Posted on 04/30/2007 10:23:38 AM PDT by Eagle Forgotten
A story in the Associated Press characterizes Mitt Romney's statements in a recent interview this way:
[Romney] said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.
I haven't seen the full text of the interview, so perhaps there is some missing context. But if the quote is correct, just speaking as one taxpayer, I would say a) we have already spent billions and gone to a lot of effort to try to get bin Laden, and b) it would be worth still more money and still more effort to kill the man behind 9/11. I can't imagine any serious Republican candidate for president would say otherwise. Perhaps Romney should watch the tape of the planes hitting the towers again.
Mitt and Osama (excerpt)
Our own Matt Lewis, showing the innate industriousness that sets Townhall contributors apart, contacted the Romney campaign and got the full text of the interview. Surprise, surprise- turns out the AP did miss some context. The exchange between Romney and reporter Liz Sidoti went as follows:LIZ SIDOTI: "Why haven't we caught bin Laden in your opinion?"There are two stories here. The first is the medias mischaracterization of Romneys remarks, a mischaracterization that was eagerly and not inappropriately seized upon by John McCain who lamented Romneys naïveté. But you know what? The media engaging in such shenanigans, be they the byproduct of a willful distortion or just garden-variety incompetence, is a boring dog-bites-man story. Perhaps Ive been a pundit too long, but I just cant work up an appropriate amount of outrage over this.GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I think, I wouldn't want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He's one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He's by no means the only leader. It's a very diverse group Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that."
SIDOTI: "But would the world be safer if bin laden were caught?"
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Yes, but by a small percentage increase a very insignificant increase in safety by virtue of replacing bin Laden with someone else. Zarqawi we celebrated the killing of Zarqawi, but he was quickly replaced. Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin laden or a few of his associates."
SIDOTI: "Do you fault the administration for not catching him though? I mean, they've had quite a few years going after him."
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "There are many things that have not been done perfectly in any conduct of war. In the Second World War, we paratroopered in our troops further than they were supposed to be from the beaches. We landed in places on the beaches that weren't anticipated. Do I fault Eisenhower? No, he won. And I'm nowhere near as consumed with bin Laden as I am concerned about global Jihadist efforts."
THE REAL STORY IS THE DIFFERING VIEWS OF DEFENSE AND THE WAR that McCain and Romney offer. Although the AP did mischaracterize Romneys remarks, its still fairly clear that he puts less of an emphasis on catching bin Laden than McCain does. And thats good.
McCains view is part 9/12 and part 9/10. The 9/12 part of it, to a point anyway, is okay. Like Byron York, hes angry about what happened on 9/11. We all are. And hes responding to that anger viscerally, suggesting that no resource be spared in tracking down this one man. Unfortunately, we live in a world of scarce resources. If we spare no resource to track down bin Laden, we by definition forego other perhaps more strategically relevant tasks. On 9/12, we were all furious, and we all responded viscerally. My complaint with this ongoing visceral reaction is that the time to react cerebrally has long since arrived.
And then theres the 9/10 part. Before 9/11 and the Bush administrations sea-change in policies, terrorism was considered a law enforcement issue. The emphasis on capturing one man specifically to punish him for 9/11, as Yorks post implies, is redolent of that misguided philosophy even though its well intended.
THE AMAZING THING ABOUT THE APS WRITE-UP of its interview with Romney is how it so thoroughly buried the lede. The most interesting thing Romney said was, Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is it involves millions of people. This flies in the face of the wishful conventional wisdom that were just dealing with a few outliers who intend us harm. Once again, Romney is proving himself to be smarter than the average bear.
Romney is also dealing with the fact that were in a global struggle. While viscerally it would be satisfying to make bin Laden our top priority, strategically such a course would be ludicrous. Doing so would make as much sense as if Pearl Harbor caused us to declare the capture of Yamamoto and Tojo our top priorities while neglecting to consider the fact that we were suddenly at war with hundreds of millions of people.
Romney gets the scope of the problem, and deals with it maturely and thoughtfully. His tack may not be as satisfying as making a Wanted: Dead or Alive poster, but hopefully it will be more effective.
“There are many things that have not been done perfectly in any conduct of war. In the Second World War, we paratroopered in our troops further than they were supposed to be from the beaches. We landed in places on the beaches that weren’t anticipated. Do I fault Eisenhower? No, he won. And I’m nowhere near as consumed with bin Laden as I am concerned about global Jihadist efforts.”
Actually a great comment.
AP is a bunch of manipulative lying vipers.
Of course, Romney believes it would be a major gain as well. We all know, however, that it would be more of a symbolic gain than anything else. But it would still be a gain nonetheless -- for all of the reasons DevSix mentioned plus some.
Romney could have supported comprehensive anti-terrorist policies without seeming to downplay the hunt for bin Laden.
He supports THE MOST comprehensive anti-terrorist policies (see Unmarked Package's home page) and puts the hunt for bin Laden in proper perspective IMO. Only those who take his comments out of context, or those with ulterior motives, would think otherwise.
Don’t forget — Mitt on with Jay Leno tonight!
With that said, make no mistake Killing UBL is of vital importance...and yes, the world will be safer the day that man dies....
His death / capture will be a huge symbolic victory....that in turn will have very real ramifications regarding the day to day abilities of our enemies.....along with re energizing the American publics will.....
Agreed.
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.