E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.S. military's strike killing al Qaeda militant Anwar al-Awlaki was appropriate and justified, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Monday in a wide-ranging interview.
Romney forcefully defended the targeted killing of al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda propagandist who was born in the US, in a lengthy interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader.
"It is appropriate. When someone has, is engaged in treasonous behavior and has allied themselves with a force that has declared war on the United States of America and is in that sense an enemy combatant, we have every right to fire on them, as they would fire upon us — and have — fired on us," Romney said.
Other Republicans vying for their party's presidential nomination have been more critical; Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a critic of US foreign policy, suggested Monday that the assassination of al-Awlaki was an impeachable offense for President Obama.
Romney also tiptoed around a controversy stemming from a recent Republican debate, when a few audience members booed a member of the military who admitted being gay in a question to candidates about "Don't ask, don't tell." The moment has become politically charged, and Vice President Biden called the moment "reprehensible."
Romney noted that there had been some audience reaction in the last few debates he did not always agree with, but said that it was not his place to criticize the attendees for their views.
"I haven't made it my practice to scold the audience," Romney said. "I will tell you that the boos and the applause have not always coincided with my own views," he added, without clarifying which specific instances he was referring to.
"I don't know that cheering for executions is something I would agree with," Romney continued, referencing a moment at the NBC/Politico Debate at the Reagan library. "But I don't raise my hand and say don't do that."
Romney also used the interview to trot out attacks on Texas Gov. Rick Perry for his positions on immigration and Social Security. The former Massachusetts governor also managed to identify a new characteristic needed for the republican nominee: the ability to "post up" against Obama in the general election.
Romney renewed his critiques of Perry, his top rival in the race for the nomination, saying in-state college tuition to the children of illegal immigrants in Texas was "a bit like the idea of amnesty." That policy, approved by Perry, created an incentive for for people to come to the US illegally, Romney said, in a departure from his usual "magnet" rhetoric.
While he did not dispute Texas had a right to pass the law — the Union Leader moderators compared the choice to Romney's oft-criticized Massachusetts healthcare reform law as a "state solution" — Romney said he simply did not agree with it.
Romney also weighed in on Perry's recent comments in which the Texas governor suggested the possibility of sending US forces into Mexico to help fight drug trafficking there. While Romney said he would support offering logistical or intelligence help to the Mexican military, as the US had done in Colombia, he was opposed to putting actual US boots on the ground.
On Social Security, Romney used the longer, sit-down interview format to pick apart Perry's past statements comparing Social Security to a Ponzi scheme in a more detail. Romney said a Ponzi scheme is designed to make one person rich. Who, he asked rhetorically, was getting rich off Social Security? Certainly not its current beneficiaries, he said.
As the interview was concluding, Romney, who's not always as likely as other politicians to draw a casual sports analogy, deployed a bit of basketball parlance to explain why he felt Republican voters were being so slow to coalesce around any one candidate to take on the sitting president.
"This is really important this time. More important that usual. We have to have a candidate who can post up with Barack Obama and beat him," Romney said.
And despite his blistering criticism of Obama's handling of the economy and other issues, Romney was able to identify one other area in which which he and the current administration were in agreement, praising education secretary Arne Duncan for standing up to national teachers unions in pushing for school choice and merit pay.
Romney said that when a Democrat stands up to teachers' unions, "we ought to applaud that." He then hastened to add that he does not agree with Duncan on a national curriculum, or on shutting down DC charter schools, among other things.
Leave a Comment:
l
Yes, we know, conservatives are suffering from a split personality. It's mind bending. Don't let them get to you (just kiddin' ya Richard). But not about the Teapublican Sybil thing.
Liberals have questioned the matter of killing an American citizen and due process, because that's what liberals do. I guess an enemy combatant that is a foreigner is fair game, whereas a treasonous citizen is not even though that traitor has confessed to the crime with clear affiliation to terrorists and publications there of, and though in another country where arrest and extradition is unlikely... Democrats got over this faster than Teapublicans about Perry's racist rock.
Lawrence O'Donnell played a clip of Janeane Garofalo being interviewed by Bill O'Really in which Billo is certain that US troops will be welcomed in Iraq with hugs and flowers and WMD will be found, and he asks Janeane if she will apologize if she's wrong about WMD not existing there. Janeane says she would gladly apologize. Where is our apology from YOU Billo, where?
How about getting bin Laden? How about Libya? How about you right-wingers just start listening to progressives and let us take care of these national security issues. You're too confused--Mental really.
Well, if I were on the jury al-Awlaki would never garner my sympathy. For that reason al-Awlaki's attorneys would never accept me to the jury.
The problem is that the Constitution says 'no citizen shall be deprived life.....without due process'. Elsewhere the Constitution says, 'a citizen is guaranteed a jury of his peers'. The Constitution also says, 'the President shall uphold the Constitution'. (It's about 90% of the job description for the President of the United States.)
I believe the right way to handle al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, would have been to bring him to trial, and afford him his Constitutional rights.
For al-Awlaki "due process" was a visit by two drones full of missiles while traveling with friends in a desert.
President Obama gets tough on terrorism and suddenly conservatives are interested in things like due process.
I don't think in this case that conservatives believe that this turd deserved any kind of due process. What conservatives are pointing out is that had a republican president given the green light for the hit they would amass in the street again with signs "hey ho president republican has to go".
You know it's about the shameful hipocracy on the left. Progressives selling out their values and beliefs because Obama is their guy.
I'm a black lib who has been hard on Obama with many things but I have no problem with his handling of Bin Laden, al-Awlaki or any other TERRORIST. They have given up their rights for due process when they waged WAR on us. So call it what you want but justice was served.
Justice must have different meanings then to the progressives. Seems like I remember progressives wanting to try KSM (not a us citizen) in new york.
It doesn't really jive.
Bit of a disconnect Rob? I love watching the righties struggle to attribute to liberals what they claim we think. Which is it? You are mad because of a trial proposed in New York, or you are mad because the President took out an enemy combatant that tried to do harm? Pick one, you sound ridiculous with both.
From what I can see, the thing that "doesn't jive" is how the right winger conservatives appauded and supported W's Patriot Act/wire-tapping, DHS investigations, etc. but then criticize President Obama for actually accomplishing something against the terrorists' organization.
You talked about "hipocrasy" from the left???
Apperars to be reflection to me.
no disconnect here.....I said from the get go that Al Alwaki deserved nothing but a bullet to the head and to be buried in pork grinds. And KSM, the mastermind of 911 and NOT a US citizen had absolutely NO right to a civilian trial in New York or anywhere. Military tribunal and execution should be his fate.
You can try to twist the liberal hipocracy all you want but it's there for all to see.
I have consistently commended Obama (as much as it hurts) for not totally dismantling Bush's policies (keeping gitmo open, surge in afghanistan, maintaining the patriot act, upping use of drones, and last but not least making the good decision on the bin laden raid and now al alwaki)
It's just striking how Bush was treated as war criminal but obama gets praise from so many progressvies. And if you can't see that well I guess we can just leave it there.
Good try Rob, no bronze ring: The failure of the right is ALWAYS that they must dance around their own failed perceptions. You have no idea what libs think, because we are not a monolithic group. Yes. Revolutionary idea, what?
Look - this is really quite simple.
Awlaki was an enemy combatant in a war zone, and was a legitimate target.
If we had a chance to kill Hitler in WW2 with a drone, don't you think we would have done it.
Even if you are an American, if you are fighting against Americans or our allies in a time of war and in a war zone, you are a legitimate target.
"You have no idea what libs think, because we are not a monolithic group. Yes. Revolutionary idea, what?"
I'm here often enough to see what they write Newday. And that is exactly my point. What they write is not what they think. I also said "so many progressives" not all libs.
Nothing appeals to me more than the lack of logic from the right wing. I enjoy so much Rob, how, at all costs, people like you must somehow find a way to be correct in assigning to libs what they want them to think. You don't know what libs think Rob, you know what is convenient to try to make some trite point. I have little interest in if you agree with me or not, because an objective observer will recognize the truth of what I say.
So...quit telling me what I think. You are always wrong because it is something that can't be generalized.
Mittless summed it up with his 'I have no place' statement.
Which is just a summery of all of his statements.
'Statements are I' ~ Mitt
Nothing more - Just less.
Willard would be best served by continuing to stay in the 'Mittless Protection Program'... lol
And the mantle of warmonger–in-chief now passes to Romney.
Romney will not beat Obama by becoming just like him. When it comes to Romney, half of the Republican base will stay home anyway if he gets the nomination. This will not help him.
Whoa Jay, no politician in his right mind would emulate Obama these days! Don't you read the newspapers, watch TV, or have a clue what's going on in America? No offense Jay... but only carrot top will admit to nonsense!
It has just been determined that Roseanne Barr is in fact our very own redwig. Makes me more determined not to join THAT fan club! lmao!
Mitt emulates whatever he thinks his base wants to hear at the moment. He was just on Huckabee supporting the "Personhood" garbage the religious right-wing is trying to use to make abortion illegal. Mitt said yes, with a stammer, but wasn't Mitt pro-choice somewhere along the line? Maybe Mitt was confused thinking corporations are people. Making abortion illegal under any circumstance, even birth control = Christian Sharia Law.
Roseanne is cuter and more clever than redwig, whose world is limited to FR.... poor old gal.
nobama 2012
My oh my, lots of jealousy from the fringe right wing today. Must be so sad to realize how plebeian you are.
Boy, it must be a struggle for poor Mitt to never ever take a position on anything. Glad he took a bold step forward and supported the President on defending the country. The Republican Party is soft on fighting terrorism.
Go Mitt!
Yeah Jack! Tell him to "post up"
ROTFL..
Newday, I am glad he supported the President. These days I am happy for any agreement.
Me too lisa: too infrequent which I think is part of our malaise just now.
Newday, good talking to you. Have a great day.
You too, lisa: headed out the door myself!
"I don't know that cheering for executions is something I would agree with," Romney continued, referencing a moment at the NBC/Politico Debate at the Reagan library. "But I don't raise my hand and say don't do that." -You don't raise you hand!? Am I the only one shaking my head over this statement? It's not little boys arguing over Transformer toys and Romney's not a baby-sitter. He wants to be the LEADER of the US - being a leader means you have to lead and as prez you are the right person to "scold" the idiots cheering for and execution
why would Mitt have a problem with it? The Neo-Con agenda is all about 'Do unto others as they'd do unto you' and 'torture is okay if the cause is justified'.
This is the same philosophy and rhetoric that put us into a depression, and the same philosophy and rhetoric that gives rise to tyrants.
Boo, Mitt. Boo.
Mickey Mouse 2012!!!
"An upset would provide further evidence that Obama is toxic in red states"
Remember the 2010 midterm tsunami?
What further evidence do you need that Obama is electoral poison?
Obama is toxic, everywhere....except in MSNBC and the liberal media, where it will be forever Jan 2009....