Why the President's bin Laden Ad Drives Republicans Crazy
It speaks the truth about Bush and Romney
Evidently, the feelings of longtime hatchet men like Bush-era party chair Ed Gillespie, ex-Bush flack Ari Fleischer and the editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal, to name a few, were really, really hurt—supposedly because the Obama campaign exploited a moment of national unity for partisan advantage.
"This is one of the reasons President Obama has become one of the most divisive presidents in American history," said Gillespie, now a Romney adviser.
To anyone with a functioning memory, however, this whining is implausible. So are the dire predictions that the president will somehow offend voters by claiming credit for whacking bin Laden (or by smacking Romney). During the Bush presidency, Republicans used precisely the same approach and worse, over and over, without fretting whether their words and ads were "divisive."
Bush's GOP Exploited 9/11 for Political Gain
It began weeks after the 9/11 attacks, amid sincere pledges of patriotic cooperation from congressional Democrats, when Karl Rove told the Republican National Committee that their party would "go to the country on this issue" to win the midterm elections in 2002. They won a historic victory by sliming wounded Vietnam hero Max Cleland and former Air Force intelligence officer Tom Daschle as stooges of Al Qaeda.
Bush's 2004 re-election campaign amplified the same themes, with advertising and pageantry grossly exploiting 9/11 at the Republican convention in New York City, a series of conveniently timed terror "alerts" leading up to Election Day and repeated warnings by Vice President Dick Cheney that a Democratic victory would signal weakness to America's enemies.
And it persisted into the 2006 midterm elections, with Rove falsely portraying Democrats as limp-wristed "liberals" trying to "understand" Osama bin Laden.
Until that election, the rough Rovian style had succeeded brilliantly—despite the fact that Bush and Cheney had actually allowed bin Laden and Mullah Omar to escape at Tora Bora. Obama's cool order to kill bin Laden, in a moment of considerable risk to his presidency, finally debunked the decade of smears against Democrats as unpatriotic, wimpish and unreliable.
By contrast, the Obama ad's brief rebuke of Romney is at least factual and accurate: Not only did Romney say what the ad quotes, but he also said that he wouldn't go into Pakistan to get bin Laden, which is what the mission required. Had the president followed Romney's policy recommendation, bin Laden would almost certainly still be at large.
"Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order," scoffed Romney in response. But he shouldn't be so quick to denigrate the former Democratic president, who entered the Navy during World War II and then served as a submarine officer until his honorable discharge in 1953. Somebody may compare Carter's service with Romney's own military record, which doesn't exist—and remind voters that Romney avoided the Vietnam draft with a pampered stint as a Mormon missionary, in France.
Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of NationalMemo.com.
© 2012 Creators.com



boloney - conservatives weren't event "that concerned" about the whereabouts of bin laden - they likely wouldn't have even continued or maintained the hunt for bin laden. Bush told the american public this over and over - "honestly, i'm not that concerned about bin laden".
This whole argument about "anybody would've done the same thing" assumes that "anybody" would've also refocused our operations away from Iraq and on to bin laden, when history shows the bush administration had little competency or determined interest in pursuing the parties actually responsible for 9/11. They couldn't stop beating their chest about Iraq.
So, sure, IF you can say romney WOULD HAVE finalized the draw down of U.S. involvement in Iraq - as Obama did, and WOULD HAVE refocused his efforts on hunting down bin laden - as Obama did, THEN sure - possibly he WOULD HAVE made the same call to capture bin laden. But you can see how one would have a hard time believing that we'd even have the same opportunity to capture him, given the Iraq fiasco.
But, I agree with the point about the GOP "using" the 911scare to get some laws changed that they need. It was not simply about making it easier for law enforcement to do their job, it was really part of the setup needed to restore the GOP desire of wiping out due process for their "enemies", whether they be American citizens or not. Anyone caught trying to build an opposing political front can be quickly branded an un-American "terrorist", and just scooted out of way, with the non-patriotic public never knowing what really happened, just claim "national security".
Remember, the GOP way is to hire a CEO and his agents to run the rank and file as they see fit for maximum profitability... of the prime stock-holder, especially when the rank and file happens to be the American Consumer / slave-Laborer. This is why they are not called "Democrats", for they do not believe in equality of one person gets one vote (means a poor vote is as strong as a rich vote), they believe that he who bought everybody out should rule as CEO-King.
With half of their Navy Seal helicopters down, they knew it would be difficult to securely take him out alive. Was judged militarily best to execute on the spot, no time for a trial, no venue for him to broadcast his sleeper-cell code-words to the entire world who would be watching such a trial.