• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

SpecialOps PAC endorses Romney




I have to ask why any group of veterans would endorse a man who compared his sons working for his campaign with serving in the military.

Back during the 2008 campaign season, Mitt Romney has given what may be the dumbest answer ever by a presidential candidate.
“The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that’s the way we’re going to keep it,” Romney told some 200 people gathered in an abbey near the Mississippi River that had been converted into a hotel. “My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard.” He added: “One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”

Romney is the man who has been chosen to lead a party that prefers political power over actually serving our veterans when they return home.
President Obama’s proposal to create a Veterans Jobs Corps to stem high unemployment among recent military veterans was shelved Wednesday after Republicans in the Senate balked over the five-year $1-billion cost, giving both sides fresh ammunition for the November election.


The GOP babbles, shouts and screams about how they are the True Patriots but if a bill is proposed by the President it is automatically denigrated and rejected even when it proposes to do something the Republicans had supported right up to the minute the President also said he was in favour - then it becomes a "socialist effort to destroy America"
 
I have to ask why any group of veterans would endorse a man who compared his sons working for his campaign with serving in the military.

Because that's pretty irrelevant to what this group is saying. They're upset about what they call the "Benghazi coverup."
 
I have to ask why any group of veterans would endorse a man who compared his sons working for his campaign with serving in the military.

Back during the 2008 campaign season, Mitt Romney has given what may be the dumbest answer ever by a presidential candidate.

I don't see the quote supporting the position that he compared the two. He says they did not serve in the military but are trying to serve their country in other ways.
 
Did that guy just say "Afraid to make the decision to take out Bin Laden?" What the hell, what does that even mean, given the fact that he did make the decision to take out Bin Laden and then dump his body into the ocean.
 
that has to be the weakest counter I've seen in some time. you quote the post with the video of the guy explaining his position, and then respond with why would they hold that position :roll:
 
a group of disgruntled veterans who hate Obama and pull the military/patriot card to push their agendas. Very irresponsible and misleading, it's almost implying that all special operations workers are against the president.
 
Because that's pretty irrelevant to what this group is saying. They're upset about what they call the "Benghazi coverup."


and how would they know that there is a "Benghazi coverup" when there are so many contradictory stories out there - coming from all sides?
 
Did that guy just say "Afraid to make the decision to take out Bin Laden?" What the hell, what does that even mean, given the fact that he did make the decision to take out Bin Laden and then dump his body into the ocean.

Richard Miniter, author of Leading from Behind, asserts:

It is Miniter's account of the bin Laden operation that has garnered considerable media attention because of its sensational claims that:

  • Top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett has a "Rasputin-like" hold over the president and persuaded him on three occasions in January, February and March 2011 not to launch the raid into Pakistan to take out bin Laden.
  • It took the president almost two years of dithering to order the bin Laden operation, which was "reduced in scope, or otherwise delayed, often by the president himself."
  • Obama "stunned his staff with a string of dangerous delays and paralyzing indecision that threatened the mission's timing and nearly compromised its success."
  • As a result of these delays, Gen. David Petraeus, then-commanding general in Afghanistan, during 2011 "debated acting on his own and ordering an airstrike on the bin Laden stronghold" in Pakistan.
  • Obama left "critical decisions" about the bin Laden raid to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fearing "taking responsibility for a risky raid that might go tragically wrong." It was Clinton, in Miniter's account, who pushed Obama into making the decision to authorize the raid.

These charges come at the same time that a group of retired military and intelligence officers have released a 22-minute documentary "Dishonorable Disclosures" asserting that Obama has taken too much credit for the bin Laden operation. That documentary has already been viewed more than 3 million times on YouTube.
 
What I have heard in the most favorable light possible to Obama was that he debated for weeks whether to order an airstrike where they may lose any proof it was Bin Laden or put in SpecOps and risk losing some or having the mission go down. Felt more like a political calculation than a force-protection issue to me though.
 
What I have heard in the most favorable light possible to Obama was that he debated for weeks whether to order an airstrike where they may lose any proof it was Bin Laden or put in SpecOps and risk losing some or having the mission go down. Felt more like a political calculation than a force-protection issue to me though.

THIS!!!!

And you can see this mind-set in how he handled/is handling the Benghazi incident. Every calculation he makes is for POLITICAL advantage - not the national interest.

He would be completely comfortable with our national security taking a hit as long as it could not be associated with himself.

In the Bin Laden instance he already had a statement prepared to place the blame somewhere else.

Even CARTER was a better man than this.

The man is a P.O.S. regardless of what prism you use to inspect him.
 
seems legit

Hmm, former editorial chief for the wingnut Washington Times? Seems like he wrote a book about Clinton's failure to get OBL, and then crticizing Obama, who did get OBL. Was there something in between that he missed?
 
THIS!!!!

And you can see this mind-set in how he handled/is handling the Benghazi incident. Every calculation he makes is for POLITICAL advantage - not the national interest.

He would be completely comfortable with our national security taking a hit as long as it could not be associated with himself.

In the Bin Laden instance he already had a statement prepared to place the blame somewhere else.

Even CARTER was a better man than this.

The man is a P.O.S. regardless of what prism you use to inspect him.

Osama Bin Laden being alive was not an urgent threat to our national security. Every president has to make political calculations. Our relations with other countries matter, contrary to some people's beliefs...
 
What I have heard in the most favorable light possible to Obama was that he debated for weeks whether to order an airstrike where they may lose any proof it was Bin Laden or put in SpecOps and risk losing some or having the mission go down. Felt more like a political calculation than a force-protection issue to me though.

Wow, could you be more ridiculously partisan? If they have bombed the place it's unlikely that we could have ever confirmed that it was a bin Laden kill. Taking out OBL was a huge victory against AQ. Claiming that you *think* you got him ... not so much.
 
Back
Top Bottom