A couple of weeks ago, former Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman admitted that the GOP must change it’s tune on immigration if it wants to win elections in Latino-heavy states and districts. “We as a party are going to have to make some changes, how we think about immigration, and how we talk about immigration,” advised Whitman, whose campaign was marked by unprecedented outreach to the Latino community.

It turns out her staffers agree. Hector Barajas, who led Latino outreach for Whitman’s gubernatorial race, and Marty Wilson, a campaign manager for Carly Fiorina’s failed Republican Senate bid, are quoted in the Wall Street Journal today saying that Republicans who don’t incorporate Latino outreach into their campaigns risk “political suicide.” Yet, according to Wilson, the GOP has an even bigger problem: “[Latino] folks don’t like us [Republicans] very much” and that’s largely due to the party’s immigration platform.

Latinos had good reasons not to like the candidates who Barajas and Wilson worked for. Fiorina supported Arizona’s immigration law, SB-1070, and believed that “[i]t isn’t time to have that conversation” on legalizing immigrants through comprehensive immigration reform.

Whitman spent an unprecedented amount of money on Latino outreach. Yet she opted to say one thing in English, and something completely different in Spanish. Ultimately she couldn’t escape the “tough as nails” on immigration persona that served her well during the Republican primary or the undocumented housekeeper who claimed that Whitman hired and exploited her.

Yet, Barajas and Wilson “see an opening.” As Obama faces sharp criticism from some Latino and immigration advocates for ramping up deportations. Barajas has responded by advising the GOP “to train Spanish-speaking representatives to woo Latino voters by talking about Republican ideas for improving the economy through easing regulations and lowering taxes as well as promoting charter schools, areas where GOP views may be likelier to resonate with Latinos.”

Those who are pressuring Obama to use his authority to halt the deportations of undocumented youth and people with children who are U.S. citizens have warned the White House about how the Obama administration’s immigration policies might hurt the President’s prospects in 2012. Yet, others in the Latino community have questioned whether that tactic might ultimately hurt Latinos more than it helps.

The New York Times reported today that some of the information that led U.S. intelligence officials to ultimately determine Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts was obtained from detainees at Guantanamo Bay:

The real breakthrough came when they finally figured out the name and location of Bin Laden’s most trusted courier, whom the Qaeda chief appeared to rely on to maintain contacts with the outside world.

Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Torture apologists on the right immediately extrapolated from this passage in the Times that this information was gleaned from using “enhanced interrogation” techniques (i.e. torture). Former Bush administration speechwriter Marc Theissen wrote that “it turns out the detainees in question were KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libi” (although it’s unclear how he knows this) and noted that both were tortured. Thus:

Before coming to Gitmo, both were held by the CIA as part of the agency’s enhanced interrogation program, and provided the information that led to bin Laden’s death after undergoing interrogation by the CIA. In other words, the crowning achievement of Obama’s presidency came as a direct result of the CIA interrogation program he has denigrated and shut down.

Bush torture program architect John Yoo agreed:

Also, buried in the stories may be yet another sign of the vindication of the Bush administration’s war on terror policies. Anonymous government sources say that the al Qaeda courier who led our intelligence people to bin Laden was a protege of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks who was captured in 2002, subjected to enhanced interrogation methods, and yielded a trove of intelligence on al Qaeda.

Dick Cheney said today that “it wouldn’t be surprising” the intel came from Bush’s torture program. However, there is currently no evidence to suggest that the detainees that provided the information that led to bin Laden were subject to torture. And Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who presumably has some knowledge about what went on at Gitmo, today threw some cold water on this theory:

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

Without any evidence, and without Rumsfeld’s blessing, it seems like conservatives are going to have to work a little bit harder at trying to take credit for bin Laden’s death.

Last night, President Obama announced that the world’s most wanted terrorist had been captured and killed by U.S. special forces. A CIA-led Navy SEALs squadron of just a few dozen men were tapped to perform the mission. One of the soldiers selected to participate in the “counterterrorism group [that is] so specialized that no one can apply to join it” is Rubén Mejía, the son of Mexican immigrants.

Mexico’s El Universal newspaper reports that Mejía’s parents came to the U.S. from Guanajuato, a city in central Mexico. Rubén Mejía was born in the U.S. and enlisted at the Moreno Valley, California military base six years ago. After spending 7 months in Afghanistan, Mejía joined the SEALs and was able to see Osama Bin Laden’s corpse as it was carried out of the building where he was killed yesterday.

Mejía’s father, a machine operator, recalled the moment that soldiers in uniform came to his home in Los Angeles holding a folded flag. “It was one of the biggest scares,” explained Martín Mejía. “When they [the soldiers] saw us [the family] begin to cry they clarified that bringing the flag was an expression of recognition and honor because our son had carried out a great mission for our nation,” stated the SEAL’s father.

For a long time, Latinos were underrepresented in the armed forces. Yet, this started to change dramatically as the Army launched “a vast recruiting campaign targeting Latino youth, placing ads in Spanish-language media, including magazines, radio, and television.” In fact, several military experts have come out in support of the DREAM Act which would legalize undocumented youth who go to college or serve in the military precisely because it would significantly increase the pool of qualified recruits in the Latino population — which comprises the majority of undocumented immigrants and is more likely to enlist and serve in the military than any other group.

There is a flip side to this as well. Casualties among Latino soldiers in Iraq ranked the highest compared to other minority groups in 2007. In fact, Marine Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez — an orphan who made the 2,000-mile journey from Guatemala City to the U.S. at age 14 — was one of the first U.S. servicemen killed in combat in Iraq.

Meanwhile, many also claim that Latinos are being left out of the military’s highest ranks. “In the last 75 years, there have been only three (Latino) officers on active duty with three stars and just one with four. What’s the problem? We’re as capable, competent and educated as any other segment of society,” retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez stated last year. If the hundreds of Latinos who have died serving our country abroad aren’t enough to change that, hopefully Rubén Mejía’s brave and historic actions are.

[up

Announcing the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama explained that shortly after assuming office, he ordered CIA Director Leon Panetta to make it the Agency’s top priority to bring bin Laden to justice. Obama said the effort was the result of “many months” of hard work. But many on the right also want to give credit to President Bush — who regularly said that getting bin Laden wasn’t his priority. House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) said in a statement, “I commend President Obama who has followed the vigilance of President Bush in bringing Bin Laden to justice.”

ThinkProgress asked Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to respond to Cantor’s comment and Frank didn’t mince words:

FRANK: Well first of all, I think, let’s give discredit where it is due. For Eric Cantor to phrase it that way, to say he followed the vigilance of President Bush is a degree of key partisanship that exceeded what I even expected from Cantor. That’s just sad. [...]

If Bush had gotten Osama after Clinton had failed do you think Eric Cantor would’ve given Clinton credit and said, “Oh good Bush got Osama bin Laden, he showed the same vigilance as Bill Clinton”? No. Not even close.

“There’s been a striking absence of Republicans willing to repudiate” right-wing attacks on Obama for allegedly not being “interested in protecting America,” Frank noted, adding:

FRANK: Maybe we’ve got two outrageous lies refuted within a space of a week. First, we had the birth nonsense and now the nonsense that the President is not committed to fully defending American security.

Watch it:

Last week, right wing war hawks brought out the mockery brigade after the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza — in a lengthy piece about Obama’s foreign policy — quoted an anonymous Obama adviser describing the President’s action in Libya as “leading from behind.” “It’s just too easy to poke fun at the concept of ‘Leading from Behind,’” Michael Rubin said. John Podhoretz predicted that the term will damage Obama’s “chances for reelection” because it will be “thrown in his face.”

One interesting point about this whole saga is that former South African president and anti-Apartheid leader Nelson Mandela has advocated for this kind of leadership style. When ThinkProgress asked via Twitter AEI’s Danielle Pletka — who also mocked Obama’s “leading from behind” idea — what she thought of Mandela also espousing this concept, she didn’t have an answer: “Sorry really swamped,” was all she could muster.

Apparently, word about Mandela’s views on this leadership philosophy didn’t spread far in right-wing circles because both Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol subsequently joined the mock parade:

KRAUTHAMMER: Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron. Yet a sympathetic journalist, channeling an Obama adviser, elevates it to a doctrine. The president is no doubt flattered. The rest of us are merely stunned.

KRISTOL: Thank you for so boldly and visibly injecting into our politics the phrase “leading from behind.” Thank you for associating it with your boss. Thanks for confirming that our current president believes his task is to accommodate American decline. Thanks for reminding us how high a priority he places on appeasing those who revile us.

Aside from the fact that, as Lizza noted, Obama’s leading from behind strategy on Libya actually worked, Libya does not represent Obama’s entire foreign policy strategy. This is how Mandela once described leading from behind:

“It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.”

Enter news today that the President ordered a unilateral action to take out Osama bin Laden in a compound in Pakistan. Obama reportedly signed off on this raid without the knowledge or consent of NATO or the Pakistanis. Obama took “the front line when there is danger” in the case of killing bin Laden, and in Libya, he allowed NATO and other allies to take the lead — a perfect illustration of what Mandela was talking about. Nevertheless, right-wing war hawks will most likely continue to sneer at “leading from behind” despite its successes for the United States, and despite the fact that one of history’s greatest leaders also at times preferred to lead from behind.

Announcing the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama explained that shortly after assuming office, he ordered CIA Director Leon Panetta to make it the Agency’s top priority to bring bin Laden to justice. Obama said the effort was the result of “many months” of hard work. But many on the right also want to give credit to President Bush — who regularly said that getting bin Laden wasn’t his priority. House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) said in a statement, “I commend President Obama who has followed the vigilance of President Bush in bringing Bin Laden to justice.”

ThinkProgress asked Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to respond to Cantor’s comment and Frank didn’t mince words:

FRANK: Well first of all, I think, let’s give discredit where it is due. For Eric Cantor to phrase it that way, to say he followed the vigilance of President Bush is a degree of key partisanship that exceeded what I even expected from Cantor. That’s just sad. [...]

If Bush had gotten Osama after Clinton had failed do you think Eric Cantor would’ve given Clinton credit and said, “Oh good Bush got Osama bin Laden, he showed the same vigilance as Bill Clinton”? No. Not even close.

“There’s been a striking absence of Republicans willing to repudiate” right-wing attacks on Obama for allegedly not being “interested in protecting America,” Frank noted, adding:

FRANK: Maybe we’ve got two outrageous lies refuted within a space of a week. First, we had the birth nonsense and now the nonsense that the President is not committed to fully defending American security.

Watch it:

 

In an interview with ThinkProgress today, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told us that the well-executed killing of the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, “absolutely” bolsters the case for beginning a significant withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

Explaining his decision to vote for the Afghanistan war in 2001, Frank said, “We went there to get Osama bin Laden. And we have now gotten Osama bin Laden. … So yes, I think this does strengthen the case [for withdrawal].”

Frank was appearing at the Center for American Progress Action Fund to discuss the need for sensible defense-spending reductions. The bin Laden killing also argues for “reducing our expenditures where we defend our legitimate interests,” he told us. Frank continued:

Look, part of the argument against this reduction is that it was reputational, for staying in Afghanistan. ‘We can’t look like America was driven out.’ ‘We can’t go away with our tail between our legs.’ All of those metaphors. Well, we just killed Osama bin Laden, and I think that takes a lot of the pressure away — a lot of the punch away from the argument that ‘oh, it will look like we walked away.’”

Watch it:

Obama is “entitled to call President Bush and ask if he can borrow the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner because he was able to do it,” Frank added.

[/up

Just days before President Obama was inaugurated, Fox News host Sean Hannity launched into the president-elect for supposedly “putting our national security at risk” by “flip-flop[ing]” on his pledge to go after Osama bin Laden. Accusing Obama of abandoning President Bush’s efforts in hunting down the Al Qaeda leader, Hannity exclaimed, “Mr. Obama’s change of heart is jaw dropping,” saying Obama was “softening his stance” on hunting down the terrorist. Watch it:

Needless to say, Obama did not relent in going after Bin Laden, and may have even doubled down on his predecessor’s effort. In 2006, conservative Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes told Hannity’s Fox News that in a recent meeting with Bush, the president had told him “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said Bush told him that capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”

And just six months after 9/11, Bush suggested in a press conference that Bin Laden was not a top priority for his administration. Asked whether Bush thought capturing Bin Laden was important, Bush scolded those who cared about Bin Laden for not “understand[ing] the scope of the mission” because Bin Laden was just “one person,” whom Bush said, “I really just don’t spend that much time on“:

Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

Watch it:

Towards the end of his presidency, Bush seemed to acknowledge that he would never get Bin Laden, saying, “He’ll be gotten by a president,” without specifying which one.

Now, Obama has fulfilled his campaign promise to capture the terrorist leader, so did Fox News give credit where is due? This morning, Fox and Friends approvingly played a clip of Bush from shortly after 9/11, saying, “President George W. Bush promised to the nation that Osama bin Laden would be caught any way possible.” “We did finally get him,” host Brian Kilmeade said after the clip.

In what is likely to become a chorus on the right, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s president wrote this morning that “Bin Laden’s elimination vindicates U.S. strategy in the region, started under President George W. Bush.”