UPDATE: More stories about Mitt’s character below the fold!
Lots has been said on our site over the past year or so about Mitt the man. But an article from Deroy Murdock appeared in the National Review today entitled “The Decency of Mitt: The Real Romney is Emerging” that reminds me of one of the reasons I support Mitt: his character.
Mr. Murdock starts by pointing out, as a number of commentators now have, that one of the reasons for Mitt’s rise in the polls was the stark contrast between Team Obama’s version of Mitt and reality. With many not happy with Obama’s job performance, their strategy was to paint Mitt as negatively as possible and make people willing to choose the “devil you know.” That strategy, backed up by ceaseless Democrat pounding during the summer and a hundred million dollars in advertising, seemed to be working well, until, well, voters met the real Mitt in the debates.
Why is Mitt Romney rising? Americans who watched the GOP nominee debate President Obama never met the cold, greedy, sexist, racist, carcinogenic tax cheat that Team Obama promised would appear. The calm, steady, and reasonable gentleman who opposed Obama was no Gordon Gekko.
Americans might like Romney even more if they understood his random acts of kindness and significant feats of bravery. As Mara Gay, Dan Hirschhorn, and M. L. Nestel wrote for TheDaily.com: “A man weighed down by the image of a heartless corporate raider who can’t relate to people actually has a history of doing remarkably kind things for those in need.”
So let me continue to introduce you to the real Mitt. I’ve put out a couple posts on this topic in the past. One was the largely unfiltered account of the person who bought a house from Mitt. By this man’s telling, Mitt stayed behind to personally walk him through the home, which the buyer had purchased lock, stock and barrel. He came away from the experience with such an appreciation for Mitt’s character that he felt compelled to reach out to the media. Here’s a news report of that story:
Another post was my personal account from occasional interactions with the Romney and Davies families. Bottom line: they’re fantastic people. When looking for someone to cut the fat out of Washington DC, I look at Mitt as the ideal candidate. He is more wealthy than I ever imagine I’ll be, just like the Federal government can be by taxing and borrowing, but the frugality and discipline with which he and his children live their lives indicates an appreciation for the resulting responsibility. I want someone in Washington who has a demonstrated ability to rein in his personal finances. And if I may continue, I first got involved with Mitt’s campaign back in 2007, when I told my friend, his son Matt, if his dad decided to run that I wanted to help. What compelled me was what I’d seen his dad accomplish in Massachusetts working with an 85%+ Democrat state legislature. If he could reach across the aisle in Massachusetts, adopt healthcare reform and balance their budget, maybe he could break through the gridlock in Washington? Four years has taught us that President Obama has been unable to do what he promised on this score: work together with Congress. Mitt’s record indicates he can.
GOP V.P. candidate Congressman Paul Ryan gestures while speaking of the war on poverty during a speech at the Walter B. Waetjen Auditorium at Cleveland State University in Cleveland, Ohio. Oct 24, 2012 (Photo – Tony Dejak/AP)
A packed auditorium awaited him…
Congressman Paul Ryan today was very warmly received today as he walked on stage at the University of Cleveland in Ohio. With his unique, clear capacity to speak succinctly on the enriching principles of our free enterprise system, Ryan delivered a powerhouse speech on upward mobility and the economy.
Thank you very much for that warm welcome – and thank you Jimmy, for that great introduction. I want to thank everyone at Cleveland State University for your kind hospitality. I especially want to thank President Berkman for his help in making this happen. And of course, none of us would be here today without the extraordinary work of Bob Woodson and the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. Thank you, Bob, for bringing us together today.
We are here in partnership on behalf of an idea – that no matter who your parents are, no matter where you come from, you should have the opportunity in America to rise, to escape from poverty, and to achieve whatever your God-given talents and hard work enable you to achieve.
In so many ways, our nation’s history has been a long struggle to bring opportunity into every life. Our nation was founded on the creed that “all men are created equal” – that we all possess equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, of course, equality of opportunity hasn’t always been a fact of life in our country – it’s been something we’ve had to constantly fight for. It’s a cause that continues to this day.
Even though so many barriers to equality have fallen, too many old inequities persist. Too many children, especially African-American and Hispanic children, are sent into mediocre schools and expected to perform with excellence. African-American and Hispanic children make up only 38 percent of the nation’s overall students, but they are 69 percent of the students in schools identified as lowest performing.
That’s unacceptable. We owe every child a chance to succeed. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, we owe them “an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.” Upward mobility is the central promise of life in America. But right now, America’s engines of upward mobility aren’t working the way they should.
Mitt Romney and I are running because we believe that Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility instead of a stagnant, government-directed economy that stifles job creation and fosters government dependency.
There is something wrong in our country when 40 percent of children born to parents in the lowest fifth of earners never know anything better. The question before us today – and it demands a serious answer – is how do we get the engines of upward mobility turned back on, so that no one is left out from the promise of America?
Mitt Romney addresses the thousands of GOP supporters who packed Denver’s Red Rocks Amphitheater. The venue was filled beyond capacity. [Photo-The Denver Post]
This is a defining moment for America. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are offering real reforms for a real recovery. They will provide the leadership and vision to get this country back on track. The momentum is on our side.
But it is crucial that we keep the momentum going. The enthusiasm of the Republican Party has been consistently underestimated by the Obama camp, and yet it remains unmatched. Our support will inevitably carry Mitt Romney to a solid victory.
This video pretty much sums up the nostalgia we’re all feeling as the campaign comes to an end:
*Only 13 days left! Click here to see how you can get involved!
Thousands upon thousands came to hear Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan speak last night at Red Rocks Amphitheatre, near Morrison, Colorado. NM Governor Susana Martinez, and entertainers Kid Rock and Rodney Atkins, also shared the stage with Romney and Ryan. Click on image to enlarge.
(Photo – RomneyResponse)
What a night!
In spite of gridlocked traffic hours before the event began, from near and far, they pressed forward. Driving up mountain roads, through the rocks they came…
As far as the eye could see, thousands of Romney/Ryan supporters made their way to magnificent Red Rocks Park, Colorado, for a chance in a life-time to see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan – together for the first time in the beautiful Centennial State. The venue filled to capacity; many were turned away.
Sarah Hoyt at Instapundit.com writes:
Romney Ryan Rally at Red Rocks: [W]e left our home in time to get there just before five under normal conditions. About thirty miles out, the highway became a parking lot, where we got stuck for the next two hours. The freaky thing was the lines extending behind us at least as much. The highway exit was closed, but we’re conservatives/libertarians, we find ways. So we went back roads, parked in way outlaying parking lot (for another facility) and tried to walk. Only the people ahead of us were getting turned back at the door, so we all walked back to our cars shouting stuff like “Romney” and “Soon a real president.” Look at those pictures and let me tell you, at least that many of us were turned away or prevented from approaching.
See 360 photo posted here(scroll in/out, click two circles at top for 360 degree views).
As the enormous crowd waited to hear Congressman Ryan and Governor Romney (who, by the way, was fresh off his third and final well-executed debate with Obama), entertainers Kid Rock and Rodney Atkins wowed them.
Up-and-comer New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez – the first female Hispanic governor in the history of the United States – was also on hand to rev up the massive audience. (Remember her terrific GOP Convention speech?!)
Now, President Obama rattled off a “cute” joke last night about defense planning not being a game of Battleship. Well Mr. President, our BUDGET isn’t a game of Monopoly, either! Attacking Mitt Romney is NOT an agenda. Four more years, like the last four years, is NOT a solution.”
You see, this election, we’re not just picking the next president for four more years. WE are picking the direction and course of our country for a generation. It doesn’t matter which generation you come from – this is the most important election in YOUR generation!”
Colorado Rockies first baseman Todd Helton also popped on stage to voice strong support for Romney and Ryan. (*See press release below).
If there would have been a roof to raise, this Romney/Ryan rally would have blown it clear up to the moon shining down on them.
UPDATE – Highlights not included on above video:
Romney supporter: “I have been at Red Rocks because I’ve lived here and I have never seen a crowd like this!”
Another supporter: “It’s on fire! Red Rocks is on fire because Mitt Romney is here. And, we are thrilled to be a part of it.”
A view from the top… “More people came than the amphitheater could hold. Momentum grows even more!” (Photo and comments from @dmitchell624)
Most of 2012, Barack Obama spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars using every artifice available in his attempts to define Mitt Romney as an out of touch rich guy that could never understand the average woman or man. That worked with audiences that had never met the man. Over the last four weeks or so, 59 to 70 million Americans have gotten to meet and know Mitt Romney for 90 minutes at a time. And guess what? They discovered what all of us have known for years: He is a gentleman who cares deeply about his fellow man. Indeed, many true stories have come to light about his generosity of time and resources.
Of the two men, Obama and Romney, let’s discern which has the highest probability of being “out of touch” from the average American. This is simple. Mitt Romney served approximately 17 years as a pastor of his church (1977 to 1994) as a counselor in a stake presidency, as a bishop, and as a stake president. In these pastoral roles he met on a regular basis with between 10 and 20 members a week to provide counsel, spiritual guidance, grief counseling, financial advice, etc. He met with those struggling in life with the loss of a job, financial set-backs, a death in the family, marriage and family challenges, and many other matters. All were average Americans.
Simple math informs us that in those 17 years, Mitt Romney personally met with and spent a lot of time with 8,500 people on the low end and 17,000 on the likely end. How many individuals or couples or families has Barack Obama met with in his lifetime, on a personal basis, with the express intent to serve, assist, lift, and inspire them, one on one?
American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”
Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist— Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families
UPDATE: Greta van Susteren and Liz Cheney discuss the president’s debate statement he did all he could to protect our people during the attack, while our forces only an hour’s flight away in Italy weren’t deployed during any of a 7 hour, multi-wave attack our leaders were able to watch from drones overhead. Even an F-18 flyover may have scared the attackers off, but nothing was done. Meanwhile on one occasion Reagan acted within 90 minutes to scramble fighters to take down a possible terrorist threat in the sky. Decisive leadership can get things done. The question is: where was the president? Where was the Secretary of State? Wouldn’t the Secretary of Defense have given the president a choice of assets to deploy in the region? Nothing was done, and our president says he did all he could? Greta: “we just sat and watched.”
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
Three emails were obtained.
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”
The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”
The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”
A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”
The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”
Were these just a few emails lost in the rush? Nope. According to the Examiner:
“Fox is told that approximately 300-400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding,” van Susteren added. One of the addresses that received the emails “is the White House Situation address,” she said.
What else do we need to know? Hundreds received these emails, including the White House situation room. There’s no room for confusion. Immediate reports did not suggest a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video. They clearly indicated a terrorist attack.
While I have a hard time calling anyone a liar, it’s getting harder and harder to come up with plausible excuses for how the White House could possibly have maintained in all honesty a position that the attack in Benghazi, which they watched through military drones, was a reaction to the YouTube video. It’s getting nigh impossible to come up with any possible explanation other than utter incompetence or dishonesty. For all Obama’s bluster in Monday night’s debate about “one thing [he] learned” is the need as Commmander-in-Chief to send clear messages and avoid changing positions, his record on this point is disastrously inept.
With this information, how can the White House get to a place where it blames an irrelevant YouTube video for 2 weeks rather than saying it was a terrorist attack? How can it send out the UN ambassador to perpetuate this story with such certitude?
While officials did [early on] mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.
It would be one thing to come out and say “we just don’t know what happened, we are investigating and will let you know when we know something.” But it’s clearly another to blame a cause the evidence before you indicates is wrong.
Here’s CBS’ video report:
If, as this report suggests, the president really thought terrorists were behind the attack, why didn’t the administration slow down and say they just didn’t know? Why take such a definitive position contradicted by the evidence?
Something is really off here, and the president needs to come clean. Was it that the White House truly believed the CIA report mentioned by the Washington Post that suggested the Benghazi attack was a result of the video? If so is this a case of willingly believing the story that suits you best despite significant evidence to the contrary? What does it say about the president or his administration that he’s willing to ignore facts staring him in the face? My bottom line is that it’s getting tougher to find ways to let the White House off the hook here.
Obama tried to appear intimidating throughout the evening… The President also clenched his jaw plenty of times through the third and final presidential debate with Governor Mitt Romney at Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL. Oct 23, 2012 (photographer unknown)
It’s all about swing states and undecided voters…
After last night’s debate in Boca Raton, one of the much-talked-of “undecideds” DECIDED. She (yes, one of the prized female voters) appeared on FOX News this morning to explain.
What swayed her is key.
Identified as ‘Wendy’, she felt that, even though last night’s debate was about foreign policy, it all kept coming back to the economy. She was impressed with Mitt Romney’s economic expertise and got the salient point he made that a strong national defense depends on a strong military and a strong military depends on a strong economy. When asked about Obama’s performance and especially his meant-to-insult ‘horses, bayonets, aircraft carriers’ comment she replied, “Honestly, he came off like a bully.” Wendy concluded that Obama’s tone was degrading and for her, personally, she did not like it.
Condescension and ridicule is not appealing, especially to many women, and especially when the one doing the condescending and ridiculing has such a failed record. Obama has become the politician he excoriated when he first ran for president.
Obama’s locked-on, aggressive, theatrical glare toward Romney throughout the debate revealed a peevish, insecure president. Instead of making himself look like the Commander-in-Chief, he reduced himself to Commander-of-Stink Eye.
What are others saying about the debate?
They’re saying if one wasn’t aware of American politics and had just tuned in, they would have thought Romney was the President and Obama was the wanna-be challenger. Romney also handily dismissed Obama’s false meme that he’s a warmonger. He’s NOT SCARY.
They’re also saying: Romney “LOOKED AND SOUNDED PRESIDENTIAL.”
“Romney Did What He Needed To Do” … “He Gets The Win” … “Looked Cooler Than A Sometimes Peevish Mr. Obama”
The Wall Street Journal: Mitt Romney “Wasn’t Rattled, And If Anything Looked Cooler Than A Sometimes Peevish Mr. Obama.” “Mr. Romney was clearly keeping his eye on his main challenge of the evening, which was looking Presidential on issues that offer an incumbent a natural advantage. He passed that test with ease, making no major mistakes while offering impressive detail on everything from the radical government in Mali—make that ‘north Mali’—to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. He wasn’t rattled, and if anything looked cooler than a sometimes peevish Mr. Obama.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/23/12)
New York Post: “Romney More Than Held His Own, Proving Himself A More-Than-Credible Potential Commander-In-Chief. … He Gets The Win.” “President Obama went on the attack against Mitt Romney again last night in their final debate — a tactic usually reserved for the challenger. The president, no doubt, felt the need — given Romney’s recent surge in the polls and Obama’s disappointing record on foreign-policy issues, the topic of the debate. But Romney more than held his own, proving himself a more-than-credible potential commander-in-chief. By that alone, he gets the win.” (New York Post, 10/23/12)
ABC News’ Rick Klein: “In A Debate About Who Should Be Commander-In-Chief, Mitt Romney Was Just As Much In Command As The Man In The Job Now.” (ABC News, 10/23/12)
Time’s Mark Halperin: Romney “Completed The Trifecta Of Appearing As The President’s Semiotic Equal In Every Debate.” (Time, 10/22/12)
The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens: “Mitt Romney Emerges Looking Like A Perfectly Plausible President…” “[Romney’s] most effective turns in the debate came when he brought it all back to the economy. He seemed reasonable and tempered and pragmatic and unruffled and therefore presidential. … But Mitt Romney emerges looking like a perfectly plausible president—which was no doubt all he wanted from tonight.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/23/12)
Governor Mitt Romney shakes hands with Barack Obama after the debate at the Keith C. and Elaine Johnson Wold Performing Arts center at Lynn University on October 22, 2012 in Boca Raton, Florida. Click on image to enlarge. (Photo – Getty Images)
Politico’s Alexander Burns: Romney Had “A Cooler Approach To The Debate That Reflected His Enhanced Stature…” “Romney, for his part, took a cooler approach to the debate that reflected his enhanced stature in a race that has tightened since the first debate in Denver at the start of October.” (Politico, 10/22/12)
CNN’s John King: “After Three Debates, The Trend Line Is Moving Governor Romney’s Way.” “After three debates, the trend line is moving Governor Romney’s way. In all nine tossup states, Governor Romney was in a stronger position this morning than he was the day before the first debate” (CNN, 10/22/12)
Politico’s Glenn Thrush: Romney “Showed An Easy Mastery Of The Details That Has Sometimes Bedeviled Lesser Candidates.” “Rules or no, Romney was at his most effective when calmly articulating his economic case and calling out the president for failing to articulate a detailed vision for his second term. … Romney didn’t embarrass himself on the issues, and showed an easy mastery of the details that has sometimes bedeviled lesser candidates.” (Politico,Politico 10/23/12)
New York Daily News’ Joshua Greenman: “But For The Purposes Of Fast-Approaching Nov. 6, What Happened Was: Romney Did What He Needed To Do.” (New York Daily News, 10/23/12)
Politico’s John Harris: Obama Had “A Nitpicking, Overly Aggressive Strategy … Diminishing The President’s Greatest Asset Which Is The Fact He Is Already Commander In Chief.” HARRIS: “I felt that in a number of times when the president was making his point so aggressively. What was communicated in those exchanges was not strength and confidence but what was communicated was a kind of, sort of a nitpicking, overly aggressive strategy which had the effect of diminishing the president’s greatest asset which is the fact he is already commander in chief.” (C-SPAN, 10/22/12)
Commentary Magazine’s Jonathan Tobin: “Obama Wasn’t Able To Throw Romney Off His Game Or Embarrass Him … It Was Romney That Looked And Sounded Presidential…” “Despite interruptions and attempts to turn even the points they agreed upon into disagreements, Obama wasn’t able to throw Romney off his game or embarrass him. By contrast, it was Romney that looked and sounded presidential, avoiding issues that work to the Democrats’ advantage like Afghanistan and refusing to be ruffled.” (Commentary Magazine, 10/23/12)
Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “Mitt Romney’s Aim Was To Present Himself With The Demeanor And Grasp Of Foreign And National Security Issues Of A President Of The United States. He Succeeded.” (Weekly Standard, 10/23/12)
Weekly Standard’s William Kristol: “Tonight, Romney Seems As Fully Capable As—Probably More Capable Than—Barack Obama Of Being The Next President. He Probably Will Be.” (Weekly Standard, 10/22/12)
NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “POTUS Is Consistently Trying To Draw Romney Into A More Contentious Debate. It’s What Challengers Do Who Think They Are Behind.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)
CNN’s Sam Feist: “Men In The CNN Focus Group Loved Romney’s Answer On Education.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)
Politico’s Dylan Byers: “Romney Looks Presidential. Period. & That Is What He Needs From These Three Debates.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)
The Wall Street Journal’s Patrick O’Connor: “Romney Is Presenting Himself As The Sober Future President, While Obama Is Attacking The Republican Nominee Like A Man Sliding In The Polls.” “Well, the distinctions seem fairly clear at this point: Romney is presenting himself as the sober future president, while Obama is attacking the Republican nominee like a man sliding in the polls.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/22/12)
Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “I Would Have Thought The Guy That Had Turned Out To Be Mitt Romney Was The President…” WALLACE: “Yeah, let me first give you my general opinion. And that was, I thought in the middle of the debate that if I had been on the desert island for the last four years and I had just been parachuted into this debate, I would have thought the guy that had turned out to be Mitt Romney was the president protecting a lead and that Barack Obama was the challenger trying, somewhat desperately to catch up.” (Fox News, 10/22/12)
CNN’s David Gergen: “I Think Mitt Romney Did Something Extremely Important To His Campaign Tonight: He Passed The Commander-In-Chief Test.” (CNN, 10/22/12)
Pictures of Barack Obama bowing courtesy of today’s Drudge Report.
I’m not going to hammer on the president for his choice of words on Jon Stewart. I’m not a fan of the Dems’ insulting attempts at faux outrage over things like “binders” so I’ll not do anything but quote our president. But we can safely say, as President Obama did, when Americans die our president’s foreign policy is obviously “not optimal.” And when you look back at the past four years, really, we can’t say what’s happened are mere “bumps in the road,” either, but the result of having chosen the wrong road altogether. Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri put it more succinctly: the president’s foreign policy has “failed.”
So before tonight’s debate about foreign policy, let’s remind ourselves just how sub-optimal this president’s foreign policy has been, and how bumpy the road was. People may criticize Mitt for not having foreign policy experience, but Obama only has four more years than Mitt has, having had none when he started on the job training. The question is whether Barack Obama learned anything during that time, and perhaps the biggest indictment contained in the mess in Libya is that his record indicates he hasn’t learned what he needs to, and is willing to close his eyes to the obvious in favor of a narrative that supports, if tenuously, his world view. Meanwhile I’m sure someone else with a different philosophy, like peace through American strength, would do a lot better.
His One Argument: bin Laden
Let’s start by giving the president partial credit for his one “achievement.” In a true team effort, American intelligence, after years of searching that culminated during the Obama administration, was able to find Osama bin Laden. The president then sent a team of experts into Pakistan to kill him. Still, a number of things still trouble me about this “success.”
First, the president’s beaming over the mission and “spiking the football.” While it’s a comforting thought bin Laden is no longer a threat, call me old fashioned but it does not seem appropriate to throw a party when anyone is killed, even if a confessed terrorist and murderer. The appropriate attitude seems to be one of quiet gratitude, and confidence we were able to accomplish what we needed to protect American citizens from harm. But not elation.
Second, the president’s taking personal credit for the achievement. What happened was a success due to years of work starting in the Bush administration and involving hundreds if not thousands of people from intelligence gatherers to planners of the raid to those who actually executed it. Let’s not forget the president watched it on TV, and was not on the ground personally in Pakistan. He deserves credit as the person at the head of the team, but to the extent he deserves that credit, he deserves as much blame for what went wrong in Libya. And gracious leaders give credit where due. I agree he should be congratulated for making the decision to move forward. He took a risk and it paid off. But I disagree with President Clinton’s assessment that this decision took any special fortitude. I believe Mitt’s right that any president would have made the same decision. So Obama’s credit is for being in the seat at the head of table when the team succeeded, and for calling for the two-point conversion to win the game. He succeeded, and gets the credit for that strategic decision. But it was the team on the field, not him that deserves any glory, and an end-zone dance seems particularly inappropriate.
Third, in his desire to take personal credit, the president shared sensitive intelligence information. He volunteered the identity of the team that carried it out, putting them and their families in danger. And this was one of many leaks, coming per Dianne Feinstein directly out of the White House, of sensitive US information. The president seems willing to compromise security when it suits his political purposes, which I find difficult to condone.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of this one mission does not mean Al Qaeda is really “on the run,” as has been claimed by the Dems. They’re still in Afghanistan and now are in Libya. And whatever the president’s policy in this regard, despite bin Laden’s removal, the date of Al Qaeda’s last successful terrorist attack is no longer 9/11/01. It’s 9/11/12.
Now, to more problematic issues: world hot spots
1. Libya. Four Americans are killed in Libya despite pleas for additional security. Reports out of the State Department, the intelligence community and the White House contradict who knew what when. Immediately after the attack the president made a generically deniable statement about not letting terrorism deter us, but spent the next two weeks allowing the American people to believe it’s somehow the fault of our freedom of speech and an obscure YouTube video, using rhetoric that could suggest we somehow deserve what happened. Why? Again President Obama and the Democrats insisted on “spiking the football” over Osama bin Laden’s death at their convention, such that it’s an inconvenient truth that Al Qaeda is not really “on the run,” especially in Libya where the president is trying to take credit for “leading from behind.” Contrary to his assertions, Libya is not a model for American foreign policy success as it is now the site of the first assassination of an ambassador in 30 years.