Bill Clinton Takes Down Romney By Speaking the Truth About Obama

Apr 28 2012 Published by under Featured News

From the Obama beat we have his newest ad starring Bill Clinton that asks, “Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?”

A year after the risky mission that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, President Obama’s campaign launched his latest ad celebrating the President’s foreign policy savvy. The ad stars Bill Clinton, who speaks the truth that Mitt Romney would not have launched the raid ordering the Navy SEAL Team 6 to capture Osama bin Laden last year.

In fact, back in 2007 when Romney was running for his party’s nomination he told the Associated Press, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” So there you have it. Bush.

Watch here:

“The commander-in-chief gets one chance to make the right decision,” the video intones. Clinton says, “Suppose the Navy Seals had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden, suppose they’d been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him. He took the harder and the more honorable path.” He continues, “He had to decide. And that’s what you hire a president to do.”

Sure, Republicans are aghast and full of accusations that Obama shouldn’t speak of his successes, but who cares. They’re going to complain no matter what Obama does, so why not give them a good reason. This was, after all, a defining moment in Obama’s first term. Just another thing Obama did that the Republicans couldn’t.

Republicans don’t want to talk about Mitt Romney or the issues facing Americans. They sure as heck don’t want to talk about Mitt Romney thinking it was a waste of money to go after bin Laden and they sure as heck don’t want to talk about this:

In order to avoid talking about Mitt Romney and the exceptionally unpopular House Republicans, Republicans will distract and attack and hope you don’t notice.

Speaking of things Republicans don’t want to talk about, the Obama ad echoes Vice President Biden’s attack on Mitt Romney yesterday, “Thanks to President Obama, bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. You have to ask yourself, if Governor Romney had been president, could he have used the same slogan — in reverse?”

Oh, burn. Burn, baby, burn. Vote for Romney: Kill GM and Protect bin Laden!

We all know Mitt is Bush III, and Bush never went after bin Laden who was responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans. Bin Laden founded Al-Qaeda, the jihadist organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks, he was wanted for his part in the 1998 US Embassy bombings, and he was responsible for countless other attacks on innocent civilians.

But, leave it to conservatives to attack President Obama as weak on national security. This they did and continue to do to this day. in 2009, Sean Hannity said the President-elect was putting our national security at risk by “flip-flopping” on his promise to get bin Laden. Their guy, of course, couldn’t be bothered with bin Laden.

Six months after 9/11, former President Bush said, “Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized… I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”

But after President Obama got bin Laden, Fox News played clips of Bush promising to get bin Laden shortly after 9/11. Conservatives then gave all of the credit for the bin Laden capture to Bush’s strategy, even though Bush was clearly not looking for bin Laden. Eric Cantor put out a statement saying, “I commend President Obama who has followed the vigilance of President Bush in bringing Bin Laden to justice.” Ah, yes. Now “I just don’t spend that much time on him…” is “vigilance.”

Romney wouldn’t have looked for bin Laden either; that’s conservative for “vigilance.”

Obama’s anti-terrorism record speaks for itself to anyone who isn’t a partisan hack. You want someone who will keep you safe? Vote for Obama. You want someone who will jack up fear of terrorism while never actually going after the terrorist? Vote Republican.

You see, wars make a lot of money for Republican interests (see Dick Cheney). Wars are great business. Winning them is not great business, and neither is killing the agent of “evil” that provides such great fear-mongering for the plutocrats.

Republicans love to start wars, and they’ll sell them with a lie if they must. They don’t like to end wars so much. Ending wars means less money flowing into the government contractors’ hands.

The one thing Republicans do not want to talk about this election season is the truth about Barack Obama and his national security record. The President isn’t going to let them get away with that.

Boom, taste the Clinton nightstick.

Comments are off for this post