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.
Right. Learning from your enemies in wartime is verbotten.
Good thing our naval aviators in the Pacific didn't think that way during WW2.
~”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.”