Elections Blog

Sen. McCain’s argument against the Bush Administration’s use of McCain’s own language as a guideline for protecting terrorists under the Geneva Convention essentially boils down to his not wanting to “change the Geneva Conventions” by the simple act of defining them.

Well, didn’t the Supreme Court do exactly that when they defined a bunch of butchers in the middle of nowhere as POWs protected under the Geneva Conventions? They did this despite near universal acknowledgement that terrorists are not soldiers and are not covered under the Geneva Conventions.

Where was Sen. McCain to stand up against what he now seems to believe is an outrage that sends the message to the world that we won’t adhere to the Geneva Conventions? Does this mean the Supreme Court is allowed to alter the Geneva Conventions, but not the Congress or the president?

Gov. Romney spoke up when the Hamden Decision happened. Now that we’re stuck with the decision, he’s backing the president in doing what we need to in order to provide the guidelines interrogators will need to go forward.

~~~Thomas

[Read more →]

Well, the big story these days is the Bush Administration’s run-in with Sen. McCain (or a fractured GOP as the media seems to be calling them) on setting up tribunals to try terrorists. Sen. McCain again establishes a baffling level of deference (giving them access to classified information, lowering the bar again on what constitutes torture) to their rights that would make interrogation, much less trials, nearly impossible. The main snag seems to be Sen. McCain and friends’ objection to defining what Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions means.

If you’ll remember, the Supreme Court stated in the Hamden Decision that the Geneva Convention applied to terrorists. It was such an extreme decision that before even the most leftist opponent would concede that it didn’t apply to them. Now, we’re stuck with it (despite Justice Kennedy expressing some qualms). When the decision came out Gov. Romney had a near instant reaction to the news:

The court declared 5-3 that the trials for 10 foreign terror suspects violate U.S. law and the Geneva conventions.

“To apply the Geneva accords is very strange in my view,” Romney said during a question-and-answer session with about 150 people attending his speech sponsored by the Georgia Public Policy Foundation at The Commerce Club of Atlanta.

Romney said he hadn’t seen the ruling and didn’t want to be too specific, but he said he knew the votes broke down between liberal and conservative judges.

“It’s hard to understand how a party who’s not a nation comes under the Geneva convention,” he said.

~~~Thomas

[Read more →]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzhiOWIyNmJiMzA3NGU5NTYzZTAxNzdiYTY0N2VkMTg Well, the mainstream media (MSM) . . . this time in the form of the Associated Press . . . is absolutely nuts. They sent this “Khatami Love Letter” across the wire earlier today praising the visit of this “moderate Islamic leader.” The article was titled “Former Iranian president’s tour offers moderate vision of Iran” by MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN. His rosy take on Khatami’s visit is effusive:

Iran’s former President Mohammed Khatami could be found munching seared salmon and Caesar salad last weekend with Harvard professors on the last leg of a five-city U.S. tour.

In speeches, interviews and meetings with foreign policy groups, Khatami offered a moderate take on relations between East and West that focused on nonviolence, discussion and mutual understanding

The other side of the coin can be seen here:
(Hat tip to Bala Ambati . . . one of my mentors during residency and a real life genius/Doogie Howser . . . became an M.D. at age 17. He also blogs some here). This editorial at NRO by a former Iranian (who probably knows a bit more about Iranian life and politics than your average AP writer). IN his editorial “Good Cop, Bad Cop: Don’t be fooled by Khatami” he said:

The U.S. decision to enable former Iranian President Muhammad Khatami to visit Washington to discuss “Civilization and Tolerance” is an unfortunate reflection of the Bush administration’s continuing confusion about Iran.

The Islamic Republic has convinced successive U.S. administrations that there is a dichotomy in Iran between reformers and hardliners and that, if only Washington would engage the former, they might nudge Tehran toward moderation. There is a dichotomy in Iran, but U.S. officials constantly get the sides wrong. The division within Iranian society is not between hardliners and reformers, but rather between regime and the population.

The Islamic Republic is neither democratic nor capable of reform. This fact is inherent in its constitution. Reform can occur only if unelected officials and the Supreme Leader agrees. It is unlikely that he would ever agree to a reduction of his power. So-called moderates may talk about cosmetic changes, but they neither oppose the theocracy nor the export of revolution.

The White House should not be fooled. The visit from Khatami is the latest reflection of the Islamic Republic’s “good cop, bad cop” strategy.The idea is that while President Mahmud Ahmadinejad speaks about “wiping Israel and the United States off of the map”; Washington should seek dialog with more “moderate” former president Khatami. It is meant to buy time. Unfortunately, the State Department has once again taken the bait.

Khatami portrayed himself for eight years as a “reformist.” During this time, he built up the nuclear program that is now threatening global peace. Khatami and his administration are responsible for the murders of opposition leaders and their families, the crushing of the student rebellions, and the disappearance of many journalists.

I encourage you to go and read the whole thing.

So, who’s right, the AP writer or the Iranian editorialist? Is Khatami a real moderate? Or is he a “wolve in sheeps clothing” as Romney said? As I’m getting used to concluding . . . Romney’s right again.

At the University of Virginia Katami slammed Bush:

Just before heading to Washington, Khatami also took a veiled swipe at President Bush in a speech at the University of Virginia. He didn’t name names, but he left little doubt that one of his barbs was aimed at Bush.

“The rationale whereby the world is divided into `us and them,’ the justification of `us’ is contingent upon the negation of the other and results in statements such as `whomever is not with us is against us,’” Khatami said. “This `us’ is a small circle encompassing a few that have the right to arrive at any verdict they please regarding the ones they consider `the other.’ They can force this `other’ to submit to their whims or even eliminate `the other’ altogether.”

Fortunately, the Harvard student newspaper the Harvard Crimson gave us some actual details of Khatami’s words and themes during his 30 minute speech at the Kennedy School of (BIG) Government. The article was titled “Khatami Slams ‘Imperial’ U.S.: To polite audience, controversial cleric defends execution of homosexuals”

In his 30-minute address under heavy security, the Muslim cleric also defended the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement fighting for the “territorial integrity” of Lebanon.

. . .

Khatami did not directly apologize for Iran’s human rights abuses.

. . .

But he condemned America for acquiring “imperialist” and “colonialist” aspirations, saying it must not fall into a sense of “false pride.”

“In all honesty, the West needs spirituality more than ever before in its history,” Khatami said.

Oh, so like maybe we all just need to become jihadists converts? What hypocrisy . . . if only we had the spiritual enlightenment that has made all Islamic nations so peaceful and unagressive. This is a religion founded by one of the most imperialist leaders in history!

Later we hear Khatami answer a question about Islamic (and Iranian) laws calling for execution for those performing acts of homosexuality:

“Homosexuality is a crime in Islam and crimes are punishable,” Khatami said. “And the fact that a crime could be punished by execution is debatable.”

This last statement is the kind of thinking that makes Khatami a “moderate” in the eyes of the liberal MSM . . . that he’s willing to debate whether or not homosexual acts should be punishible by death, or just life in prision or deportation. Sound like a “moderate” stance to you?

Another source covering Khatami’s speech quoted him as saying that . . .

American politicians, since World War II, have been infatuated with “world domination.”

Providing a stark contrast to who these left-wing nut-jobs think the real terrorists are we can thank, again, the Harvard Crimson’s reporting. This is what the folks protesting the presence of Dick Cheney at a GOP fundraiser in Boston on Sept 8th, 2006:

“It’s the equivalent of Hitler coming back to life and coming to Boston,” said Nick Giannone of Quincy, Mass. “This guy’s a straight-up fascist. I also find it pretty appalling that someone would pay $2,500 to sit in a room with a war criminal.”

Suren Moodliar of the Greater Boston Stop the Wars Coalition expressed distaste for Cheney’s ability to raise money: “I am appalled that he can go around raising money now that the party and he, in particular, have demonstrated to be so morally bankrupt.”

. . .

the group of approximately 200 hundred gathered a block down from the crimson and white flowerbeds of the club’s entrance. Protestors screamed, “Shame on you!” and “Murderers!” to those making their way to the fundraiser.

. . .

The crowd waved signs calling Cheney a “demon” and chanted, “Cheney, Cheney’s got to go! Send him to Guantanamo!” Three men dressed in jailhouse stripes and wearing Bush, Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld masks mugged for passerby. A group of self-proclaimed ‘Billionaires for Bush and Cheney,’ dressed to the nines, serenaded the crowd: “All we are saying is give greed a chance!”

Something’s telling me that these protestors were not the same orderly and respectful crowd that protested Khatami’s record/presence at Harvard a couple of days later.

Why does Khatami get respectful consideration while Harvard students in the past have booed conservative speakers and protested President Reagan’s plans to speak at Harvard’s 350th anniversary? Gotta make ya wonder, eh?

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3646 This article from the New Standard has some important news . . . state & local officials can now not only enforce federal immigration laws, but they have access to federal records and screening systems (Oh WHY has it taken FIVE years since 9/11 to get this done?).

New Program Gives Local Police Immigration Enforcement Tools
by Michelle Chen

Sept. 13 – Massachusetts has become the launchpad for a new federal initiative to enmesh community policing and immigration-law enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced last Thursday that it will provide state and local police with unprecedented access to a new federal database. The plan will be tested first in Boston.

The program will integrate two key federal fingerprint databases: the DHS’s growing collection of data on visitors to the US, and the FBI’s fingerprint identification system, which links to the country’s main criminal database, the National Crime Information Center.

Under the merger, according to the DHS, when state or local law-enforcement officials process the fingerprints of someone who is also registered for an immigration violation, federal authorities will be automatically alerted. Local police can assist federal officials by detaining the suspect.

Not surprisingly, the ACLU and immigrant advocacy groups are against this measure (I guess they have something against enforcing laws).

Later the article continues . . .

The DHS acknowledges that the system is still being developed, but says the Boston pilot will serve as a trial-run before the database goes nationwide.

Meanwhile, some states have begun warming to the prospect of taking on immigration enforcement duties. Since 2002, Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division has launched special joint initiatives with agencies in Florida, Arizona, California and other states to apprehend undocumented immigrants on federal and state charges. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney proposed directing state troopers to help root out immigration violators earlier this year.

Generally, collaboration between local and federal authorities on immigration has been limited. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, however, the Department of Justice declared that states had “inherent authority” to apprehend immigrants, even for civil violations.
Romney has been on the forefront of calling for this type of intergration for essentially his whole term as Governor. See his testimony to U.S. House Select Committee on Homeland Security given on June 17, 2003 titled “First Responders: How States, Localities, and the Federal Government Can Strengthen Their Partnership to Make America Safer.” (It’s a long document . . . but has his call for such integration and his actions as Governor up to that point.)

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1907074 I don’t generally quote and entire article . . . but this is a big one from ABC News. See the link here for the original article:

‘Know Thine Enemy,’ Romney Says of ‘Jihadists’
Republican Presidential Hopeful Warns of Religious-Tinged Threat
By TEDDY DAVIS
April 30, 2006 — - Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., has sought to confront the religious element of terrorism.

“They are terrorists, yes, but more directly they are Jihadists,” the White House hopeful told ABC News. “That has broad implications.”

Romney’s determination to avoid referring to America’s enemies solely by the tactics that they use is earning praise from some foreign policy specialists.

“I think it could change the entire center of the conversation,” said Mary Habeck, a professor of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

By identifying America’s enemies as Jihadists, Habeck thinks the United States would be better positioned to wage an ideological campaign to “portray these people as the extremists that they really are” and to “drive a wedge between them and the vast majority of the Islamic world.”

In her new book, “Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror,” Habeck argues that Jihadists are not merely angry about U.S. policies. In Habeck’s view, Jihadists are at war with the United States because they view America as the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate.

She told ABC News that if you refer to them as terrorists, “you have no idea what holds them together as a group or what gets them to join up as a group.”

Romney’s determination to go beyond the “terrorist” label has also met with approval by a Democratic member of the 9/11 Commission.

“The governor is on the right track,” former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., told ABC News. “I continue to believe very strongly that a war against a military tactic is not likely to be very satisfying in the end.”

Kerrey is concerned, however, that the root word jihad has multiple implications.

“I would not use the word jihad because there is a peaceful jihad,” said Kerrey.

The former Navy SEAL, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam, would prefer to see the United States declare war on al Qaeda.

Romney acknowledges that there has been a “big debate” in academic circles about the meaning of jihad, with some people believing that a spiritual jihad was never intended in the world of Islam to be militaristic.

He says, however, that “there is no question” about what jihad means to the Islamic militants fighting the United States. Nor does Romney think there is any question that Osama bin Laden would like the world to see him as a potential caliph.

“The old statement ‘know thine enemy’ is appropriate,” Romney told ABC News.

Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an “armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan.” Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a “far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction” with a “very 8th century view of the world.”

Based on his reading of books such as “American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us,” by Steven Emerson, and “Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America” by Walid Phares, Romney believes the Jihadists want to “retake the ancient Muslim lands and unify umma, or the world of Islam, under a caliphate.”

To support his views, Romney points to a memo that Ayman al-Zawahiri is believed to have written to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on July 9, 2005, in which Al Qaeda’s number two tells Al Qaeda’s top agent in Iraq that their mission must not end with the expulsion of Americans from Iraq.

The letter, Arabic and English versions of which were posted in October to the Web site of the director of national intelligence, lays out a four-part plan that begins with expelling the Americans from Iraq but also includes establishing an Islamic authority over the Sunni areas of Iraq, extending the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, and clashing with Israel since Israel, in Zawahiri’s view, “was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

Romney believes Jihadists are just a “very narrow and very extreme sector” of Islam. But given that there are more than one billion Muslims in the world, he warns that “a small percentage of a very large number is still a large number.”

One outgrowth of Romney’s focus on Jihadism is his support for increased surveillance in the United States.

In a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation last year, Romney posed a series of rhetorical questions about domestic intelligence gathering.

“We have 120 colleges and universities in Massachusetts, roughly,” he said. “How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who come from terror sponsored states? Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them? How about people who are in settings — mosques, for instance — that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror? Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what’s going on? Are we seeing who’s coming in, who’s coming out?”

The comments drew fire from Muslims and advocates of civil liberties in Massachusetts while being praised by some conservatives.

Romney told ABC News that it was not his intent to suggest wiretapping mosques, but he has not backed away from wanting to wiretap extremist individuals.

“I would wiretap individuals wherever they are who are preaching doctrines of hate,” he said.

“It’s important for as many of us as possible to understand the nature of those who are our enemies in this war,” Romney told ABC News. “They are Jihadists — an extreme and tiny slice of the world of Islam. They will be defeated by military might and by the forces of modernity and moderation within the world of Islam.”

ABC News’ Mike Westling contributed to this report

Awesome stuff by our man Romney!

[Read more →]

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060907-082844-1518r.htm This op/ed piece by Diane West in the Washington Times reviews the last 5 years since 9/11 and how we, as a nation, have responded. It is highly critical of many in power.

However, they end with:
This brings us to the one small bright spot to mark off the anniversary week of September 11 — an anniversary blackened by the decision to allow Mohammed Khatami, former president of Iran, the preeminent state sponsor of terrorism, into the United States. Mr. Khatami, who supports Hezbollah and the destruction of Israel, will be speaking on the eve of September 11 at Harvard on — get this — “Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence.” Bring your own air-sickness bag.

But here’s that bright spot: Denouncing the Khatami visit, GOP Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts ordered state agencies to refuse to provide assistance during the Khatami visit — which means no pomp and motorcade for the Iranian stooge. As Mr. Romney put it, “State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel.” How simple, how true.

Five years later, somebody gets it.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=b523d9c9-24fd-496f-9ee0-20f90955dff4 Romney’s radio conversation with Hugh Hewitt is available in transcript form here.

The 9 minute audio segment is available here.

Romney shows his pragmatic philosophy and fiscal discipline and he tough stance on radical jihadists all in one fell swoop

. . . any time a person of interest and substance comes to our state, if they require escort or security personnel, or special receptions at the airport and so forth, we provide those things out of a sense of dignity and honor. But Harvard, of course, has every right to invite who they want to come. I would disagree with their selection of invitee here, but they have a right to invite whoever they want. But they don’t have the right to expect that the state taxpayers, and our police force, are going to provide this individual with an escort and security services. That, in this case, is simply too outrageous for us to bear.

When Hugh asked him about the timing of the event Romney responded . . .

We have a service here on September 11th at the state capitol, and then meet with the families of those who lost loved ones. As you know, aircraft left Boston that were lost on that tragic day, and so we have families who are still grieving, and will always grieve at the loss of their loved ones. And in that setting, to have someone who is a terrorist, who led a nation which was described by our State Department during his tenure as the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, having him in our state at this time is acid in open wounds, and is not something welcome.

The liberal media has been labeling Khatami as a “moderate” . . . simply because the current Iranian president, Ahmadinejead, is the most whacked-out leader imaginable. Anyone would look like a moderate compared to him! Romney points this out nicely:
Yeah, I think his rhetoric is not as outrageous as Ahmadinejead, but it’s fully outrageous, and it’s terrorist in nature. It is the violent jihadist extreme, which we cannot countenance. It’s important for America to reach out to voices of moderation and modernity in the world of Islam, and that is the majority of people in the world of Islam. But this person is not one of them, and welcoming him here, and inviting him to speak at Harvard University is simply wrong.

And further . . .

I think one of the sad things is that we have not developed an understanding of the nature of what’s going on in the world of Islam, and how it threatens people there, and how it threatens people in their own country. And you know, I recently heard Tony Blair speak on the battle that’s going on, the world of Islam. It was really quite effective. I wish it were better heard and understood in our country. We are facing not just a group of al Qaeda lunatics in the hills of Pakistan, but a worldwide effort to cause the collapse of civilization as we know it, and Western societies. And that is a very real threat, and is going to require vigilence on our part, not just military, but Hugh, using Eisenhower’s term, we will have to wage full-out peace to help encourage people to, in the Muslim world, to turn to modernity.

Among the final questions Hewitt asked . . .

HH: Now I heard a speech you gave at the Republican state convention in Los Angeles three weeks ago, and you used the term Islamic-facism, a term the president has used, but for which he has been significantly criticized. Do you stand by that term, Governor?

MR: Oh, absolutely. These are violent jihadists. Facism is probably as close a parallel as we can come up with, and I know a number of people have used that term. I think we’re having to make sure that people understand that this is something far broader than a group of anarchists in hills. It is a concerted, organized effort which is designed to cause the unification of all the nations of Islam, the reconquering of prior Islamic lands, and ultimately, the conquering of the world. And it sounds absurd to us, but that religious fervor can lead to awful acts of terror, and has already done so. And in no way can we contribute to the legitimizing of these individuals by inviting someone like Khatami to our country.

Hewitt finished the segment with:

Governor Mitt Romney of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, thanks for spending some time with us. Congratulations on your decision concerning Ayatollah Khatami. Very, very blunt, and I think overdue. Thank you, Governor.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.nysun.com/article/39232 This interesting editorial from the New York Sun praises Romney and Giuliani for their strong stands against terrorist visits to our soil and compares their actions to Teddy Rooseveldt’s humorous handling of another Anti-Semite, Rector Ahlwardt.

They then continue:

Mr. Romney faced a slightly different situation than Commissioner Roosevelt, for we are now in a war and anti-Semitism isn’t looking so ridiculous. Mr. Khatemi is not just an itinerant preacher. He’s the front man for a nation that is actively fighting against us, that is levying a war against the Jewish state, that has played a role in killing hundreds of Americans. His motives in coming here are patently disingenuous, as are those of the Kennedy School in hosting him. Our government has allowed Mr. Khatemi in as a private person, but the mission on which he is here is to carry out hostile state purposes — and his speech at Harvard has been timed to mock the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mr. Romney put out a long and exceptionally thoughtful statement explaining his decision. By our lights Mr. Khatemi’s visit is more like ,. . . [a] calculated insult

They have it right like Romney does.

Also, Romney has spent at least some of the last two days speaking to media outlets. I saw him on the “Personal Story” segment of the “O’Reiley Factor” tonight and he seemed to convince a skeptical Bill O’Reiley toward his point of view. I heard he was on Sean Hannity’s, Laura Ingraham’s, and Hugh Hewitt’s Radio shows recently too. When I find links . . . I’ll get them posted.

Jeff

Edit:

The Political Pit Bull has the video of Gov. Romney’s appearance on O’Reilly.

Click me!.

[Read more →]

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=pressreleases&agId=Agov2&prModName=gov2pressrelease&prFile=gov_pr_060905_khatami.xml Strong statement from Romney!

The Press Release is here.

“State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,” said Romney.

Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town. The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.

Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”

“The U.S. State Department listed Khatami’s Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Within his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of dissidents who spoke out for freedom and democracy. For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple.”

After a long list of Khatami’s abuses and support of terrorists Romney concluded:

“Khatami pretends to be a moderate, but he is not. My hope is that the United States will find and work with real voices of moderation inside Iran. But we will never make progress in the region if we deal with wolves in sheep’s clothing,”

Addendum:

Bravo to Gov. Romney. It takes a certain moral clarity (if not certainty) to be President of the United States. At times bold statements like this are necessary to remind everyone that all things are NOT equal. Believe it or not, this is depressingly easy for people to forget.

I’ve read a few pieces over the last few days about this guy on our soil lecturing us on how we’re creating terrorists. Despite his label as a moderate, this is a man who has been out of power in Iran for less than a year. As dispicable as Ahmadinejad is, he was not the one who armed Hezbollah with those 4,000 rockets they used against Israel in the recent war. Indeed, the only difference I can see between the policies of Ahmadinejad and Khatami is that Ahmadinejad has been kind enough to shout his intentions from the mountaintop.

This reminds me of the time Rudy Giuliani kicked Arafat out of the Lincoln Center (too socially liberal to be president, but man was that sweet). Look for history to repeat itself and for many to recoil in horror of Gov. Romney not showing Khatami the respect he never earned.

Correctly placed at the top of the list of griviences is this:

During the period of time he was in office, from 1997 to 2005, Khatami presided over Iran’s secret nuclear program. Currently, the Iranian Government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is snubbing the international community’s request to cease nuclear weapons production.

With all due respect to President Bush’s speech today, a nuclear Iran, not Bin Laden, is the greatest threat we’re facing today (and it disturbs me how non-serious the whole situation is being taken). Khatami deserves a great deal of the blame for this massively destabilizing program.

~~~Thomas

[Read more →]

Love him or hate him Senator Russ Feingold (put your cursor over the star to gets lots of great info on the senator) has been absolutely consistent in his position on the Iraq War. From the very beginning he stood up against this war and continued to stand against the misguided foray. He [...]

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/08/12/romney_kerry_spar_over_fight_on_terror/ From today’s Boston Globe: Kerry, the Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee, seized on news of the disrupted plot as a “stark reminder” that Osama bin Laden remains at large and said it shows that Al Qaeda has “grown in strength” since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have succeeded in isolating the United States,” Kerry, a Democrat, said during a conference call organized on behalf of Patrick Murphy, a Democratic candidate in a Pennsylvania House race. “Afghanistan and Pakistan are where the fight against Al Qaeda is, not in Iraq.”
Asked about Kerry’s comments during an appearance on the MSNBC cable network, Romney blasted Kerry. The governor said the senator failed to recognize that the United States is locked in a long-term war against terrorists and that Iraq is a central front.

“I think it shows a complete lack of understanding of the kind of enemy that we’re facing,” said Romney, a Republican. “This is not a small group of wackos in the hills that all we have to do is go find one person and it suddenly goes away.”Of course Kerry, after being called out by the Governor, returned to the standard Democrat position of attacking the messenger when you are wrong on the message. In turn, Kerry’s communications director, David Wade, questioned the governor’s knowledge of issues related to Iraq and terrorism.

“Mitt Romney’s command of national security is about as real as the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” Wade said.Interesting, since it was proven that there are WMDs in Iraq. But we should take the Senator’s word for it, because Kerry knows everything about foreign policy and Iraq. Like this exchange with Bob Scheiffer from late 2005:And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not–

Schieffer: Yeah.

Kerry: –Iraqis should be doing that.I’ll ask you a question, because I can’t tell. Does this make Romney look better or Kerry look worse?

Dave

[Read more →]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14303121/ Romney was on MSNBC’s Hardball last night and this link has the entire transcript from the show. However, to save your scrolling digits I’ve pasted in Romney’s portion below. I did not see this interview and would love to hear from anyone who did about how Romney came across:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL, overlooking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

For the first time since September 11, 2001, National Guard troops have been ordered to patrol Logan International Airport in Boston. Governor Mitt Romney issued the order this morning and he joins us now from Boston. Governor, what will the army troops, the National Guard troops be able to do there that the airport police can‘t?

GOV. MITT ROMNEY ®, MASSACHUSETTS: Well, frankly, the real reason they‘re there is because we don‘t have enough airport security personnel and TSA personnel to man the double number of points for inspection that we‘ve had in the past. We‘ve always had one single place for security checkpoint.

Now we have a checkpoint at gates, as well as at the security point. We have to double our number of personnel, almost, and there just aren‘t enough people ready to do that. And that‘s why the National Guard has to step in and play that key role.

MATTHEWS: What do you make of Bob Baer, the expert who just came on and said that the problem now isn‘t so much the detection of metal objects that could‘ve been used—that certainly were used in 9/11 and could be used again, because these liquids are undetectable and therefore we‘re going to be in the situation that the Israelis are in, where you really have to detect the criminal intent of the passenger.

How are we going to have the logistical capability to conduct those kinds of lengthy examinations of people before they get on a shuttle to D.C., for example?

ROMNEY: Well, I think what this particular experience has taught us is one more time, the only way to effectively protect the homeland is not by inspecting every possible source of attack, but rather to do effective intelligence and counterterrorism work. That‘s what the British have shown us again.

You have to find the bad guys, reveal the plots before they carry them out, because the number of ways that people can attack us and the number of possible targets is so large that you can‘t protect every single asset, every single human, every single airplane, building, hospital, school. You have to find the bad guys and get them out of our country before they attack us.

MATTHEWS: Well, there‘s the tough stuff, because, as you know, you‘ve got to make decisions regarding civil liberties and national security which often come in conflict. How do we really do a great job of surveillance if we have people who are very concerned in this country about the Fourth Amendment and other guarantees of our freedom?

ROMNEY: Well, of course, we have to respect our Constitutional guarantees of freedom, recognize that the most important civil right we have is the right to life. And we need to make sure that our citizens are protected and don‘t lose their lives by virtue of not having done an effective job to survey those who would attack us.

Fortunately, in Great Britain, they have a very tough Patriot Act equivalent which allows them to do the kind of surveillance that identifies this plot before five or 10 aircraft end up killing all on board.

That‘s the most important thing that we have to do is to protect our citizens, and we can do it within a constitutional framework that we‘ve come to know and love. But intelligence work and counterterrorism has once again been proven as the only effective way to protect the homeland.

MATTHEWS: How do we do that? I‘m sure you‘ve traveled to Israel and gone through those interviews where they‘re very extensive. I remember back when I got out of the Peace Corps, they asked me what was I doing with a typewriter, was I going to write anything about the country, really invasive kinds of questioning to try to get at your political intent because that‘s the only way Israel has retained its 100 percent safety record with regard to hijacking. Can we get that tough?

ROMNEY: Well, we‘re going to be as tough as we have to be to protect our citizens from the kind of criminals that want to kill them. I was at Logan Airport today, as people were having their bags checked one more time just before they got on the aircraft.

They were checked first at the security checkpoint, now at the gate checkpoint. And I asked people going on board, do you find this intrusive, are you bothered by this? And they said, no, we‘re glad you‘re doing it. The American people want to be safe as they travel. They want the airline industry to be safe and effective and on time. They want the hotel industry to be able to accommodate passengers.

Look, this is an extremely high priority for our country, to protect our citizens, and the most effective tool we have currently is intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts. But, of course, we‘re also going to use every means of technology we have to protect citizens at the airport and to have those devices in place that can identify attack weapons and the like. But there‘s no way you can find every possible weapon and secure every possible target. It‘s just impossible. Instead, you have to go after the bad guys.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

P.S. Gov. Pataki (NY) followed where they called up the national gaurd as well . . . and, as mentioned before, Schwartzeneger in CA did as well.

Jeff

Add to Del.icio.us

[Read more →]

http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=152338 This, from the Boston Herald’s Dave Wedge:Just as he did after the fatal Big Dig collapse, Gov. Mitt Romney sprang into action yesterday following news of a possible terror attack, taking firm control while scoring praise from political pundits and even some Democrats.

The possible 2008 presidential contender was the first governor nationwide to launch the National Guard - even though none of the terror-targeted planes were headed to Boston. He also called a 10 a.m. press conference, beating even President Bush to the airwaves, and abruptly canceled a trip to Wisconsin for a Republican fund-raiser.

“I think the governor’s actions were most appropriate, under the cirumstances,” said U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell). Asked how Romney’s take-charge persona is playing out on the national political scene, Meehan replied: “Anytime an executive makes the right decisions under pressure, voters respond.” Many doubters will look at this as they did the Governor’s response to the Big Dig tragedy and say he’s angling for political gain. What people fail to recognize is that this guy is simply wired this way. He reacts to difficult situations with superior leadership. Those are his natural instincts.

Dave

Add to Del.icio.us

[Read more →]

***Special Announcement***
Tonight, Governor Romney will be on Hardball at 7PM on MSNBC and Hannity and Colmes
at 9:30PM on Foxnews. Tomorrow at 8:45AM, he’ll be on Fox and Friends
***End of Special Announcement***

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/08/10/romney_to_activate_national_guard_for_logan_airport/?p1=MEWell_Pos5 This Boston Globe article reviews Romney’s actions in calling up the National Gaurd:

“I don’t know what other governors are doing. Logan has a specific history with regards to the initiation of terrorist activity on airlines, and therefore we have a heightened degree of concern here,” he said.

Since Sept. 11, Logan has become a pioneer in testing and using the latest aviation security technology. It was the first airport in the country to launch a permanent system that scans all checked baggage for explosives.”

One of the gaurdsmen that was called up said in the article:

“It’s still safe to fly. At the same time everyone should be aware and be on alert for people who are acting out of the ordinary,” said Sgt. Steven Hines, who carried an MP-5 machine gun on his patrol.

“I think sometimes people get complacent and they forget and think the threat isn’t there anymore,” Hines said. “As you heard the threat is there.”

Another article picked up by the Christian Broadcasting network stated:

“U.S. authorities raised the threat level to “red” for flights from Britain, the first time the highest threat of terrorist attack had been invoked since the system was created. All other flights were under an “orange” alert - one step below red.”

I’m guessing that Logan Airport has plenty of flights in from Britain. Those are “RED alert” flights and Romney took appropriate action. Romney has been VERY intertwined in developing disaster and homeland security plans. I would expect no less from potentially the strongest homeland security leader in the nation!

However, some are saying that this is all a “play to the media.”

Is Schwarzenegger “playing to the media” too (I sarcastically ask)?

“Schwarzenegger activates Guard in wake of London terror plot”

A snippet:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger activated the National Guard Thursday to bolster security at California airports after authorities said they had foiled a terror plot involving U.S.-bound planes from Britain.

“I have ordered the redeployment of security assets to high priority locations to respond to this threat,”

“These assets include bomb-sniffing dogs, the California National Guard, and the California Highway Patrol, in concert with local and federal law enforcement agencies.”

Strong leadership from men of action!

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/25/common_sense_on_terrorism/ The events of the past few hours in Great Britain remind us that we are at war with radical Islamic jihadists, and that they will not cease until their goal of eliminating Western civilization is achieved.

I thought this an appropriate time to reprint a portion of a Jeff Jacoby editorial from the September 25, 2005 Boston Globe on Romney, terrorism and taking tough stands. ”People who are in settings — mosques, for instance — that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror,” Romney said. ”Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what’s going on? Are we seeing who’s coming in, who’s coming out? Are we eavesdropping, carrying out surveillance on those individuals that are coming from places that sponsor domestic terror?”

Well, no kidding. After 9/11, after the Madrid and London transit massacres, it is hard to imagine anyone objecting to Romney’s statement of the obvious. But object they did. The ACLU accused the governor of proposing ”another giant stride toward a police state.” The Council on American Islamic Relations, shamelessly distorting Romney’s words, said it was aghast that any governor would ‘’suggest blanket wiretapping of houses of worship.” Groups from the leftist fringe staged a protest outside Romney’s office.

But if they expected to browbeat him into an apology, they were disappointed.

”This thing is just common sense,” he told reporters. ”Surely we have to recognize that some of this has gone on in mosques in the past . . . . There have been places of extremism where certain teachers have been identified as having been involved in . . . terrorist attacks. Let’s not pretend that’s not the case.”Controversial, but right. Romney took a tough stand, and did not back down in the face of the PC police. What’s right is right. Islamic jihadism is a grave threat — a threat that Mitt Romney understands and recognizes.

Dave

Addendum by Jeff: Great and timely points Dave!

I like what he said on the Bill Bennett Show last week about the GWOT:

“we under-communicate to the world and to the American people when we call it a “War on Terror.” Terror is the technique that’s involved by the others side. This really is a war against radical jihadists. And we’re going to have to recognize that, and see it’s breath and help the world of Islam reject the extremists, because they and we together are going to have to do this.”

I think you can still listen to it at this link (a 12 minute interview . . . that comment is about 1/2-2/3 of the way through.)

Add to Del.icio.us

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/blog/2006/08/romney_gone_all.html I picked this up by my stats software. Someone came to this blog through The Globe’s Political Intelligence blog.

Governor Romney is set to return to Massachusetts Monday evening after a long weekend politicking in Tennessee and attending a National Governors Association meeting in South Carolina.

Romney attended a Republican fundraiser in Tennesssee, chronicled by one of the many Romney blogs popping up [Note: The one they are speaking of is this one]. (Looks like Mrs. Romney joined the trip.)

The governor’s office told the Globe’s Adrienne Samuels that on Saturday Romney attended an NGA session on health care and before that he gave a presentation on responding to emergencies. Monday, the governors are to focus on education and will recognize the outgoing governors - including Romney.

The NGA is meeting in Charleston, SC.

Meantime, columnist Robert Novak, who has been closely following Romney’s early presidential maneuvers, reports that the Mass. governor has the lead in early organizing for 2008, particularly in Iowa. Novak calls Romney’s name ID with Republican voters “anemic.”

And the Nashua Telegraph [Note: You must scroll down to get to the part of the article in which Mr. Dahl is referencing] reports that on Thursday, Romney bused “14 GOP state senators to a Boston fund-raiser to benefit the Gatsas-led Senate Republican Victory PAC.” Gatsas is the state Senate President in NH. The paper reports that the fundraiser took place at the penthouse at the Ritz Carlton Hotel.

Posted by David Dahl, Political Editor at 08:00 AM

[Read more →]

http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/08/hear-mitt-speak-speak-mitt-speak.html A new Iowa political blog focused on the 2008 presidential race is being run by Kevin Schmidt. It is named “RealWorldPolitico.” I breifly met Kevin at Romney’s PAC event in Ames and he seemed like a nice guy. Fortunately, Kevin recorded Romney’s speech and the Q&A session (two seperate mp3s) and has them available at this link (the speech cuts out a few minutes early). In the Q&A session, mine is the second question about the political risk of taking over the Big Dig . . . yes, the question that brought forth the now famous “tar baby” comment.

Additionally, this link should get you to the streaming audio (about 13 minutes) of Gov. Romney on today’s “Morning in America” radio talkshow hosted by Bill Bennett . . . he states he has 2.4 million listeners/day and is the #9 radio talk show in the nation. Sounds like good exposure for Gov. Romney. Not sure how long it will be available online as free streaming audio.

Topics discussed:
The Big Dig
Welfare Reform
Immigration
War on Terror/Iraq/Afghanistan
Israel and Lebanon
China and Economic Policy

One thing that struck me from the interview . . . Romney said: “we under-communicate to the world and to the American people when we call it a “War on Terror.” Terror is the technique that’s involved by the others side. This really is a war against radical jihadists. And we’re going to have to recognize that, and see it’s breath and help the world of Islam reject the extremists, because they and we together are going to have to do this.”

Just after the interview Bennett said of Romney: “Clear, smart, an articulate voice thinking about the wider world as well as his own state of Massachusetts . He’s shown that he can work with Democrats; the question is can he work with Republicans–because there aren’t any up there . . . or at least not very many.”

Great showing, once again, by our man Mitt!

Jeff (cross-posted at Iowans for Romney)

Add to Del.icio.us

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/blog/2006/05/romney_works_on.html One knock on Governor Romney as a potential “Leader of the Free World” is his apparently thin record on foreign policy (another source claiming the same thing and another one). The link above shows how he’s been “working on it” lately.

Most Governors will always get this critique when going up against Senators in elections for POTUS.

Here are a few sources about Romney’s. This Boston Globe article reviews his meetings in Boston with many world leaders.

However, Gov. Romney does have significant international experience. How well this translates into good foreign policy is obviously a matter of debate. Consider the following:

He lived in France for 2 1/2 years continuously as a missionary from age 19-21. Having done similar missionary work myself in Brazil, I can attest that this does help open one’s eyes to the fact that the world is more than our country, that great and evil people live in every land, and that we are all brothers of the “human race.”

He was CEO of an international company (Bain Capital).

His involvment with the Olympics has obvious international experience. Besides the SLC games, he has since been to Athens in 2004 and Turino earlier this year where he was involved in IOC events and even received an award for his work with the SLOC.

He’s travelled to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo recently (obvious moves to bolster his credibility on the GWOT and foreign policy in general in preparation for his candidacy)

He’s in tight with Gov. Leavitt from Utah who is somewhat of an expert on Chinese foreign policy.

Mort Kondracke seems to think that Romney has great potential as far as foreign policy goes (and most policies in general)

In his 1994 campaign vs Kennedy for the Senate seat Foreign Policy was brought up (Take this for what it’s worth since it’s from a piece called “Kennedy Should be Re-elected”):
“The contrast between Kennedy and Romney is most clear on foreign policy issues. Kennedy supports the approach used by Bush and Clinton; in other words, a multilateral approach designed to foster global cooperation to bring stability and order to the world scene. Romney has announced that he would not support such a policy, and would scale back U.S. involvement in world affairs to the point where we would only act when U.S. lives, territory, or the economy were at stake.”
A lot has changed since 1994 of course, but at least Romney has studied the issues in depth and developed “foreign policy” stances previously.

Also, he’s VERY strong on the related issue of Homeland Security and is looking strong on Immigration too.

I don’t list these things to say that he’s the ultimate “foreign policy master”, but I think that some people may be selling him a bit short on this issue. I’d love to hear from others what their opinions of whether a Mormon mission, running the Olympics, and/or running an international company are credible “foreign policy” experiences.

Chime in please.

Jeff

[Read more →]

The revelations of this story come as no surprise to your humble pundit. For quite some time, I have speculated and pondered that this country would embrace a candidate who whose convictions would reflect the concerns of most Americans, those concerns being National Security and its progeny, which encompasses the issue of illegal immigration.
The debates [...]

[Read more →]