Osama's Capture Wouldn't Make Us Much Safer?
So says Mitt Romney
[Romney] 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 agree with York's take on this; it is absolutely worth spending billions of dollars to get Osama. Note as well that if we either capture or kill Osama, the odds are very high that we will be doing the same to a bunch of other Al Qaeda higher-ups.
And Osama isn't just 9-11, although that is obviously his worst exploit. He's also responsible for the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and just recently admitted
to being behind an attempt on the life of Vice President Cheney.
Update: Romney feels this way despite saying this just yesterday
"The September 11th Commission reported that al-Qaeda had been trying to acquire or build nuclear weapons for well over a decade. Former CIA Director George Tenet said that Osama bin Laden sees the acquisition of WMD as a 'religious obligation.' Jihadist clerics have issued fatwas authorizing the use of nuclear weapons to... 'defeat the infidels.'
Labels: Mitt Romney, Osama Bin Laden