Posted on 08/03/2007 5:47:52 AM PDT by Reaganesque
PELHAM, N.H. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is criticizing 1 of President Bush's chief domestic security accomplishments.
At a campaign appearance in New Hampshire, Romney said the Department of Homeland Security is inefficient and requires major restructuring. He says the department does some things well, but is hampered by the fact that it's made up of different agencies that he says are "stuck in one big bureaucracy."
Romney says there's a lot of duplication of effort in Washington and he would like to "take the place apart" and put it back together -- smaller, simpler and smarter.
Another challenge, according to Romney, is that the department has to answer to both the White House and Congress, which has oversight. That, he says, creates an ineffective system.
If he were president, Romney says he would shift department dollars from an emphasis on first responders to prevention through intelligence.
I did not say his remarks were threatening, though they are alarming as indication of Romney's intelligence and judgment.
It is my sense that the man panders as effortlessly as he breathes; here he was complimenting known terrorists, a group either responsible for, or for whose interests was perpetrated, the murders of over 200 US Marines.
Since Romney himself is backpedaling furiously from his own remarks, I don't think his supporters need to remain spinning. But suit yourself. The more I hear the more offensive it sounds.
Heaven knows we need that.
FALSE You mean Duncan Hunter is the only candidate offering specific solutions.
Remember Mitt only offers ideas, bigger government ideas, like his Romney Care.
More RomBS
Right. Learning from your enemies in wartime is verbotten.
Good thing our naval aviators in the Pacific didn't think that way during WW2.
Of course, while talking off of the cuff, during these impromptu townhall meetings, it's not surprising that he may not always get to finish the entire explanation before imperfect or incomplete thoughts are used against him. What a surprise!
But nobody in their right mind would think he condones the ends justifying the means used in this case. And, in his quickly released correction, he said that.
Yet, the means they have used to gain control in certain areas is worth observation, since it may not hurt our forces of peace, democracy and freedom to put on an alternate charm offensive.
One of the basic tools in this war on the Islamic jihadists is one of ideas. We struggle to dispel ingrained, destructive falsehoods about our culture and policies. It makes sense to support voices advocating moderation, tolerance and civility in the Islamic world.
It goes right along with something Condi Rice said recently:
"The victory of freedom in the Cold War was won only when the West remembered that values and security cannot be separated," Rice said. "The values of freedom and democracy as much, if not more, than economic power and military might have won the Cold War."
That thinking tracks recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, which besides calling for reorganization of U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism urged a diplomatic offensive: "If the United States does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us."
If the USA does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us. The completion of Romney's thought.
This issue plays to another of Mitt’s strengths. Good strategy!
The first half would yield the greater benefit. Much of what is done Washington should not be done in Washington, and most that should not be done by government anywhere.
If he were president, Romney says he would shift department dollars from an emphasis on first responders to prevention through intelligence.
But the emphasis on response allows the Congress to play Red Cross, and spend billions of dollars of our money (a la Katrina) to buy themselves votes.
IMO most of the first responder role should remain with the states. Does not the National Guard (which is under the state) have the capability to do the big things that local government cannot? In the rare events (again Katrina) where the event overwhelms state resources (either because it is so large or, as in Louisiana during Katrina, the chief executive of the state is not up to the challenge), the National Guard can be federalized with Guard units from other states or regular military filling the breach.
While I wish Mitt were more conservative, I do not question his competence as an executive.
~”Romney must want a few heads offed.”~
That must be it.
~”I don’t see how you can maintain that his comment was at all excusable, particularly from a candidate for POTUS in wartime. Finding something admirable about one’s enemy (not that I even agree what they are doing is admirable, because I do not), does not justify the remarks he made. Nor does objective correctness, i.e., that they actually do what he said.”~
Was it a gaffe? Sure. I’m sure it won’t be Romney’s last.
But it’s a strategic fact that you examine your enemy and understand his strengths. Then you move to undermine and counteract those strengths. That’s how wars are run.
What I read from Romney’s statement is that he’s a strategic thinker that said something the wrong way. And, boy, are there a lot of people that love to pounce on that!
He did NOT compliment Hezbollah. He stated that their strength is derived from a specific source, and he proposed a method to undermine that strength. You’re choosing to read more into the statement than is there.
So much for the complaints about Romney being too “smooth.”
Spin it however you will. Praising your enemies and holding them up as an example is just...plain...stupid. Particularly from a candidate for POTUS.
Romney bump!
I gather that means you think we should be opening up health clinics in the Middle East, on your tax dollars and mine, so they’ll like us.
IMO, J...P...S. :)
Here's what Romney has in mind, and I think it is a good idea:
As one of my first acts as President, I would call for a Summit of Nations. In addition to the United States, the convening countries would include moderate Islamic states and other leading developed nations...
I would envision that the Summit would lead to the creation of a Partnership for Prosperity and Progress. This Partnership would assemble the resources of all developed nations to work to assure that threatened Islamic states had public schools, not Wahhabi madrassas, micro credit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic healthcare, and competitive economic policies. The resources would be drawn from public and private institutions, and from volunteers and NGOs. And policies would favor expansion of free trade and investment.
Taken from his speech here:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Remarks_George_Bush_Library_Center
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.