Sometimes it is necessary to describe the obvious. As shown on these pages on April 6, Mitt Romney would not have found, captured or killed Osama bin Laden -- no way, no how.
When Republicans start complaining about "using" an issue -- count the number of times they mentioned 9/11 at the 2004 convention where, among other things, they had Guiliani say that one of his first thoughts was how grateful he was that George Bush was president, a thought he never conveyed in his book! -- it is very clear Democrats have their goat.
Moreover, Republicans have no escape-hatch. They were the ones who raised the issue in the first place, claiming "any president" would have done the same. Thus, Democrats should not just keep repeating the observation, they should deepen the narrative about it.
For some reason, the same Republican Party that did not move a muscle to try to stop the 9/11 attacks, and then lied us into war in Iraq, doing exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted, believes that it has some monopoly on national security. The media perpetuates their mythology. So, President Obama's success finding, capturing and killing Osama bin Laden, a feat they could not achieve even when provided a golden opportunity, presents Republicans a major challenge to their phony "brand."
As previously indicated, Romney would not have found, nor captured, nor killed Osama bin Laden for the following reasons:
1. Romney has zero foreign policy experience. He has never had a novel, creative or independent thought about foreign or military affairs.
2. Romney followed the Bush line of not caring so much about finding him. By contrast, President Obama issued a directive in the first few days of his presidency to focus on finding bin Laden. Romney would never have issued such an order.
3. Romney is surrounded by Bush advisers. Bush had the opportunity to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora by sending 800 Army rangers as requested by operatives on the ground. He declined.
4. Romney spouts the neoconista line about "listening to the generals on the ground" to determine U.S. policy. The generals recommended against the SEALs' mission.
We know now a fifth reason Romney could never have ordered the raid to capture bin Laden.
He has never taken a risky move in his life. Never.
When provided the extraordinary opportunity of investing millions of other peoples' money into new ventures, Romney refused... unless, that is, he would get bailed out if he failed, and that there would be a cover story indicating he had not failed, but that his services were needed in another part of the organization.
Consider a Romney "situation room" at the White House. The generals and national security advisers have told him they are not certain that Osama bin Laden is in the compound. They have told him that there is high risk that a commando raid will be detected because the compound is in the neighborhood of a major Pakistani military base.
They have told him that an airstrike could flatten the compound but that, if it is "bin Laden central," then there are probably underground bunkers that may protect him, that the chances for collateral damage to other buildings is high, and that they will never be able to prove that bin Laden was there.
Now, consider the Romney history. A man who would not even take a highly-paid position at a major investment firm unless he were guaranteed a bail-out if he failed, and who had a cover story invented if he did... this same man believes that the Commander-in-Chief's role is to adopt the strategies and tactics the generals suggest... this same man has never had a nanosecond of experience in foreign policy and his advisers refused to take a less risky chance to get bin Laden at Tora Bora...
How, and on what factual or psychological basis, is this man going to make the "gutsiest decision" National Security Adviser Brennan had ever seen a president make?
There is, in fact, one psychological reason that Romney might have considered it. He may have been tempted to display his "macho." But, he did not even show he had cajones when he was asked to run Bain Capital. Moreover, the risk that failure of this raid would confirm Romney's wimp persona more than success would erase it would be too high for someone as risk-averse he has shown himself to be. Jimmy Carter at least had had a Navy career when he ordered the Teheran raid. Romney avoided the draft, and never even "volunteered" like "W" in the national guard. Imagine Romney considering the fall-out when the story came out that the failed raid had been made against the advice of the generals.
No, Romney would never have pursued Osama bin Laden, and, if they had magically found him nonetheless, he would never have given the order to proceed with the mission.
Democrats should keep up this story. It shows Romney for who he is, and is not.
Romney would not risk his life, nor those of his children, for the United States. He would not risk his reputation to try to do something positive for the United States.
He would not risk anything for anyone... except himself.
That, as Chris Matthews said in another context about Romney, is the "statement his life has made" about him.
How will Donald Trump’s first 100 days impact YOU? Subscribe, choose the community that you most identify with or want to learn more about and we’ll send you the news that matters most once a week throughout Trump’s first 100 days in office. Learn more