Romney said he would absolutely NOT have launched any operations into the territory of our "ally" Pakistan.

There is no need to conjecture on it...he said he would not.

Afterwards, of course, he said he would have done it, too...but going 180 on stuff over and over again is pretty much the only thing that Romney does that is consistent.

Since Romney said he wouldn't do it, and Obama clearly would, and did do it, it's a very valid distinction between the two to make during election season.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/08/04/idINIndia-28811520070804

"Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them." "

***************

Now, in typical Romney style, that he doesn't have to have any balls, or convictions, or make any actual decisions...since the operation worked, and got bin Laden, now Romney says he would have done it, too.

Liar...either before, or now...probably both.

An election is a choice between two candidates, a choice between what the two do and say...and Romney said he would not do it, Obama said he would, and did, and got bin Laden.

If that's not viable election material to show the difference between Obama and Romney, then nothing is.

Fish on...

Todd