This week, the big political flap is over Barack Obama's campaign ad which implies that Mitt Romney would "not" have taken the shot to kill Osama Bin Laden if he had the chance. But, I pose a different question. Would Obama, if he were in George Bush's place, gone after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda by going to war with Afghanistan? Or, would the obvious anti-war Democrat and constitutional lawyer, consider the attack on the World Trade Center a civil problem? A civil problem and a police problem because Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had no true "alliances" to any one country. In my mind, I think the latter is true. As a consequence, I think they would still be flourishing in Afghanistan today. At best, Bin Laden, thanks to Obama's timidity, might only have wound up on the FBI's Most Wanted list with a bounty on his head.
But, for me to think that would be "pure and unwarranted" speculation. Just as it is "pure and unwarranted" speculation to think that Mitt Romney would "not" have taken the opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden. I think this is why so many, including Democrats, are being critical of the President over the assumption made in that campaign commercial. Further, I think people are turned off when they see a sitting President try to take singular credit for something that took more than 10 years to accomplish with hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved in giving Obama a chance to take that historic shot. That, to me, only diminishes this Presidency.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Would Obama Have Even Gone To War In Afghanistan Over Bin Laden?
Labels:
Afghanistan,
anti-war,
Barack Obama,
Mitt Romney,
Osama Bin Laden,
War
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment