Mitt Romney’s “Osama momma” moment

Then he should say so without praising Hezbollah, which uses intimidation and murder every bit as much as it uses free health care, paid for by the mullahs in Iran to further their foreign policy goals of destroying Israel and establishing hegemony in the ME.

Bryan on August 3, 2007 at 12:24 PM

He didn’t praise Hezbollah. I know it’s easy for opponents to spin it that way in our hyper political environment but at no time did he praise Hezbollah. He pointed out that what they did, going into southern Lebanon and providing things that the gov’t wasn’t, endeared them to the local population. It’s a model the Taliban also used in Afghanistan. It’s a model that Hamas used to attract many Palestinians away from Fatah. It works.

In poor and developing countries, people will be attracted to groups that help them and they become easy converts. We can continue ignoring that and allowing our enemies to use a very simple yet powerful recruiting tool or we can adopt a similar model which endears people to us.

Romney has been talking about a new approach to diplomacy, a diplomacy of ideas directed at the population for some time. He is right. We aren’t ultimately going to beat Islamic radicalism through military action. We are going to do it by offering an altenative vision and by winning hearts and minds.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 12:33 PM

FloatingRock on August 3, 2007 at 12:26 PM

This is the kind of crap that turns so many people off politics. He in no way was talking about appeasement, nor was he praising Hezbollah, nor was he advocating anything other than what he said. What virtually every other sentient being on the planet knows to be true.

You don’t defeat an ideology with bullets alone. You win it by defeating the ideology with a better ideology. The west provided billions in aid to the PLO for decades. But the corrupt leaders funneled off the money for themselves and then blamed the west and Israel for their plight. This allowed Hamas to step in and provide the basics at a grass roots level, jobs, schools, healthcare, and now they run the place.

It’s the same thing Hezbollah is trying to do in Lebanon. It’s the same thing the Taliban and al Qaeda are attempting to do in Pakistan through their base in the NWT. These groups all have one thing in common, support at the grass roots level which provides them an enormous power base.

I don’t give a crap if Patty Murray took a hit for saying something similar. It happens to be true. Hungry, out of work poor people don’t care about democracy, they care about eating and providing for their families. One of the biggest blunders we made in Iraq was not providing jobs or a way for many Iraqis to provide for their families after the war. This allowed terror groups of all stripes to win converts by paying them or giving them food.

Of course Hezbollah is a murdering, barbaric group. But they can also project a more moderate and helpful side. They didn’t attract the following they did in Lebanon by just preaching Allah. They did it by providing peoples basic needs as well.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 12:52 PM

Read what he said here, That kind of diplomacy? Good Grief!

conservnut on August 3, 2007 at 12:36 PM

I did read what he said. I also know what he meant. I also know what the Marshall Plan accomplished in post-war Europe. I know what our rebuilding efforts did in Japan.

We can play the sound bite gotcha game forever but its not very helpful. Yes, it would be an excellent idea if our foreign policy approach took a more active role at the grass roots level. That’s where you win the support of the people.

Here’s the deal, we can continue with the status quo, Islamic groups spreading their ideology by attracting supporters by providing jobs, money, food, etc. and then implementing their political goals with a huge base and then we can put sanctions on that country or go to war with them, or we can try a different approach. WE can be the change agent providing all those basic human needs (didn’t any of you read Maslow and Herzberg?) and then offer our vision.

I’d say we tried the first way long enough and we know it doesn’t work. Maybe trying a method our enemies have proven works might not be such a terrible idea.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Because they are Islamic and percieved to be in a struggle with the west, thats why.

saiga on August 3, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Buzzzz….. Thanks for playing.

Hezbollah had a whole social network that they really started during the war and was mostly financed by Iran. They were building clinics, hospitals and schools. They had a construction company called Jihad Construction that rebuilt houses damaged by Israeli attacks or had been damaged by bombing by the Lebanese. Many Shia were not looking at what Hezbollah’s ideology was. They were looking at what they were delivering.

Oh, so what Romney said was correct. Interesting.

Oh look, Hamas did the exact same thing in the Palestinian Territories.

Hamas has long run its own medical clinics, schools and soup kitchens for the poor—mostly in the Gaza Strip, its stronghold. In last year’s local elections, Palestinian voters gravitated toward Hamas because of its reputation for having “members with a clean record,” as Mayor Hamayel puts it, in a reference to Fatah’s many corruption-tainted officials. Residents of towns where Hamas won control say they are now better run than they were under Fatah.

“Fatah has not achieved anything for me,” says Haytham Hammad, 22, a corporal in the Palestinian security forces, over a cup of coffee and a cigarette in an al-Bireh cafe. “Hamas is capable of taking back the rights of the Palestinian people—daily rights like a good job, clean water.”

Huh, would you look at that. Local people are interested in a political party that will provide the basics for them like a job, food, health care, and this can lead to a sea change. Who woulda thunk it?

I have no problem with sending foreign aid to any country that needs it – as long as it’s delivered by the US Marine Corps.

logis on August 3, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Yea, except it costs more, takes more lives and is less productive. The idea is to avoid war when possible and only use it as a last resort. Anyone who doesn’t operate from that view ought never to be running a country.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 2:06 PM

It’s called “terrorism,” Einstein.

Trust me, Hezbollah isn’t really quite as universally loved and admired as the liberals (and no

w, apparently, Mitt Romney) would have you believe. That’s not their goal.

So that’s your theory, huh? You aren’t going to let facts or the combined observations of virtually every middle east expert that says that Hezbollah was active first in providing social services to the Lebanese Shia and that was the dominant method for winning their support get in your way, are you?

I think I won’t trust you if its all the same.

He just should have said it without bringing Hezbollah into the picture.

JadeNYU on August 3, 2007 at 2:04 PM

I agree with most of what you said but not this part. Far too many people are under the mistaken impression that all Muslims are terrorists. It’s the job of the President to lead with the truth. People need to be educated as to how some of these terror groups came to power so we can best know how to beat them.

Romney is fully capable of explaining it to people and as you said, if people listen to the video that will see that is exactly what he was doing. Hezbollah used a smart strategy to win support, that doesn’t mean he was advocating on behalf of Hezbollah and only a complete distortion of the truth gets you there.

JackStraw on August 3, 2007 at 2:25 PM