The two remaining Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, share this problem: Neither one believes in taking personal responsibility for his actions. Romney had attacked the very notion of the United States focusing so much effort on finding and killing Osama bin Laden. Romney also attacked President Obama's vow to kill bin Laden in Pakistan (a vow Obama fulfilled). Paul has moved so far to the isolationist viewpoint that he would significantly dismantle America's military and counterterrorist capabilities. If either of them were president today, Osama bin Laden would probably be alive and planning attacks against us.

Of course, Romney would claim he never really meant those unwise statements he made. (And of course, that would be the latest version of Romney, following another shake of the Etch a Sketch.) Maybe he did mean them, maybe he didn’t. Who knows, with Romney? The man stands for nothing. What he believes on Monday is not always what he believes on Tuesday. But Romney is over 21 years old. I am going to hold him to his statements. Romney's election in 2008 might well have been the best thing that could have happened to bin Laden.

As for Paul he, too, has trouble taking responsibility for his actions and statements. But there is no doubt that he has moved far beyond opposing unwise wars and would virtually destroy America's military deterrent capability around the world. If Paul were elected president in 2008, it would have been great news for bin Laden.

As for Romney's cheap shot of Jimmy Carter, desperate men resort to desperate measures, but:

I assume that Mitt Romney would have opposed, and opposes today, the Camp David peace accords, right?

Osama is dead and Obama deserves great credit for giving the order to kill him.

Obama might have shown a little more modesty regarding the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's demise, but there is no doubt that Osama bin Laden would have been much better off if Mitt Romney or Ron Paul had been elected president in 2008.