The Workday Liberal

Every day I read stuff on the internets tubeage, (it's not a dumptruck... it's a series of tubes you know) which cause me to reconsider what I'm reading from an instinctual disbelief. More often than not this natural bull pucky radar functions smoothly and the instinct is proven correct. But I saw a story today that made me think to myself "there is just no way this can be true"... and then the story was confirmed. The surprising part for me was that Mitt Romney appears to espouse a position that once caused George Bush no little embarrassment, and which would be positively scandalous if any Democrat were to say it.


People who follow the news and have managed to not swallow too much of the administrations koolaid know that President Bush has said some stuff that really makes no sense what so ever. Some stuff he says even HE can't believe. For instance: Here is Bush, just 6 months after 9/11, on the importance of catching Osama Bin Laden:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

Odd how earlier in that press conference Bush had expressed his "deep concern" about Iraq, but Osama? Not so much. But thats besides the point. The notion that Bush was not concerned about Osama was so flabbergasting that even Bush could not believe he had said it when John Kerry mentioned it in a debate during the 2004 campaign.

Kerry: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?"

He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Well the story that made me shake my head in disbelief today is buried in an A.P. article surrounding an interview with Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for President. Romney is going for the red meat Republican crowd by channeling Bush on Osama, because Romney apparently is not very worried about Osama either:

In the interview, Romney also:

_Said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.

I'm calling foul on this sentiment. It is worth moving heaven and earth to catch the criminal responsible for the deaths of thousands of American civilians.

How much money did and are we spending to botch the execution of Saddam Hussein. How much turmoil has been caused for that little feather in Bush's cap? Saddam was not responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. Romney is on board the Iraq war hook line and sinker which is best demonstrated by the fact that he supports the surge. Of course running for the Republican nomination means having to hold that view, and this may just be another case of Romney discovering a right wing viewpoint in primary season.

Be that as it may, the fact is that Romney's current views on the Iraq disaster hardly bode well for his determination to support a broad strategy to defeat Islamic Jihad. We have played directly into the hands of Osama Bin Laden and those who support him by conducting this war, and pretending otherwise isn't going to make it better. If anything, Romney's viewpoint of Iraq and Osama would lead to a continuation of Bush's policies. That truth alone may help Romney in the Republican primary, but it will spell doom if he makes it through to the general election.