American taxpayer money to autopsy a terrorist.

Why does Obama have several versions? No doubt he got the story from several people and the versions differed. HE wasn't there himself. As he learned more of the details, his recount of the story was modified.

Last question: How much did the GOP or some other anti-government militia group pay you to come here and post this crap? Really.

It's a good time to bring it up. Then move on to other issues as the campaign progresses. But, yes, get it out there now since President Obama was never able to fully discuss it before.

It's a privilege he's earned.

...surely there must be a mistake, as this is clearly a one-sided criticism of the president's campaign strategy.

"The killing of Osama bin Laden, first presented as a moment of national unity by President Barack Obama, has become something else: a political weapon."

In a legitimate America Bin Laden would have been brought back to the USA and given a trial.

Americans don't assassinate unarmed accused leaders standing helplessly in their pajamas in front of their families, and then dump the body in the ocean like mobsters to destroy all the evidence. To do this in another country is a further blow to our once honorable reputation.

This entire scenario stinks of an opportunistic set-up to further the political ambitions of an incompetent leader and administration who is unable to handle the job he was elected to do. That this president would consider using such a dishonorable action as an example of a positive accomplishment gives one chilling insight into his lack of character.

and landed on hte deck of an aircraft carrier with a HUGE banner saying " Mission Accomplished"? Oh wait..I forgot