Since the publication of my newest column in The Hill, "Obama-Clinton wins big,"
Adm. William McRaven, Special Ops commander, has offered high praise to
President Obama for his command decision to order the mission that
killed Osama bin Laden. Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonGOP rep: Trump 'not off to a great start' on Benghazi documents Rubio: Former campaign aides targeted by IP address in Russia Obama should testify before Senate Intelligence Committee MORE continues to
be an iconic leader who is the most popular, and one of the most
presidentially qualified, leaders in the nation. I am amused that my
Thursday Hillary column in The Hill was followed by a Friday Hillary
story in Politico. And there is the gaffe-filled fiasco of Mitt Romney's
attempt to exploit the London Olympics, which inspired one British
paper to headline: "Mitt the Twit" (their words, not mine).
The point I made in my column is true, when I wrote that President Obama made the clear, courageous and correct command decision to order the mission that led to bin Laden's death. I hope every voter will pay close attention to Adm. McRaven's high praise of our president and commander in chief.
Now let’s contrast the presidential command qualities of Barack ObamaBarack ObamaAP poll: Nearly 60 percent disapprove of Trump Trump to decide by late May whether to stay in Paris climate pact Axelrod: Russia could become ‘major crisis’ for Trump MORE and the vast leadership skills of Hillary Clinton with the Republican candidate whom the conservative mayor of London called "a guy named Mitt Romney" after he insulted Great Britain.
Think about this: Mitt Romney has been running for president for six years and has long known the Olympics were coming to London. He carefully planned this trip and received the best staff advice that money can buy. And yet:
Romney embarrassed himself almost from the minute he arrived in London. He insulted his hosts. He insulted a great nation and close American ally that joins us in a "special relationship.” He made statements that were thoughtless, clumsy, amateurish and unworthy of anyone who aspires to be commander in chief.
If this is how Romney conducts himself after years of preparation in his perpetual campaign to be president, how will he conduct himself in a crisis?
Romney said the president should not order a mission to kill bin Laden in Pakistan. If Romney were president, this irresponsible statement would mean that bin Laden would be alive today. Unless Mitt did not really mean it, and was just kidding or campaigning. This is not the stuff that commanders in chief are made of.
Romney recently gave a speech where he repeated right-wing clichés that made him sound like a man looking for new wars to fight. This is not what military families and active-duty troops need in a commander in chief in a dangerous world.
In this tale of three people, there is a president who makes command decisions praised by the admiral who leads Special Ops forces and respected by the people of our nation. There is a secretary of State of iconic stature who is brilliantly qualified to be president and commander in chief. And there is Mitt Romney, who insults our ally, said we should not have ordered the mission in Pakistan that killed bin Laden and gives speeches that make him look like an armchair general looking for new wars to fight in dangerous places he knows nothing about.
Mitt Romney is dangerous. He should never have his finger on the nuclear button. He should never be commander in chief. He should have the power of war and peace because there are some things that his money cannot buy and his talking points cannot create.