Election 2012

Sununu: Obama Didn’t Kill Bin Laden Quickly Enough

Holy crap. You can't get much more self-satirical than this.

The president is trying to take credit for following the strategy and the tactics put into place by George W. Bush. At some point the president is going to have to explain why he was timid on the first two or three opportunities that we had.

Sununu is arguably Mitt Romney's most visible spokesman on cable news. And he's this crazy.

  • D_C_Wilson

    Sununu couldn’t look more ridiculous these days if he gave his speeches decked out in full Bozo the Clown costume and makeup.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    “The president is trying to take credit for following the strategy and the tactics put into place by George W. Bush.”

    And what, pray tell, was the strategy and tactics George W. Bush put in place that brought about the end of bin Laden, fuckface? Sit around on your duff and not think about him, as he admitted, and bring up his name any time you feel it necessary to scare the public into doing what you want them to do?


    • nathkatun7

      Why in the world do the media allow Sununu to spew rubbish without challenging him? The greatest threat to American democracy is the failure of the U.S. media to do their job. Obviously this has a great deal to with the fact that U.S. media are controlled by corporations.

      • Victor_the_Crab

        Yup. Pretty much your last sentence is the correct answer.

  • bphoon


    Interesting meme here and one I picked up on as soon as the rwnj talking heads started pumping it within days of OBL’s death. That is, a variation of the typical GOP double standard where they get to make up the rules as they go along while everyone else must stay scrupulously consistent, to wit: In the above instance, they insist that Obama’s not responsible for anything regarding national security since GWB built it up and put our war policies in place. All Obama did was “pull the trigger” that was thoughtfully furnished by GWB. On the other hand, when it comes to the economy, Obama shoulders the full responsibility for everything bad that’s happening as if the GWB administrations never existed. He’s been in office over three years, therefore he “owns” the economy (we’ll just conveniently gloss over the fact that after seven and one half years in office the Bushies were still whining that they inherited a recession from Clinton).

    So in GOPworld, on the one hand, if it’s national security, Obama had nothing at all to do with anything positive so the responsibility–and therefore the credit–goes to GWB. On the other hand, Obama’s been in office over three years, so if it’s economic it’s all his fault and GWB shoulders no responsibility at all. Nice, neat, all tied up with a bow.

    However, the rest of us live in the real world. Here, policies put in place intended to have massive influence over the affairs of a nation have effects that last over a period of years; in fact, many of the effects of such policies aren’t even evident for years to come. So, sure, GWB took the national security infrastructure Clinton left him and his administration made changes (for better or worse), some of which better facilitate counterinsurgency and guerilla warfare. On the other hand, Bush’s economic policies culminated in the deepest recession in the US since the Great Depression, an economic calamity we’re still digging ourselves out of. To be fair, a few of the economic policies put in place by Clinton had an effect on this, too, thereby further illustrating my point. On both counts, Obama took what Bush left him and made (or at least tried to make) his own improvements (for better or worse) and is putting his brand on policies that will show their full effects years after he leaves office.

    So, either we live in a continuum that encompasses many years, or even generations, or in a discrete snapshot that covers only one presidency at a time. Either sweeping policies put in place years, even decades, earlier continue to have an effect on our national life or the slate is wiped clean with each change in administration and each one starts afresh (however, that makes it a little hard to account for the fact that Truman had to pick up where FDR left off, for example, and finish WWII). We don’t get to pick and choose which area of national policy either applies to: we can’t claim to live in such a continuum when the discussion centers on national security and in a discrete snapshot when it turns to the economy.

    So, GOP: you can’t have it both ways. Rationalize and fantasize all you like but you ultimately have to live in the real world, too, a reality you’re more and more likely to be rudely awakened to come November 7. Get ready–your house of cards is already teetering.

  • Brutlyhonest

    Seems like a continuation of the “Clinton should have killed UBL when he had the chance” meme. Sure, he could have bombed/tomahawked a wedding party where we were pretty sure UBL was, but the probable collateral damage wasn’t worth it at the time. Continuing to play the coulda/shoulda game, how about we go all the way back to funding the creation of Al Qaeda by the “Greatest President Evah!!!!!”

  • JozefAL

    @RickInSaltLake: Of course, the “pretend to chase Bin Laden for eight years” is overstating the case. Dubya freely admitted after just a couple of years that he didn’t “think about bin Laden too much.” And, of course, there’s the fact that the unit whose primary goal was to find bin Laden was shuttered by Dubya (I want to say in 2006, IMS).

  • RickInSaltLake

    Yeah, a much better plan would have been to ignore all the warning signs before the 9/11 attacks, then pretend to chase Bin Laden for eight years, and then shrug your shoulders and leave office. No apologies needed there.

  • muselet



  • NanaLenore

    Someone should point out to Mr. Sununu that George W. Bush didn’t kill bin Laden AT ALL.

    • Draxiar

      …and that he pretty much ignored all the warnings that Bin Laden was going to strike.

    • Guest