Posted on 01/28/2007 12:52:35 PM PST by Obilisk18
Of all the speakers this past week at the Herzliya Conference, Israel’s premier counterterrorism and security gathering, no one dazzled ‘em like presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Other White House wannabes, including John McCain and John Edwards, also made appearances, but they spoke via satellite, whereas Romney was in the flesh. But that alone cannot explain the stark disparity in performance.
As anyone who’s seen Romney knows, he cuts an impressive physical presence, he’s charming and can deliver a hokey line with the best of them. What I had not seen from him before, though, was any real indication that he had more than a passing knowledge of foreign policy or a decent handle on the global struggle in which we are engaged.
After what I witnessed, however, it’s hard not to be a Romney cheerleader.
What was most extraordinary was how clearly Romney articulated the nature of the common enemy Israel and the United States both face. It was, by far, the most remarkable speech on the topic given by an American politician of either party, on television or in person.
One line in particular captures how thoroughly Romney understands our jihadist enemies: “Contrary to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not magically mollify the jihadists.”
Don’t let the clever phrasing hide the serious message. The origins of modern Islamic fundamentalism long precede the creation of the Jewish state of Israel, and Palestinians merely serve as convenient propaganda to rile the masses. And as the world has seen, radical Islamic propaganda can be found just about anywhere: ultimately untrue stories about the flushing of a Qur’an, quoting a medieval scholar, or even cartoons. Romney gets that.
It’s not just that Romney strongly supports Israel—that would hardly distinguish him in American politics—it’s that his support is rooted, at least in part, in a textured comprehension of Islamic fundamentalism. For proof, read the next few paragraphs of Romney’s remarks:
“No, what we should have realized since 9/11 is that what the world regarded as an Israeli-Arab conflict over borders represented something much larger. It was the oldest, most active front of the radical Islamist jihad against the entire West. It therefore was not really about borders. It was about the refusal of many parts of the Muslim world to accept Israel’s right to exist – within any borders.
“This distinction came into vivid focus this summer. The war in Lebanon had little to do with the Palestinians. And it had nothing to do with a two-state solution. It demonstrated that Israel is now facing a jihadist front that from Tehran through Damascus to Southern Lebanon and Gaza.
“As Tony Blair astutely put it, Hizbullah was not fighting ‘for the coming into being of a Palestinian state…but for the going out of being of an Israeli state.’
“Yet we have still not fully absorbed the magnitude of the change. As far as our enemies are concerned, there is just one conflict. And in this single conflict, the goal of destroying Israel is simply a way station toward the real goal of subjugating the entire West.”
On the topic of the most pernicious present threat, Iran, Romney also offered a coherent strategy for nonviolently combating Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. He laid out a 5-point plan that included economic and diplomatic isolation of the regime, prodding Arab states to lock arms with the West, and working with “progressive” Muslims in Iran and elsewhere to “defeat radical Islam.”
Like many, I believed that Romney’s Mormon faith would be an electoral deal-breaker, especially with evangelical Christians who dominate GOP primaries in the South. That still may prove true. But unless his competitors are able to discuss our battle against radical Islam with as much aplomb as Romney displayed in Herzliya, the former Massachusetts governor could easily stake out a leadership position on the single most important issue facing America.
That alone might not result in victory, but it will certainly help Romney make it further than many now believe is possible.
The fact that they have to trash Rudy or Romney shows the lack of confidence they have in their candidates.
Hunter worked his was through college and law school
A Viet Name war Vet and his son 2 tours in Iraq.
I want someone with real world experience
Mitt and his 5 sons have not served in the military and had silver spoon upbringing
And them has good subject-verb agreement, too.
Any time I'm sad or any time I'm blue
I sticks me fingers in my ear and say "Tinga Linga Loo"
Benny Hill or close!
Thank you for the correction.:)
Might vote for their candidate nonetheless, given the sorry lot of chameleons, frauds and other assorted bastards who are the LBM-so-called ''front-runners''.
More conservative than JFK? It's hard to compare eras, but if one places Islamism in place of Communism, yes, Romney is on the right (and Right) side of that conflict. Kennedy wasn't bad on Communism, but he was to the left of Nixon on that issue.
Rumsfeld effusive
In late September, Hunter was the guest of honor at a black-tie dinner in a hall at Washington's Union Station, where the hawkish defense group the Center for Security Policy presented him with its annual "Keeper of the Flame" award.
Among those lauding him at the Center for Security Policy banquet that evening was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said the Pentagon relies on Hunter's "wisdom, his leadership, his experience and his 'get it done' attitude.'
"It is something when he comes into your office like a whirling dervish and starts discussing a subject first at the national level and then down at the microlevel, and then leaves you pieces of metal on your desk that you can hardly lift and has explained exactly where it goes, what it's for, why it should be there and then wants to know why it isn't. And God bless him for it."
Rumsfeld also said the U.S. is more secure because of Hunter.
"He's never let the troops down, and as a result of his leadership and his hard work, our nation is a safer place today," Rumsfeld told the dinner gathering that included Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If you got in now - you stand a chance of having more influence within the party.
Yeah. There's a credential.
A Viet Name war Vet and his son 2 tours in Iraq.
You know. I'm tired of that. Sick and tired of war medals acting as a criticism shield and an automatic badge of ability.
I have as my evidence: Kerry, Cunningham, McCain, Murtha, Webb.
Here's another correction: The Bush family was from Connecticut, not Massachusetts.
Actually, not for another 6 years. They nominated their candidate. I recall that it was Anonymous von Nobody. I think.
LOL Alan - the street preacher - Keyes will be upset :-)
Born June 12, 1924 (age 82)
Milton, Massachusetts, USA
Political party Republican
Spouse Barbara Bush
Religion Episcopal
I, too, prefer Duncan Hunter of all the candidates declared thus far, but just don't see him getting any traction.
Romney certainly has his imperfections. But lack of brains certainly isn't one of them. Neither is infatuation with media approval. My youngest daughter, who turns 18 in April, thinks Dad is too conservative and Mitt is exactly right. I'm willing to give him a look.
The Bush Family soon afterward moved from Milton to Greenwich, Connecticut.
Rudy and Romney both take votes away from McCain. That's a very good thing!
To most of us in San Diego, Military is honnored.
He was the recent Chairman of the Armed Services Comm.
I want someone with military, national and international background in helping form policy not a business guy.
We are at war and living in San Diego where more military are based than any other city, we are more aware of this than most in small town flyover country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.