Surely it's not just bin Laden, but also drones. Sitting in a comfy office at home and blowing away entire groups of people on the other side of the world, sometimes evidently including women and children, would probably incense us if we were on the receiving end of the violence, and rightly so.
Not that anyone seems to have a better way to deal with terrorists who are actively threatening various Western countries, including Germany, at the moment, probably including Mark (de), unless he would volunteer to go fight them himself. The question of what constitutes the lesser evil is valid, but it isn't something we can or should try to solve here.
Back to the topic:
I agree with the other English speakers that I haven't noticed any problems at all with Romney's English. Not that I try to listen to him a lot, but he actually seems pretty well-spoken, especially compared to Bush with nucular and so on, and Obama who makes various sloppy mistakes, like using a instead of an, which someone has said is a Chicago thing. Romney has even been said to speak some French, hasn't he? Though the American media typically grossly exaggerate all public figures' foreign-language ability, since so few have any at all.
I also thought Romney took too much flak for the binders full of women; it was clear what he meant, and it seemed like a reasonable example, though (as Obama could have countered but didn't) practicing affirmative action on a limited individual white-collar basis, out of a kind of patriarchal generosity, isn't really comparable to supporting laws that ensure equal pay and equal rights for everyone. But in general, I thought there was far too much emphasis on style overall in the debates, and not enough on issues and arguments.
It's true that Bush may have cranked up his Texas accent a notch for campaign purposes, but he did actually live and grow up in Texas, unlike his parents' generation. And his accent doesn't sound fake to me, unlike Obama when he starts turning -ing into -in' to sound more like an ordinary guy.
Bush did seem to have the greatest problem of any recent president with simply understanding the meaning of bigger words and using them correctly, which gave me the impression he might not be as smart, or at least not as well-read. That's not actually incompatible with a degree from Yale when the person is a rich legacy (= child of a family of alums). But it's also true that people can lack natural linguistic intelligence but have other practical kinds of intelligence. We all know people who just aren't good at languages, their own or foreign ones, but that doesn't mean they're not good at other things.
I do feel better about Obama that he seems to have actually read a good bit of serious history and philosophy in the course of his life, whereas I'm not at all sure Romney has. (Not to mention Ryan, who only seems to have read Ayn Rand.) It may not have influenced his language much, at least in public, but I think it's clear that it has influenced his logic and his thinking about what's fair and compassionate. To me things like that are more important in the long run than how anyone speaks.