Mitt Romney’s “Osama momma” moment

Getting a back rub from Jessica Alba is different than getting one from Rosie. Having Hezbollah do something for the locals would be different than having the US do it (in their eyes).

saiga on August 3, 2007 at 2:30 PM

True. Everything is a matter of degrees. But again, back to Iraq, have you noticed that we have locals turning in masses to us and away from Sunni or Shia groups? I’m not saying it wouldn’t be hard but it could be done. And we can do more and better than anyone.

In other words, we can be Jessica Alba.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Do you believe that Hezbollah is going to stand idly by while we try to take over their racket? How many aid workers should pay with their lives in this experiment of co-opting Hezbollah’s territory? Unless we are willing to wipe out Hezbollah and the rest of the terrorists first, I don’t see any way that appeasement can work in the region. Our presence would only lead to more violence.

FloatingRock on August 3, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Where exactly did Romney, or I for that matter, advocate not taking out Hezbollah? Did Romney ever talk about providing healthcare to Hezbollah? Do you think everyone in Southern Lebanon is part of Hezbollah? Romney’s answer was to a question about using healthcare aid to not only help people but to spread our values.

This is what politics has become. It’s a stupid game of gotcha. Romney never praised Hezbollah and has in fact a long history of speaking out against them. All he did was use Hezbollah as an example of how a group can use aid and the providing of basic human needs as a way to gain people’s trust and support and to demonstrate that if we don’t do it our enemies will.

It is dumb beyond all measure to think we can defeat jihadism simply with bullets and bombs. We haven’t been able to do it in centuries of trying. The only way to do it permanently is to provide a better idea. The only way our ideas will spread is if people trust us and see us as the good guys. How is this even difficult to understand?

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 3:07 PM

But allow me to fix your Nazi analogy for you.

After WW!, the allies in a supremely stupid move, signed the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty was very punitive towards Germany which probably seemed like a great idea at the time but actually drove Germany into a recession that almost cratered the country. It also gave rise to some fringe groups that used the Versailles Treaty as a club to beat the west with and demonstrate how we were the source of all their problems. The most notable of those groups was the Nazi Party. They stepped in to fill the void just as Hezbollah did in S. Lebanon.

After WWII we smartened up and adopted strategies like the Marshall Plan and guess what, no more problems with Europe. Now wouldn’t it seem wise to not repeat mistakes of the past?

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 4:11 PM

The problem with your analogy, other than monday morning quarterbacking history, is that we went in to Europe and Japan after defeating the ideology that drove the country to war in the first place. Without the Nazis around, the ones left welcomed all relief to rebuild their country.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with my analogy. The Marshall Plan was put in place by General Geroge C Marshall was designed to do exactly what Romney was talking about, filling a void with American aid and influence rather than allowing desperation and inevitable extremism. What Marshall was attempting to do with the Marshall Plan was remove the circumstances that allow extremist ideologies from ever taking root. Guess what? It worked. Here’s his a part of his famous speech at Harvard outling his reasons for the plan:

Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piecemeal basis as various crises develop. Any assistance that this Government may render in the future should provide a cure rather than a mere palliative. Any government that is willing to assist in the task of recovery will find full cooperation, I am sure, on the part of the United States Government. Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties, or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States.

See that? The Chief of Staff of the United States Army, an army that had just laid waste to the Nazis and their allies, clearly understood the value of providing the basics to desperate people to prevent extremism and war. The ultimate war is to defeat your enemies before there is a war. It’s always cheaper, it’s always more productive.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 4:55 PM

So what’s Romney’s plan, Jack? It all sounds wonderful — we can all agree on principal, I’m sure, but how do we do it? Hezbollah and Hamas don’t apply for passports; they cross borders illegally, they build illegally, and if anyone messes with them, they kill. Is that the template we want to follow?

I can’t speak to Romney’s exact plan, it’s pretty much high level, outline sort of stuff right now. He has talked vaguely about dividing the world into regions and setting up integrated teams representing gov’t, civilian and military to address each reason but I don’t know the nuts and bolts. Every region is different and each has different needs and solutions. Some are too far gone and require sanctions and/or war. Some, can still be done peacefully.

But as csdeven has pointed out, we have been using our military in various hot spots for decades to rebuild or provide security for civilian projects. It wouldn’t be a radically new concept, just a continuation and expansion of what we have been doing.

Take Lebanon. When the democracy was getting going, we gave them truck loads of aid. But it went to the central gov’t and they were in charge of distribution. How about with the next Lebanon we say, we aren’t going to give you aid in the form of cash. But we will help you build schools, clinics, water and treatment plants. Let’s sit down and look at your country and figure out where we need to put the projects to serve ALL the population, without leaving some as beggars.

Now, its too late for that strategy in Lebanon. But there are a lot more Lebanon’s springing up around the world. In fact, there’s one just to the right of Lebanon on the map. It’s called Iraq. And if we leave before that place is stable, before we complete the rebuilding, guess who is gonna pop up in our place and determine the direction of the country?

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 5:11 PM

But then I look at Romney’s “explanation” of his statement, and here I have it rather exhaustively illustrated to me that, yes, there really are people in the world who are genuinely stupid enough to buy into the bizarre notion that the Muslims of the world have been sitting around for 1200 years trying to decide who the “good guys” of the world are so they can all happily join the civilized world.

Here’s a tip. There are over 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. We are at war with a very small subset of that 1.2 billion. Lumping them all together as you keep trying to do is as stupid as saying all Nazis are white guys so we are fighting white guys. If that’s too complex for you to get and you think we should just bomb all Muslim countries like Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon, etc. then you should vote for Pat Buchanan. It’s rare to meet someone who has such a high opinion of himself and one who at the same time demonstrate such a lack of honesty and knowledge. I congratulate you.

Once we leave, it will remain the same anti-american feeling. I don’t think the ‘Mitt Romney Memorial Hospital and School’ is going to do the job.

Mallard T. Drake on August 3, 2007 at 5:33 PM

And of course, that’s all he said we should do. His entire foreign policy is based on setting up clinics.

We aren’t leaving the middle east. Not now, not in our lifetimes. In case it’s not obvious, the middle east is sitting on 2/3 of the world’s oil. We can’t allow extremist ideologies to ascend.

So what do all you foreign policy gurus suggest we do? Just bomb everyone and take the oil? Hmm, that sounds, what’s the word, stupid. How about we increase our diplomatic efforts in ways that have shown to be effective. How about if we actually interact with the populations in some of these countries instead of allowing our image to be distorted by corrupt dictators and fundamentalist whack jobs. What if we directly provide the services that extremists are providing and demonstrate who we really are. Gee, what a novel concept.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 5:55 PM

So now you are advocating exactly what Hezzbolah does. They went into Lebanon without the approval or sanction of the Lebanese government to “interact with the population.” Name me one dictator or whack job that would sit idle while America by-passed them to build clinics in their country.

No, and if you had read what I said above you would know that I said just the opposite. We already provide aid to countries all over the Muslim world. Often, this is done with little or no oversight or direction. Lebanon was a prime example. Lebanon was and is friendly with us.

What I am saying is if you want our aid then we get to help determine what it is used for. In that way, you won’t end up with a Lebanon where all our aid gets poured into the north while the south is left to fester, which, incidentally, is how Hezbollah got its toehold in S, Lebanon.

You guys can keep trying to spin this into something its not. This was a simple statement in answer to a simple question about using healthcare aid to improve the image of the US in the world. Romney agreed and took it one step further to say this is how our enemies have gained traction in places like Lebanon. That is an indisputable fact. He said we should adopt those tactics so that people are drawn to us, not to extremist groups.

The only contoversy here is bloggers and the MSM who tried to pretend that Romney doesn’t know who Hezbollah is or worse, we are like Hezbollah. Both of those statements are absurd and speak more about the people trying to use them to slam Romney than they do to the truth of what Romney said.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 6:17 PM

You’re conflating two different things: preventive aid and rebuilding, post-invasion.

Oy. Come on. I’m not conflating anything. Whether a country is in post war mode like Germany after WWII or Lebanon post 1990 (hmm, isn’t that when Hezbollah made an appearance in Lebanon) or is just generally unstable due to poor leadership or dictatorship (Pakistan, Egypt, etc.) there are disaffected people. Many will always gravitate towards groups that help them with basic needs. That has only happened since the beginning of time. That’s all.

I have no problem with staying in Iraq to complete the job,l though it doesn’t look like we’ll get that opportunity, due to the current admin’s failure to make the case of that goal taking years to accomplish.

I agree. Good thing Bush didn’t mention all the clinics and schools we are building in Iraq or else he would be accused of using Hezbollah tactics.

Exactly, but you’re doing the explaining here, Jack; Romney isn’t. I think at this point, most conservatives are really tired of having to take rhetoric and develop it into some sort of meaningful context. We’ve been doing it for eight years with the inarticulate current admin, and we don’t need another president who speaks in emanations and conundrums.

You know what I’m tired of? People being intellectually dishonest. What Romney said doesn’t really need explaining to anyone who listens to that video and has any understanding of the tactics of Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda and other terror groups. People who can’t seem to figure out what Romney said have no problem listening to Fred say “I think ultimately the choice should be up to the woman” and saying he has always been pro-life and then complain about plain speaking. GIve me a break.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 6:37 PM

And what is being pointed out by numerous comments on this thread is that Hezzbolah didn’t gain traction by opening clinics and schools.

And what I not only pointed out but provided, ya know, factual evidence from actual Lebanese who actually live there that providing basic services is EXACTLY what Hezbollah did. Nobody, not me, not Romney, is denying that Hezbollah has a terror arm. But they also have a social services arm that builds houses, builds clinics, provides jobs and food. If you think Hezbollah gained the popular support they have in Lebanon by just threatening people you don’t have the facts on your side. This is the exact same thing Hamas did with the Palestinians.

I’ll even give you another source. I’m a generous guy.

Hezbollah, a group often misunderstood by Westerners, is a militant but also a political group.

Listen up, he’s talking about you.

Hezbollah won the support of Shi’ite Muslims by providing social services, health care and welfare when the Lebanese government failed. Hezbollah runs hospitals, news services and educational facilities for its followers in Lebanon. It is behind a large number of economic and infrastructure projects in the country.

You can find about a thousand other sources that will tell you the exact same thing. Do you know why that is? Because it’s a fact.

Then they hold the area by keeping the locals pacified with “good works.” It is exactly the same as the mob targeting a neighborhood.

Ass backwards. They come in, provide services, win favor and then implement their agenda. Hezbollah has a lot of support as a political party. That is because they have provided for people not because they threatened everyone.

If Mitt, and the rest of his Mutts here, is saying that people welcomed Hezzbolah in because they’d build a clinic and a shool, that is naive thinking, at best.

Mallard T. Drake on August 3, 2007 at 6:28 PM

You should go read a little history on Hezbollah and how they got started in Lebanon. I don’t know how to break this to you, but Mitt is right in his assesment and you are flat wrong.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 6:51 PM

You don’t seem to understand that most of us here understand precisely what Romney was saying. But the fact remains that he shouldn’t have said what he said. He could have made the same point without mentioning Hezbollah and you wouldn’t have had to spend the afternoon doing damage control for your guy.

Damage control? I’m kicking the crap out of you guys. I’m having a ball.

I understand completely. You are focused on political calculation over substance. Romney was absolutely correct. He didn’t lie. We should be more focused on dealing with people before they get sucked into extremism by providing the services they need. If we don’t our enemies will. Or we could just keep on doing what we have been doing for the last couple generations and watch terrorism spread and say gee, how did that happen?

Obama advocated going into a sovereign country without the approval of the gov’t, an ally of ours, and commiting military strikes. How exactly is that like going into a country and providing focused aid to the population?

I understand perfectly that people will play gotcha, just like they have been doing here all day. And no, I don’t think that everyone here understands what Romney was saying because I have read the comments and responded to them. We’ve been playing that game for decades now and look where we are, people sit around here and other places bitching daily that our politicians are morons and don’t have a clue. We have a Congress and a President with a combined approval ratings that doesn’t break 50%.

it’s about time we demand our politicians not only understand the problems we face but present us with real, innovative solutions. You can vote for somebody who speaks in platitudes, I want someone better.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 9:28 PM

You don’t get it. The issue is not the substance of what was said. The issue is the exact wording of what was said.

Yea, I heard you. I just don’t agree.

We all do. So suggest to your candidate that anything that can be misconstrued by the enemy and used to their advantage is not a smart thing to give them.

Who are you talking about?

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 10:40 PM

What enemy.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 10:47 PM

Ah, so you think Hezbollah doesn’t understand the strategy they have been employing for over almost 20 years in Lebanon. Or Hamas hasn’t figured out that the strategy they used to win is the strategy they employed. Hmmm.

Well let’s take a look at that.

While the group’s international reputation is based almost exclusively on its armed actions, in Lebanon Hezbollah is well known and respected for its extensive social welfare and development programs. Hezbollah-affiliated associations have a reputation for honesty that stands out in a place where many of its counterparts are believed to be corrupt and inefficient.

Hezbollah’s focus on social services began in a coordinated fashion with the establishment of Jihad al Binna in 1988. The association was created in response to an explosion that partially demolished three buildings in Beirut’s southern Shi’i suburbs

So Hezbollah started doing this social work almost 20 years ago, I wonder if they had any political aspirations?

“Our support has increased beyond just the Muslim Shi’i community to include all others, including Christians,” says Kummaty, who believes that the political openness and interaction with other groups has led to greater acceptance.

When asked about the possibility of Hezbollah actually joining the government in the future, Kummaty said the answer would depend on the proposed composition of such a government and what its policy would be. The party currently refuses to participate in any government that has a policy of negotiating with Israel.

Well, since this letter was written in 1999 let’s let Hezbollah in on the ending. They now have 14 MP’s and are a significant part of the gov’t. I guess we know how things worked out for Hamas, too.

Some of us have been following this and watching our feckless foreign policy and knowing this is where we would end up. It’s too damn bad somebody didn’t tell our enemies we knew their game decades ago. Maybe we would be in a far better situation than we are today.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 11:09 PM

csdeven on August 3, 2007 at 11:46 PM

I’m done. I don’t think I can stand yet another blistering assault from logis. That devasting commbination of Ron Paul wit and fact free logic has bested me.

All yours.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 11:52 PM