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 »
Now that’s some “straight talk” from Gov. Romney.
Go Mitt!
OKCubsFan on January 28, 2008 at 12:33 PM
The more I see him, the more I hear him, the more I reject any notion of ever castigna vote for McCain, Rudy or the Huckster.
Onager on January 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM
This should be fun. They are in a statistical dead heat in the polls, and neither of them are pulling any punches. I can’t wait to see it all play out.
Go Mitt!
Jeff_McAwesome on January 28, 2008 at 12:36 PM
GO MITT!
He’ll have my vote tomorrow
Joek7132 on January 28, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Again I stil have to ask give us a positon on Iraq Romney either yea or nea. Just quoting “there are timetables” isnt a definitive answer. This is an important issue to not waffle on. McCain has said he would keep them there for “100 years” how long will you ?
Until then it is fair to ask Romney this over and over again.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Seriously, its not a republican thing to have timetables? So we should just stay in Iraq forever if they show NO progress at all? McCain is a retard, i do not wish him well. Fighting a war without timetables has never been done before, and should never be done.
muyoso on January 28, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Romney Answers attacks ~——look
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 12:41 PM
McCain’s assertions over the weekend are akin to Hillary’s on Obama praising Republican ideas. Thin gruel indeed.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 12:41 PM
To me, timetables = goals. To not have any goals, or to not care if you reach goals is no way to fight a war.
muyoso on January 28, 2008 at 12:41 PM
You think he’s intentionally showing off his campaign jet in the background?
Its Tommy on January 28, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Waiting so long to find a candidate I could support has been been tedious yet fruitful. Those I liked, such as Hunter and Thompson, have gone by the wayside. As a Nam vet I was thinking of McCain, but have dumped that philosophy as I found him so far from being conservative as laughable. Romney appears to be the man at this juncture. This is going to be a rough ride, folks. I’ll be at the MN caucuses in a few days, Lord willing, and we’ll see what happens in the state where nothing is allowed.
MNDavenotPC on January 28, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Thank you for wasting my time..
Slublog on January 28, 2008 at 12:43 PM
What are you waiting for the polls are open..
dum, dum, dum…
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Mitt is the only option for conservatives. McCain is desperate and the lies that he is screaming is proof he has no core for Republicans.
volsense on January 28, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Mitt has a good head on his shoulders and would serve as a rational and ethical president. Plus he speaks well and knows what he’s talking about. Sounds pretty good to me!
GO MITT!!
Eclectic on January 28, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I wonder if he said that we’ll be there until the job is done would be a satisfactory answer to you. I’m not being snarky… I’m just curious.
Nineball on January 28, 2008 at 12:44 PM
If the goal is to pull out of Iraq than say that. The American people have a right to know what the candidates want to do on this issue. I cant get behind Romney till he answers that question and I still hear no answer from him on that. Everyone else Hillary, Obama, McCain, except Huck’s position I know. Romney I have no clue if he wants to win in Iraq or not ?
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM
It’s not just McCain leveling this stuff. It’s Martinez, Lieberman, Graham… and you’re seeing it in the polls today. The Crist endorsement probably went a long way (also showing up in polls today.) I’d also bet that you’re going to see a Giuliani exodus in tomorrow’s vote count.
Vizzini on January 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM
As Allah has covered previously, that’s an egregious attack on Romney.
Deety on January 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Has he said that ? I would back Mitt over McCain in a heart beat if he told me he wanted to win in Iraq. But he stays silent and I cant back him.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Read Byran’s post here. 2nd video, around 5:45 mark. (it’s a yea)
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Rush just replayed Mitt’s audio quote where as a business man, Mitt did use the “secret time table” term as a leverage device against any possible lack of effort from Iraqis to mature with self sufficiency, as they were made out by the contemporary MSM to be lacking at the time of Mitt’s quote. One can argue that there is no such thing as a “secret” time table in reality. Leaks exist. Saboteurs exist. None the less, Mitt made a point that he should not absolutely deny making just because of McCain’s slanted inference towards Mitt’s original statement.
maverick muse on January 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Might I suggest if you don’t like the prospect of McVain gaining momentum, call some people you know and talk with them about voting Mitt. It’s one thing to vote, it’s another to step up and support the cause.
I just had a couple good conversations at a 1 year-old’s birthday party with people, all positive, all educating people about McVain.
SkinnerVic on January 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Why don’t these news medias play the whole tape. It goes on to say you don’t want to tell the enemy waiting in the weeds when your going to leave, and other things about telling the Germans that if we don’t get to the Rhine by this time we will leave..
twiggman on January 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Allah is right to suggest that McCain is twisting what Romney said. HOWEVER Romney hasnt given a clear answer to this question and until then romney doesnt get a pass from me.
So yeah McCain twisted what Romney said and is wrong on that point. But still romney is still too vague on Iraq for me to know for sure where he stands.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Express Jet — nice.
Numenorean on January 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Heh.
Theworldisnotenough on January 28, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Since when was is ethical to lie?
soc-cons have become hypocritical, IMHO, supporting Mitt and forget about criticizing Bill Clinton or John Kerry because thats who Mitt “IS”.
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 12:49 PM
At least they are arguing “issues” instead of race and gender like HillBill and BamBam.
GO MITT!
Brat on January 28, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Unfortunately no it isnt. He starts off with Iraq then goes to WOT then switchs to the economy. Thats called changing the subject
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Under Mitt Romney, Massachusetts Residents’ State Tax Burden Increased 8.17%. (Bureau Of Economic Analysis Website,
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Honestly, I don’t know. I was just wondering where you were coming from. I think I understand now, and I don’t have any problem with your position. It seems you’d just like to here him take a definitive stand on the subject. Can’t blame you for that.
Nineball on January 28, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Good answers.
And a sly dig at RonPaul for good measure?
McCain can go home and eat his illegal lettuce.
I’ll take someone who hasn’t abandoned our borders.
Romney-Rudy 2008.
profitsbeard on January 28, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Oops… *hear* typing too fast…
Nineball on January 28, 2008 at 12:51 PM
not to mention all the fines levied by fee-fee..
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I’ll ask a simple question of Mitt. IF he answers it I will be satisfied.
WILL YOU OR WONT YOU STAY IN IRAQ TO GIVE THE US A CHANCE TO WIN THERE ?
Again isnt a benchmark or timetable I want. Its a quote from Mitt that he wants to win or pullout. Either yes to stay or no to go.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Here you go… http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Iraq_Statement_1_10_07
CliffHanger on January 28, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Dude. You are starting to become difficult to take seriously. Read the question right before it. It was on Iraq and the economy. He didn’t change the subject, he answered the question. And in his answer he said Iraq is critical. That’s stronger words then Rudy even who calls it a battleground.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Which is a micron compared to the Bush tax cuts that McCain opposed. McCain is a self-admitted economic retard.
Cuffy Meigs on January 28, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Human Events. Though I guess you will spin that as what is ‘humanly possible’.
This is what he has been saying on the stump.
And here’s what he says (on his site and elsewhere) about winning in Iraq.
“This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.
“The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America’s national security interest to achieve it.”
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 1:03 PM
He said the war on Iraq was IMPORTANT and weneed to take the war on Jihadism seriously.
Well and good but they are NON answers. HOW important is it to romney ? What is his plans for Iraq ? Again its one thing to say its important in a general sense and another to show how important.
Romney talks the talk but is he willing to walk the walk ?
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:03 PM
My 1:03 is in response to that question.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Again the question I have isnt what Romney said but HOW he means to make it happen.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Romney was a strong backer of W when he was getting hammered by the Dems and Repubs and the MSM last Spring and Summer for the surge strategy. This was about the time Romney was jumping into the ring. That’s all you need to know. He never has advocated withdrawal from Iraq with our tails between our legs. It is McCain who says he’s for the surge when all he ever advocated was more troops. He never advocated the surge which also involves counterinsurgency strategy yet he makes it seem as though that was his view all along. What good does prosecuting the war do if you end up with a President that selects moderates to the USSC or will not close the border to illegals. McCain has already said he will not appoint any justices like Alito (apparently too conservative) and will sign amnesty and open border legislation. We’d get better judges from Giuliani which is why both he and Romney are heads and shoulders above McCain. McCain is just a slimeball.
Laddy on January 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM
The point some are making is that McCain has been more hawkish, vocal and hands-on concerning winning in Iraq while others have been talking about withdrawal or moving into a support role once certain benchmarks are achieved.
There may be something to that argument or it may be a distinction without a difference.
CliffHanger on January 28, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Dude. Watch the video at the link. He intends the 3 step process which he has said over and over. As you will note he was saying we should do this even with it was not looking as favorable as it does not.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Megyn Kendall’s f—-n’ amazing.
LtE126 on January 28, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Look McCain said he would stay 100 years. Obama and Hillary said they would leave.
Romney says “Clear objectives and milestones”
What does that mean ? Will he keep US forces in Iraq even if the Iraqi army takes over ? Will he pull out to other countries in the region ?
Im getting political double speak here not any real goals
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:08 PM
He has answered it time and time again. Of all the things he has flipped on, this is not one of them.
There has to be timetables and milestones to accomplish any task. That is what he is saying. Nothing about a withdrawl under a timetable.
Man, are some people no getting it…and I don’t like Mitt and I understand this simple concept.
Patreus gave objectives, you achieve objectives how? By meeting timetables and milestones.
Let’s say you want electricity to a certain area. You place a timetable, maybe by Feb 1. And you want the generators rebuilt by Jan 30 to be moved into place by Feb.1. Those are timetables and milestones, to meet the objective. Otherwords, a game plan.
right2bright on January 28, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Thanks I got the quote I wanted. Romney plans to leave Iraq.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Which in turn makes McCains attack on him accurate.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:11 PM
And no he shouldn’t give a clear answer to what you want.
The problem is much to complex for a yes or no answer.
Any one who just says yes at all costs, or no at any cost, is just pandering.
right2bright on January 28, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I’m sorry, but you must retract this statement because it based on factual information.
/s
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Thanks I got the quote I wanted. Romney plans to leave Iraq.
Errr, after we’ve won. Is it really that hard to comprehend?
Cuffy Meigs on January 28, 2008 at 1:14 PM
In the last debate Mitt said we can’t withdraw prematurely and allow al Queda to become a power in the region. He hammered the Dems pretty hard for saying they’d withdraw at any costs. I think Mitt’s been pretty clear that he would stay in Iraq until security is restored and al Queda is defeated.
Spolitics on January 28, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Tell me, as a practical matter, how can McCain say that he will keep troops in Iraq for 100 years?
Buy Danish on January 28, 2008 at 1:15 PM
You appear to be either acting intentional dense or you are incapable of understanding the obvious. I won’t presume to say which.
He has said those 3 steps over and over. Those are congruent with what Bush intends. If you want him to come out with another plan different than Bush’s then you would criticize him for being seditious.
The goal has been to make Iraq stable and an ally in the war on terror. That’s Bush’s policy. If William Amos’s, foreign policy extrordinaire, is to be stable, an ally, and a bunch of troops there, well knock yourself out. But you are being absurd. Our troops are stationed around the world for quick response and stability. Which is what Romney is saying.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 1:15 PM
William: Do you REALLY want the US to be occupying Iraq for the foreseeable future? You like McCains, “I’ll keep us there for the next 100 years?”
Romney’s position is entirely consistent with, say, keeping our troops there like they are in Germany. I.E. in bases and training, in a support role. Or do you want to annex Iraq?
Here’s the difference between you and Romney: Romney wants to win and then let the people there have a life. You, apparently, want Iraq to be an occupied territory forever. Or do you?
See, once AGAIN you are interpreting Romney saying he wants to be out of there with “I want to surrender as fast as possible.” That’s totally false, and a blatant lie. Romney wants to win first. Can’t you get that through your head?
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM
I don’t speak for Mitt Romney but coming from a business background (albeit less successful than his, so far), I can tell you how people like him think. When you try something - business, policy, it doesn’t matter what it is - you define exactlywhat you want to achieve, what resources you’re willing to commit, and the length of time you’re willing to give your strategy. Unless something very unexpected happens, you give your people what you promised them to get the job done. At the end of that time period you take a look at where you’re at versus your goal, and make adjustments. You get rid of the strategies that don’t work and “double down” on the strategies that do. It doesn’t mean you abandon your goals, but it means you set timetables for reviewing what’s going on and making sure you’re on the right track. It’s critical that your people (and in this case, the Iraqis as well) know what you exactly expect of them - that way you can hold them accountable for their successes and failures.
Frankly, this is what Bush didn’t do. He set an initial goal of transitioning Iraq’s government with far fewer troops than he needed and then stuck with those resource levels despite the obvious and persistent evidence that some changes needed to be made. I didn’t hear anything that suggested a withdrawal date, but I think it’s important to make sure the Iraqis know that while we are seriously committed to a stable and sovereign Iraq, our commitment is not infinite and if the goals aren’t being met then our strategy will have to change. That could mean changing the government, withdrawing troops, adding troops, redefining our goals, etc.
ErikTheRed on January 28, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Good greif I have legitimate issues with Romney’s stance on Iraq and the WOT. On one hand he said the war is important and we need to fight global jihad. On another he talks about withdrawing from Iraq.
Like I said I wanted to simply know where he stood on this issue. The guy is running for president and this is a very important issue I hope it isnt seditious of me to ask this question /sarc
Fine if Mitt wants to pull out of Iraq and fight elsewhere have the balls to say that openly. I for one have no problem with the idea of pulling out of Iraq but Mitt says he doesnt want to leave behind a problem so if the iraqis arent ready to take over does he still leave ? Even if it risks causing the problems he warns about ?
Like I said I got my answer and it was what I thought it would be and confirms what I think about Romney and his stance on the WOT.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:20 PM
No. You are being severely obtuse. You expect Mitt to give you a detailed explanation of every single point in a 30 second interview? He has already said we must win, so tuck that away in your little brain and incorporate it into Mitt’s other comments. He said we are already under timetables for withdrawal. Which is a fact because the Clenis decimated our military and we don’t have the troops to continue the force commitment at it’s current levels.
Seriously dude, you’re starting to sound like a Paulbot.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 1:21 PM
ErikTheRed,
You got it. Business Plan 101. Write it, set goals/targets, execute it, assess results, fine tune it.
digitalintrigue on January 28, 2008 at 1:22 PM
It was just his way of saying he’d keep them there as long as it takes. It was rhetoric to knee-cap a reporter.
Spolitics on January 28, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Absolutely, I’ve done some phone banking with with Romney team here in Naples, but had to stop due to school and a second job. I’ve got a couple people rooting for him, including a democrat (though that doesn’t help in this primary). Only came across one guy who is solidly behind McCain based mostly on elect-ability.
Joek7132 on January 28, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Well, William, I suppose nothing will change your mind: You’ve been attacking Romney for weeks now, so he could push the button to glass Tehran and you’d still say he was being soft, I fear.
How hard is it to follow this logic?
1) Mitt says, we need to win.
2) Mitt says, once we win, we leave, or at least draw down.
3) To win, we have to have benchmarks so we know how to measure success.
4) William Amos sez: “He’s a weak, flip flopper who wants to sell us all out in a manner reminiscent of Kerry because he won’t commit to staying in Iraq for the rest of the life of the Earth!!!!!!oneone!!”
That’s just simply asinine.
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 1:24 PM
tell me as a pratical matte how Mitt plans to leave Iraq and hope for the best and not leave a mess like he warns the democrats not to do ?
I sincerly hope that Iraq is ready for Al Qaeda. Or that Iran doesnt play games with Iraq. But added to Mitts idea that he would ask his lawyers what to do about Iran I have some serious doubts about how good a Commander and Cheif Mitt would be.
Yes it is probably wrong to assume the US can stay 100 years in Iraq. But pulling out too soon means that is more likely not less. Because it means Al Qaeda has a chance to win and set a base up there and forces us to go back in not long after we leave.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:24 PM
WA, you said:
When answered, you move the goalpost to here:
When answered, you move it back here:
Pick whichever you want. Both have been addressed. Romney wants success and the quotes are linked above. He has been clear on the 3 steps he sees progression to move in and he has been clear on the desired outcome.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Holy crap! What is wrong with you?! We have linked you to the entire discussion and you either haven’t watched it or you’re being purposely dishonest. Mitt said he would veto any bill with a withdrawal under a timetable. That’s a fact and you refuse to consider it because you are a dishonest person (or a dumbass).
For the umpteenth time…his comments were about the inevitable withdrawal from Iraq and the benchmarks required for that withdrawal. Benchmarks such as….THE IRAQI SECURITY FORCES BEING COMPETENT ENOUGH THAT OUR GUYS DON’T HAVE TO BE ON THE FRONT LINES and can move back to support positions.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Sadly I put it off too long, it ended on 1/26 so I have to wait for tomorrow.
Joek7132 on January 28, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Wait I am its sounds more like your a paulbot than me except you substute romney for Paul.
So Mitt plans to win in Iraq by withdrawing ? I hope he is right. And again if he wants to leave Iraq I HOPE he has sound plans and not what he has on his website where he wants to offer a Marshall plan to arab states to help them build schools and banks and economy recovery !
That is leftist speak for Jihadism is caused by poverty.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I guess I have to ask Mitt what the definition of WITHDRAWL is because unless I miss my guess that is just what you said above.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Ah, I see where Mr. Amos has run into comprehension difficulties.
He sees where Mitt says we want to get out of Iraq once the job is done. He thinks that what Mitt is REALLY saying is “I’m gonna bug out before I finish saying the oath of office!!!!”
Where on earth did you get that idea? True, “benchmarks” was code by the Democrats for “retreat now!” But Romney is using benchmarks differently: as a measuring stick of how things are working. If something isn’t working, change: don’t keep running your head into the same wall over and over.
Romney’s use of Benchmarks is NOT code of “I’m a surrendermonkey!”
Why William got that idea, I have no clue.
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Willfully obtuse. Again.
And again: we win, we leave. We can’t make it much simpler for you.
Cuffy Meigs on January 28, 2008 at 1:29 PM
You are absolutely correct. A pity to see a regular commenter here embarrass themselves this way. Oh well.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Q for you: When is too soon?
Answer you should give: Before all the goals are met. In other words….BENCHMARKS you dope!
Benchmark: a standard of excellence, achievement, etc., against which similar things must be measured or judged: The new hotel is a benchmark in opulence and comfort.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Your quote above seemed like a half-quote and you didn’t provide a link, so I sought it out. You cut it off at a rather conspicuous point:
It’s pretty clear what he’s saying here. First comes success, then withdrawal. And this was from your quote. I’m starting to think you want to believe he’s waffling.
Spolitics on January 28, 2008 at 1:33 PM
No you don’t. All you have to do is decide to be intellectually honest for a moment and it will all become clear. Put “withdrawal” in the context of his other comments about WINNING the frappin war.
Folks are right dude. It’s really disturbing to watch a regular commenter pathetically embarrass himself like you are doing to yourself.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 1:35 PM
William Amos comes across as a different flavor of The Chosen One; firmly entrenched and rationally unreachable. You have to make a decision when picking a candidate on the total package, and not have preconceived notions of what somebody means, because the do not speak in a monosylobic pattern. Read a book once in a while.
kflynn on January 28, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I’d be interested in comments on this.
Here are my results:
Agreed On Disagreed On
1. Mitt Romney 7 3
2. Mike Huckabee 6 4
2. Ron Paul 6 4
2. Rudy Giuliani 6 4
3. Barack Obama 5 5
3. John McCain 5 5
4. John Edwards 4 6
4. Hillary Clinton 4 6
peski on January 28, 2008 at 1:39 PM
That really is the issue for many Romney detractors, that despite him saying all the right things, they simply do not believe him. They question his motivations but often disguise their true misgivings by trying to factually argue themselves out of a paper bag.
CliffHanger on January 28, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Hey, I freakin’ tried being monosyllabic with Amos!
“We win, we leave.”
{slapping hands & fingers together like Helen Keller, mouthing words in an exargerated way}
Didn’t work.
Cuffy Meigs on January 28, 2008 at 1:40 PM
who is the guy talking to the ultra hot meg?
reliapundit on January 28, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Cuffy: Amos doesn’t believe that. His policy is ‘We never know or never can win, so we stay forever’.
He simply doesn’t believe we can win.
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Been doing a little digging…
CliffHanger on January 28, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Ya’ll Need to Stop Feeding the Sub-Bridge dweller.
“William
AnusAmos” (oops sorry bout that)We know he doesn’t like Romney (fer goodness sake we get that already yeesh!)Since his Posting birth on HA we know he has this rancor in his heart for Mitt.
His circular arguments are not only obtuse, but he’s spinning everything Mitt says to his own ends. I’m getting nauseous like on the playground spinner.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM
You are fixated on this 100 years thing but neither McCain or Romney will be here 100 years from now.
Both would stay however long it takes to get the job done.
McCain seeks Iraq benchmarks as ‘last chance’
U.S. Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, said on Saturday he was preparing a resolution setting a series of targets for the Iraqi government as a “last chance” effort to reverse U.S. failure.
The Senate resolution would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government to defuse the escalating conflict and create the conditions for a U.S. withdrawal, McCain said at a briefing at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Wouldn’t it be disingenuous to assert that that statement meant that McCain was prepared to cut and run?
Buy Danish on January 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Treasure. Have you sent that to Romney camp yet?
CliffHanger on January 28, 2008 at 1:51 PM
May I just interject that basing your vote on one policy is foolhearty. We will never agree with ALL the positions a candidate takes. It’s the way the world works… the only way it’ll happen is when you are president. What you have to do is look at who more closely represents your viewpoints and vote for that person. I have a hard time believing anybody who says that once a certain candidate clarifies his position on one policy (which in this case has been done), then he’ll vote for him.
Luckedout on January 28, 2008 at 1:51 PM
I don’t like speaking ill of Republicans,but what McCain
has said about Mitt Romney is no different than what
Bill Clinton continues to do today,distort the truth.
Mitt Romney essential said that the timetable for withdrawl
wouldn’t be for public consumption,to embloden the terrorists.
McCain lied about Mitt,simple.The news media asked McCain
about it through the weekend,McCain tried to change the
subject.
The bottomline is Mitt didn’t say it,and any Republican
shouldn’t be thrilled at what McCain did,let the lying,
coniving Liberals corner that part of the political
election process!
canopfor on January 28, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Ah I get it now. Romney is going to declare victory in Iraq and head home. ITS SO OBVIOUS NOW !
Im glad we won the WOT I missed that in the press.
Look I will play devils advocate and take romney’s side in this. If he wants to go this route then do the following
say “I think there are ways other than militarily to win in Iraq. And the WOT is important enough that we take the main fight away from Iraq and on to other fronts. Our military has done the job it set out to do in Iraq and now is needed elsewhere. I plan to remove major combat units to take the fight to Al Qaeda elsewhere. The Iraqi people will have the support of the US government to face the challenges ahead.”
See how easy that is ? But no I get “Time tables and benchmarks” and 3 step plans. That isnt leadership. If Mitt wants to fight the WOT another way then proudly proclaim that dont hedge the issue.
And fine if you want to attack me for asking Mitt’s stance on Iraq and the WOT I dont get how that makes Mitt’s stance any more palitible. Just saying he thinks Iraq is important all the while making plans for a withdraw undermines his statements.
Mitt is a candidate for President Im sorry if I ask him tough questions that he doesnt want to answer.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Wow, McCain seeks benchmarks in one of our most PUBLIC institutions, the Senate?
That means he’s a defeatist. Correct, William Amos?
Cuffy Meigs on January 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Also from your article
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:55 PM
This is fun watching supporters of Mitt-McCain go at it.
swami on January 28, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Ya’ll Need to Stop Feeding the Sub-Bridge dweller.
“William Anus Amos” (oops sorry bout that)
We know he doesn’t like Romney (fer goodness sake we get that already yeesh!)Since his Posting birth on HA we know
You know at least I havent stooped to personal attacks because I disagree with someone. I simply pointed out where Mitt stood in the WOT and now Im persona non grata ?
When did Mitt become our Messiah ?
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Mr Amos, your insistence on a strong US military commitment to Iraq by Mr Romney is quite contrived based on the evidence. And a man as adamant as you are about this matter would have already served one if not two tours there in furtherance of his own moral imperative. Dare I guess from your general demeanor that you are strictly an armchair warrior, since your type would have bragged incessantly about any experience however tangential to the mission?
I will not feed the troll again, I will not feed the troll again, I will not feed the troll again…even if he has been rational in the past.
horatio on January 28, 2008 at 1:59 PM
William: Have you Missed the point? Yes, yes you have.
Show me one quote where Mitt said he’d withdraw before the job was done.
You can’t.
Explain how you came to the conclusion, despite everyone else (and Mitt’s own strenuous denials) that Mitt wants to cut and run.
He doesn’t want to cut and run. He doesn’t think that we should pull our troops out of Iraq before Al qaeda is defeated, despite YOUR insinuation.
I call you a troll until you can show us the quote that Romney says, unequivocally, that “I’m going to pull our troops out of Iraq before we win.” If you cannot produce such a quote, you stand convicted of lying and distorting Mitt’s record and plan (as numerous other people have accused you of).
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Hmmmm. Funny how you consider all of McLiars article, but cherry pick Mitt’s.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Holy. Crap. Are you seriously this dim?
“We win, we leave.”
It means “we ARE victorious.” Not, “we DECLARE victory.” That comma thingy means, “here comes the next thing in this sequence” which is “we leave.”
For f**k’s sake, here are two more monosyllabic words. “When we win, then we leave.” Better?
Cuffy Meigs on January 28, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I found it by Googling McCain+Benchmarks so I would think they would have this at their disposal. He who assumes makes an ass of U and me?
Buy Danish on January 28, 2008 at 2:03 PM
NTWR on January 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »