Video: Romney answers McCain’s attacks
posted at 12:30 pm on January 28, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Less than 24 hours to go to the Florida primary, the polls are knotted up, and the back-and-forth between McCain and Romney is getting more intense. On Fox this morning, Mitt Romney responded to John McCain’s latest criticism — that Romney will say anything to get elected, and that he has supported timetables for withdrawing from Iraq. As Allah has covered previously, that’s an egregious attack on Romney.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM
That’s the problem with McCain… knee-jerk governance (because he got jammed in 2000) equals bad law.
What other great ideas is McCain going to come up with because someone pissed him off? He’s in full meltdown mode right now. Just wait until the sheriff gets back to the Senate. Hide the pork, the hammer is back, fresh off getting beat again.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Does he want to acheive our goals ? And what goals are those ? I would like Mitt to say where he thinks we should go in Iraq. He clearly states that after the surge he wants to plan a withdraw. The only difference is I would call it a withdrawl and he would call it victory. I guess that is all a matter of semantics then.
As for what Id do I already said Id move the WOT to Afganistan and forget about any idea for a marshall plan to Islamic Countries. Id take the war to the taliban they would follow us from Iraq to Afganistan and we could make it difficult for them there.
As for radical jihad that is a longer term strategy. I think that if we really wanted to defeat them then stabilizing a democratic Iraq would do more than leaving. If we could keep Iraq democratic and rebuild the country showing that Jihadism doesnt end poverty only causes it then we would do much better. Abandoning Iraq now while a good military strategy in the short term is a bad overal strategy in the longer term in that it shows that democracy cant survive in a middle east country. But then if we could establish it in Afganistan on a smaller scale that would still be a victory.
But is really moot the Jihadists come from everywhere and really is a question if anything other than a military victory is a possiblity. Iran and Syria at the end of the day will still be there outside of our reach and teaching Islamic hate. Even a US withdrawl and a Marshall plan doesnt end the fact of rogue Islamic states.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 7:42 PM
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Read his issue points for clarification.
http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/confronting-radical-jihad
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Bwahahahaha!!! Your ears translate what you hear into what you WANT to hear.
What Mitt wants to do is what we are already doing (with great success) in Africa. Encouraging moderate Muslims to REMAIN moderate by denying the extremists the fertile ground of ignorance and poverty to garner support for their whacky plans. Most Muslims who help the extremists do so for money and not ideology. Or they are manipulated into it over misunderstood religious reasons.
What McCain wants to do is win the war and then stay in Iraq for the next 100 years. He also wants to legalize 20 million illegals, close Guantanamo, move terrorists into our legal system, and give the enemy insight into our interrogation techniques. He also wants benchmarks also, but we’ll ignore that since it only matters to you if Mitt says it.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 7:49 PM
I read them and it makes me sad
Am I the only one who has problems with this or does everyone think this really can work ?
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 7:50 PM
So Mitt is going to wipe out poverty in the Middle east ? Is that what you are arguing ?
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 7:51 PM
William Amos:
That’s only a portion of what’s there. He also speaks of military options. Don’t cherry pick.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 7:52 PM
What Mitt wants to do is deal with the sickness and the patient. It’s hard for gung-ho military types like McCain to understand the nuances of diplomacy.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Yes he says he would push for special ops soldiers to work with Muslim countries to attack extremists. Im sure that will work in Pakistan where they wont even allow the US military in. Or say Saudi Arabia.
Its a no go and its dishonest to say there is even a miitary component to Mitt’s plan.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Yes, again if you listen to his answer in that video I posted for you earlier, he makes it abundantly clear…he minces no words. He does not favor withdraw. He does favor leaving Iraq in a situation where either Iran or Turkey can compromise Iraqi integrity. He does not favor an Iraq which would contribute to regional instability. Don’t take my word for it! It’s in the friggin’ video I posted for you! What does that mean? That means his goals are a stable Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror. He supports Bush’s policy, which he repeated even in the last debate if you watched it.
I’m not clear what you mean here? Are you suggesting removing the forces in Iraq to redeploy in Afganistan? Are you saying we can’t finish our mission in both places? Are you one of those, like MB4 that think AQI isn’t really AQ? Or shouldn’t be considered as AQ?
I’m curious if you have at all thought this through. So I pose you three questions.
1) Do you support our support in Pakistan?
2) How do you characterize our current efforts in Iraq?
3) Seeing as you have already acknowledged a democratic Iraq rebuilt would [be] “better”, how do you reconcile your statement that it would be better and on the other hand condemn a Marshall-like Plan? Do you only approve of a plan if there is an accompanying war?
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 7:58 PM
He does [not] favor leaving Iraq in a situation (left that out)
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Afghanistan? AFGHANISTAN?! Is that what McLiar wants to do? Please say it is so we can finally knock that fake down a notch or two on the war.
AFGHANIFREAKINSTAN?! There is a reason we went into Iraq. Iraq is a much better battlefield for us for several reasons. Those include, being far away from the main terrorist staging areas in Pakistan. They have no help in the north and limited help in the east. The country has more allies doing more to help than we have in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a mountainous nightmare to conduct operations in. The terrorists move freely across into Pakistan and we can’t go into Pakistan. The harvesting of poppies makes it very difficult to combat with cash payments. it’s their cash crop and they will always grow it. Once Mitt’s plan for Iraq is complete, we will have a free, democratic Iraq that can sustain, govern, defend itself (without our help) AND be an ally in the war on terror in the middle of the Middle East.
Call em benchmarks or whatever, but you are being purposely obtuse to claim that Mitt wants to cut and run.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 8:00 PM
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Stop projecting. The dishonesty is reading your world view into the illustrated points. The military is a component of his plan. If you cannot read that, you’re either being obtuse or dishonest. I’m leaning towards one… especially based on your linkage to only part of his proposals. It’s a similar meme espoused by a few on the thread.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Oh I meant to add a 4th question.
4) Do you believe that we are in a clash of civilizations, and if so, do you not approve of collecting allies early in the struggle as we did with the Cold War?
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 8:01 PM
I just heard that Romney has put $250,000,000 in his treasure chest to start this whole shubang. Don’t worry for his children though, it has been said that before the election, just in case, he put $100,000,000 in a trust for the boys. Wow, I feel all squishy inside. Good to see Mitt is one of us.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 8:02 PM
I am sorry but I have to go csd on this wind bag.
Its a F’N blog you schmuck. Of course its biased its a conservative blog.
Quit being an idiot and life may get easier.
Sammy316 on January 28, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 8:01 PM
His only interest is in the military aspect. The military is always just a portion of the equation. Ignoring diplomatic/humanitarian aspects in the War on Terror is irresponsible. It is also contrary to many examples our country has already fought and fixed.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Yes but you will admit it is MILITARY support we give Pakistan. We arent giving them too much monetary aid I believe ? If your suggesting that all Mitt wants to do is prop up Muslim dictators to fight Jihadism I have no problem with that. But realize that also fuels jihadism and angers muslims. SO Mitt’s plan isnt not a cure but a continuation of current policy. Hardly anything new.
The surge is working. If it works what next ? Is it in our best interest to leave Iraq quickly or stay and keep them stable ? What if it starts to fail will Mitt stay or bail ? He says he wouldnt walk away if things might go bad so is he saying he will stay in Iraq if violence gets worse ?
There is a difference between stablizing one country in Iraq and offering many Muslim countries money to fight Jihadism. If Mitt realizes that Jihadism isnt tied to one Muslim country (as his site says he does) then thats over 1 billion Muslims all over the world that are at threat to either join or back Jihadism. Does Mitt really believe that we can Moderate that many people with western cash ? Saudi Arabia gets billions in Aid from us both Military and our gas dollars. Yet most of the hijackers were saudi. So how does Mitt reconcile the fact that rich Saudi Arabia neither wants or needs our aid to fight Jihadism ? Its clear they could care less if the Jihadist kill us rather than having them target them. Its a game for the House of Saud and we need to recognize that.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Hi I’m Sammy and Mitt bought my vote.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 8:07 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 8:02 PM
How can you be the chosen one, if you’re not in on the $100,000,000 cut? Sounds like a whole lotta class-envy. Focus the angst on positive things that improve your world view. Don’t hate brother.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Yes I believe that. And yes it is important to have allies even among the Muslim countries. However I believe that we have insincere allies there and we need to be honest about that fact. Just pouring aid into Muslim countries does not garauntee an end of Jihadism. It hasnt yet.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Yes. And not just Mitt. His policies will encourage moderate Muslims to become self sufficient and prosperous, thus eliminating the need for terrorists to provide those services. Every study supports that course of action.
Which makes much more sense than what that fool McCain says will stop terrorism. He thinks closing Guantanamo and stopping waterboarding will help moderate Muslims remain moderate. Meanwhile, the terrorists will provide them with food, shelter, and medical care. I’d tell you to do the math, but you haven’t presented a rational argument yet, so it’d be a waste of time to suggest it.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Where am I ignoring that ? I simply refuse to believe that pouring money into Muslim dictatorships does not garauntee an end to the WOT. You simply want to argue that it does without facts to back you up.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 8:10 PM
I did enjoy Mitt’s attempt to make it seem like that was Air Force One behind him. Nice touch, now go flip flop somewhere.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Good greif you beieve that the Saudis arent prosperious ? Or that they are moderates ?
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 8:11 PM
LOL
I guess being new I will let you slide, but ignorance only gets you so far.
Sammy316 on January 28, 2008 at 8:11 PM
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Don’t over-hype Mitt’s points. It’s not an all or nothing ideal… he does not speak of “just pouring aid.” What is fundamentally wrong with diplomacy and humanitarian aid? What is wrong with assisting with nation building? Jihadism is no different from the other -isms our country has waged it’s efforts again. We used much more than the military to overcome the Cold War.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Hi I’m Sammy and even though Mitt and Mac are both moderate republicans at best, I’m voting for the hair! F Mcain and his five years in a puddle of urine in Hanoi.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Pure comedic genius oh chosen one. I guess sticking to topics is just too hard. Maybe you should apply yourself more… then you too could be one of those elites you despise so much.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Americans can walk the streets in those countries that are prosperous and cannot in countries that are not. The goal is to prioritize our efforts. We don’t need to attack the Saudis, because they aren’t a threat and aren’t likely to be. We do need to work in impoverished Muslim nations to DENY THE TERRORISTS FERTILE GROUND to gain a foothold. That is the priority because it makes no sense to beat them in Iraq and allow them to gain a foothold in Africa. If we deny the fertile ground in poor nations, the terrorists will lose the ability to recruit foot soldiers, thus severely weakening terrorism.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM
I am not lying to yall, but I saw Fred Barnes predict an Obama presidency. Then ten minutes later Gingrich looked like he was going to faint at the pure mention of Barak. Here it comes, grab your shovels folks.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM
I can’t believe McCain et al. are still trying to peddle this lie to the people. Mr. McCain, when even the MSM is calling BS on your tripe its over buddy.
Mitt isn’t my first choice, but I believe he is the best of the rest. I would vote for him on Super Happy Fun Time Tuesday, but living in Utah he has this state pretty much wrapped up so I will be writing Fred! just for the hell of it. Maybe 100 others will do the same and we can have a Duncan Hunter showing.
Sammy316 on January 28, 2008 at 8:19 PM
$500 million last year. A continuation of current strategy, one aimed at keeping Islamic countries stable and nukes out of the hands of jihads. Is that a problem, what “new” would you like?
Did you listen to that video? We go to a support role, which he envisions this year to entail. Then we redeploy as fitting the situation regionally. None of that implies withdraw precipitously (as he has said that would have dire consequences, you can safely assume that means he thinks it is unwise.)
You may be aware we allied with Russia to defeat Germany in WWII. Yep, it really happened before the Cold War. Now we are working with SA to marginalize the power of Iran. Do you think that is a poor policy? Or would you prefer antagonizing them?
We don’t need to moderate the people. We need to blunt their ability to hurt America and American interests. That means working with governments (whether via ad or militarily) not 1 billion people.
Are you familar with how much money we are putting into Iraq, and that money is going to infrastructure and restoring their economy (read (shocka): Marshall-like plan).
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 8:20 PM
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Good post. The knee-jerking hyperbolic response to just kick butt and take names, shows a lack of knowledge and an irresponsible attitude towards other nations. That line of thought only exacerbates the problems.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 8:21 PM
So now you want to switch from helping impoverished Muslim countries to the reasons we help the Saudis? Did you even READ the link dude?
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM
So what if McCain is Liberal on some issues, we’re not holding that gay thing against you sammy.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Perhaps. I’m under the impression that he just hasn’t thought several aspects through very much and that the military aspect is simply the most visible, and frankly, interesting. It could very well also be that he has a McCain-like animosity toward Mitt which makes him spin away his knowledge for less defenseable, more vacuous positions. I’m trying to find that out.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Excellent points. As a follow-up: where would Germany, Italy, Japan, et. al, be without our financial/humanitarian/diplomatic support? Are we as a country not better off for stabilizing and building up those nations? We see the fruits of these actions… this is a proven policy.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM
I’m worried it’s not ignorance because to he is so obtuse about history (even history postulated by left-wing dominated curriculum) which bears out the asserted points.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 8:27 PM
The thing is that if McLiar wins in FL, it wont have anything to do with the lies WA is putting forth. We all know, as well as the FL voters know, that most of what WA is espousing is just ignorance personified.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Indeed. Some of our strongest allies now.
I’m willing to give some space here because he isn’t new, and he has prefaced statements to me like, ‘if I remember correctly’, or ‘I thought that’; so he simply may not know. Plus he doesn’t use absolutist troll-like language.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 8:33 PM
He doesn’t use absolutist language, you’re right, but he is prone to generalizing and inflating talking points. That is in our nature though…. especially when people are passionately for someone.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 8:37 PM
True. My favorite people here though are the ones that keep it stone-cold real.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 8:40 PM
You know if Mittis going to take over the Clinton’s 1990’s version of the WOT then he should give Bill Clinton the credit.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_War_&_Peace.htm
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Time for me to weigh in here. William Amos seems to be purposefully ignorant. It’s clear that he and “the chosen one” don’t like Romney. The former has constantly “moved the goal posts” in this exchange. That’s not a way to debate, man. It makes you look like you can’t keep your argument straight. The latter of these two seems to have a bad case of class envy and a dislike for Mormons. Poor “the chosen one”, you probably don’t even have two nickels to rub together, huh? Some Mormon probably stole them from you.
Troy Rasmussen on January 28, 2008 at 9:18 PM
they’re both trolls
waste of time
windansea on January 28, 2008 at 9:45 PM
I can’t believe that Romney is in favor of a Global Tax to deal with global warming. Perhaps he wants a stronger version of Kyoto that doesn’t just punish the USA?? He was actually upset with the McCain/Lieberman bill because it only taxed Americans and that it didn’t tax the Chinese. He actually said that it should be done on a global basis… well, at least he wants to share the global warming tax increase fairly with other countries instead of sacking Americans with all of the burden. This guy scares me.
HERMES on January 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM
HERMES on January 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM
An Olympian God afraid of a Mormon? Are you succumbing to Mitt’s sound reasoning? Is that why you make non-sensical posts, and then run away to look for other rants to cut and paste into all your comments? Just give into the darkside Hermes. You know you want to.
Cold Steel on January 28, 2008 at 10:09 PM
I think you missed the whole debate or youre being purpoisefully ignorant. Mitt says he plans to leave Iraq that isnt in dispute. Because others say he meant “Declare victory and leave” doesnt mean its the truth either.
The deceit is all on the Mitt people in this thread. They have spun Mitt’s stance so much I couldnt keep up with it
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Hm, looks like only you have said declare victory. Darn those “others”.
Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2008 at 12:31 AM
OK will lay it out so that the Mitt people can better try to spin things and change the truth again.
Mitt SAYS HE PLANS TO DRAW DOWN IN IRAQ. In any sense of the word that IS a withdrawl. Which the Mitt poeple spun as declaring victory and going home. Or if Mitt is to believe he still plans to stay in Iraq if things arent stable meaning he has lied about benchmarks. Or do then now not matter ? I dont know Mitt’s people keep spinning it.
Mitt now plans to fight Islamofacism via ecomonics. Uness I miss my guess many of the Arab nations are oil rich and many of the top jihadist wealthy. So Mitt wants to buy in the myth that Jihadism is caused by poverty shows a dnagerous degree of naiivity on Mitt’s part.
No Mitt wants diplomacy to win over Muslims. Well darn isnt that so Obama of him to want that ! I wish Mitt would stop stealing Democratic Ideas like Change and Diplomacy and talk like a republican. If mitt wants diplomacy does that mean he will talk with Al Qaeda ? What deal will he cut with osama ?
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Are you REALLY serious ? didnt Meigs just say “we ARE victorious.” ISNT THAT DECLARING VICTORY ???
REally stop with the silly deceitful spin
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Mitt over Juan 28/26 latest Rasmussen.
loaner on January 29, 2008 at 12:36 AM
I’ve not tried to deceive anyone here, I don’t think. I certainly wouldn’t do it to someone who is having enough difficulties on their own.
We are victorious means we achieve our goals. In every war we’ve won, we’ve declared victory. It’s true, you can google it. When we complete our goals, we can declare victory. It’s a process, not rhetoric.
Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2008 at 12:44 AM
OK will accept that so is Mitt claiming that we have beaten Al qaeda completely in Iraq ? If not then should we not have no plans to withdrawl ?
Again I want to hear what GOALS Mitt has. What to him is a “win” in Iraq ? Isnt that a fair question also ? If the US military says Iraq is still unstable how long will Mitt stay ? Some Military officers have said it would by 2012 before we could drawdown will Mitt wait that long ?
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Stable Iraq. Ally in WOT.
Sure, again it’s in that video, and I typed it out for you upstream.
Don’t know, but if you are asking him to publically set a time table, I hope he doesn’t say just to appease you. No need for more bad policy, we’ve had plenty of that via leaks already thank you very much.
He says Iraq is critical. He has a 3 step plan on how to deal with it. Unless you want him to say he will stay infinity years, or you can get invited into Cabinet or military meetings, I doubt you’ll get better than that from any candidate (that isn’t promising withdraw of course).
McCain’s 100 years, by contrast, is just a rhetoric ploy to make a point about something over which he doesn’t have power.
Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Are you making any headway with him yet? He continues to ask for answers that you have already given him. He obviously has an agenda he needs to make Mitt’s words fit into. The problem he has is that he ignores all the answers to his questions because it isn’t what he wants to hear.
I think you’re wasting your time.
csdeven on January 29, 2008 at 1:32 AM
I believe it was WA that was getting a woody over the national polls the other day showing McLiar ahead of Mitt. I remarked to him that national polls mean nothing.
Well, well, well, todays poll has Mitt ahead of McLyingsackofcrap by two points. I wonder if he’ll put as much stoke in todays poll as he did in yesterday’s poll?
Bwahahahaha!!
csdeven on January 29, 2008 at 1:35 AM
You are almost certainly right, but I was finishing a process here on my system, so I had the minutes to contribute to the work of the collective ombudsman hive. Who knows, I might just might be making headway. We’ll see. Most people are too proud to ever acknowledge countermanding facts, so I don’t expect him to say, ‘hey I understand what you mean, that makes sense’. But if he reads it, he might think about it, and with the contributions of all here on this thread some thought-provoking comments have been made. So we’ll just see. If the same crap gets thrown up on threads in the future then I will acknowledge it a general poor use of time :-)
Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2008 at 1:55 AM
No your still spining and trying to portray Mitts desire to retreat as a victory. Mitt says words but words dont mean goals. A “stable” Iraq isnt just a politicians slogan Mitt gives no beef on how to make that happen.
Keep trying maybe you can fool someone that is stupid enough to believe it
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Nope I still quote them. In fact is some new polls where McCain is carrying NY and California in wider margins. But Im sure you will ignore those.
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 3:26 PM
He has layed out a 3 step plan on how to retreat from Iraq. Be honest now.
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM
This is a lie.
I never stopped.
Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Fine show me those “benchmarks” that MITT (not anyone else) has set ? Mitt says he doesnt want an unstable Iraq any clue on how that is to happen ?
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Look all I get from Mitt is political Buzz words its like he is a parrot
“Change” SQUAK ! “Stable Iraq” SQUAK ! “BENCHMARKS” SQUAK !
“ISLAMOFACISM” SQUAK ! “IRAN NUKES” SQUAK !
When I go read his plans they dont match his buzz words
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 3:57 PM
BTW I missed this quote earlier. Capt Optimistic believe that we could get out of Iraq within a year. He wants out as fast as the democrats
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 4:04 PM
It’s in the video.
Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Dude. That’s happening right now in various places. Iraqi police are taking the lead we are supporting them.
Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM
He says the word benchmarks. I will go on more than one word. He says we will reach stage 3 within a year. (complete withdrawl from Iraq) is that also not the truth ?
Isnt this all your attempt to spin a retreat as a victory ?
I’d respect Mitt more if he would honestly say he wants to pul out of Iraq rather than saying “We won lets go home”
Its dishonest to argue that it isnt a retreat.
Yes but the US should move ALL of its military out of Iraq ? That is what Mitt said he would do and within one year. That my friend is a retreat not a victory.
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 4:25 PM
He didn’t say within in a year, but either way, great. If we could achieve what we need to achieve within a year, that’d be great!
Hell no.
Not at all. You clearly see the war on terror as a policing the world. I see the war as a war, with both hot and cold aspects.
Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Darn now you are talking like a democrat. So Iraq isnt in the US’ interest to win ?
So now we will have hot and cold running war with the Jihaidis Im sure they appriate the breather Mitt would give them. Osama himself said he would let up on the US if we would just pull out of Muslim lands. Mitt could take him up on his offer and fight a cold war with Osama.
William Amos on January 29, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Pathetic. Step by step, I’ve answered your every question and the best you can do is claim I think it not in our interest to win in Iraq. That sir, is pathetic.
Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]