seems pretty consistent there doesnt it TA?
Its consistent that he did not support going into Pakistan, a nation he considered an ally and sovereign, in order to get Bin Laden (even if acting on credible intelligence).
Perhaps he feels differently now, but not at that time.
I guess the good thing about Mitt Romney is that he has had all positions at one time or another. That either means he is open to new evidence, doesn`t necessarily stick with his dogmatic principles (can be a good thing), or that he is clueless and just says whatever he thinks is necessary at the time.
Which one do you think it is? I can`t tell.