REAL CHEAP SHOT – AT 8:52 A.M. ET: The Obama campaign has done an ad suggesting that Mitt Romney would not have given the order to "get" Osama bin Laden. This is pretty low stuff. From The Hill:
President Obama's campaign is using Bill Clinton to argue Mitt Romney would have launched the raid to capture Osama bin Laden last year.
The argument is being made to coincide with the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's death.
Yeah, that's right. Bill Clinton – the president who had a chance to get bin Laden in the Sudan in the 1990s – indeed, Sudan was willing to turn him over – but balked over some abstract concern that it might not have been "legal." That Bill Clinton.
In extended, previously unreleased footage taken from an interview with former President Bill Clinton for the 17-minute pro-Obama film "The Road We've Traveled," the campaign suggests that the presumptive GOP nominee would not have ordered the mission to kill bin Laden.
“[Obama] took the harder, and the more honorable path,” Clinton said in the interview, describing the behind-the-scenes process that went into the decision to okay the raid. "He had to decide. And that's what you hire the president to do. You hire the president to make the calls when no one else can do it."
"The commander-in-chief gets one chance to make the right decision," reads the text in the video. It goes on to ask: "What path would Mitt Romney have taken?"
The campaign suggests Romney would not have ordered the raid by pointing to a 2007 interview with the Associated Press in which Romney said: "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."
COMMENT: Although Romney's comment was unwise, he was speaking in a different context, and long before we learned where bin Laden was. To suggest he wouldn't have given the "kill" order is deceptive at best, but that's the way the Obamans play the game.
There are signs, by the way, that at least some in the media are getting fed up with the deceptions of the Obama White House. Matthew Continetti in the Washington Free Beacon notes that the administration is claiming that President Obama's blatantly political trips in recent months were really "official" journeys, which they were not. Some journalists have responded on Twitter and elsewhere:
“How much longer do we have to pretend these POTUS events aren’t campaign events?” tweeted MSNBC’s Mike O’Brien. “This is campaigning. Just call it that,” said the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein. They were echoing ABC’s Jake Tapper, who noted last week that the White House “seemed offended” when asked whether “electoral factors” determined Obama’s travel. Seizing an opportunity, the Republican National Committee lodged a formal complaint with the Government Accountability Office, alleging that the White House was using official funds for electioneering.
Will most of the media take up the cry of "dishonesty"? Will the Brooklyn Dodgers win the pennant this year?
April 27, 2012