Mitt Romney supports "private" timetable for Iraq withdrawal

[HerrQuixota]

omfg, bunch of idiots on youtube attacking a guy who said TIME TABLES...

What the fuck, are we going to be in Iraq FOREVER? What the fuck is he suppose to tell the American People?

Just stfu

[unholytarantula]

McCain is wrong and dishonest for suggesting mitt approved timetables. McCain said "timetables what the buzzword in 2007". Well...Did Mitt bring up the buzzword or did the interviewer? I believe the interviewer asked do you believe in timetables. Mitt said there should be timetables (goals) and milestones between Bush and the Iraq prime minister, but not public T.T. (goals to reach) and milestones. We would never want the enemy to be hiding in the bushes until we left. that is what T.T. do

[smpf38]

Romney in that interview: "You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the leadership of the Iraqi government."

That's what Romney said needed "timetables", not troop withdrawal. McCain tried to equate Romney's position with Hillary's and other Democrats. It was dishonest what McCain has done.

[pjinnevada]

BS Timetables are *schedules*, milestones are goals. Romney *said* in the video that there is *NO QUESTION BUT THAT THERE HAVE TO BE TIMETABLES*; but that the enemy should not know how long they have to wait in the weeds before we are *GONE*. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, ITS A DUCK!!!

[cureloms]

Romney said that there have to be a "series of timetables and milestones." Listen again. Why would you think that setting target dates (timetables) and milestones (goals) is not part of an intelligent strategy? Obviously, if more time is required, then the time would be adjusted, but you always want a target. Your comment seems like an intentional mischaracterization.  I think it is clear what Romney said.

[standupformccain]

That fact that Mitt is needing to slice and dice on this issue is the problem. As a nominee for president he was speaking PUBLICLY about the secret timetables he would employ if elected. This is how we learn how someone would behave in office. Romney failed at a critical moment here.

On the other hand, during this critical time, McCain literally had an effect on how history is turning out, in supporting our commitment to the democratically elected government of Iraq.

In other words,

[smpf38]

McCain purposefully mischaractarized Romney's statements. He equated Romney's position with the Hillary/Democrat position, which was to set a specific date for withdrawal regardless of success.

Romney supported private timetables for "milestones and benchmarks" (steps that would lead up to a stable Iraqi government). You need to set goals and put pressure on the Iraqi leadership, otherwise, we are just in Iraq as a permanent occupation with no plans for progress or completing the mission.

[cureloms]

your comment is nonsensical. setting timetables is part of any strategic planning, especially in a military counter-insurgency. Nothing is compromised by the enemy knowing that you make strategic plans. you don't want a president who sets target dates and goals? you're obviously distorting the situation, which is motivated by your political views.

[BorislavX]

I am ashamed of himself.

He is a flat out lying about Mitt, in fact the next question of this interview directly asked if Mitt would support a timetable for withdrawl to which he answered - NO.

McCain on the other hand is on the record for having supported BENCHMARKS in Iraq. Does that mean he was for withdrawal to? Or maybe Amnesty John is confused because he has changed his view on immigration about 3 times in the past 6 months.

[Daleesp]

The only liar is Mitt Romney. Mitt answered "NO" to a publicly approved timetable, not the secret timetable that he and his Mormon buddies are so famous for keeping. It's not secret, it's sacred... give me a break Mitt and Mitt supporters.

[BorislavX]

McCain supported Benchmarks on Iraq, that means he was for withdrawal.

[AAjetjock]

"you don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you are gonna be gone" Now why would he say that if he was not referenceing a timetable for pull out. (we should get out though ASAP!)

[unholytarantula]

It means HE DOES NOT want a timetable. A timetable WOULD GIVE THE TERRORISTS a specific date to wait around in the weeds until we pull out our troops, then have a terrorist takeover where they come out of "the weeds". ROMNEY said 'you don't want the enemy... to know when you are going to pull out so they can have a massive celebration that day. I'm am stunned that you do not understand the quote

[AAjetjock]

LISTEN TO IT AGAIN! HE SAYS:

"WELL THERE'S NO QUESTION but that the president and uhh and uhh prime minister Al Maliki have to have a SERIES OF TIME TABLES and miles stones that they speak about but those shouldn't be for public uhh pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you are gonna be gone"

HE WAS SAYING EMPHATICALLY "YES" TO A "SECRET" TIME TABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL!

I AM SURPRISED THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!

[cureloms]

nice mischaracterization. I think your interpretation is flawed. Romney made the point that if there were a set deadline, then the enemy would simply have to "wait in the weeds until you are gonna be gone." That's exactly the point that he was making...not setting a specific time for withdrawal, but setting target dates and goals in private with Iraqi leadership to have a stable government in place before withdrawing. You're eating your own words.

[smpf38]

Here is the deal. Romney DID call for milestones, benchmarks, goals, etc. And there is no point in setting goals if there is no timetable. What is the alternative? Just an indefinite occupation with no program or motivation to get our troops home.

So, Romney was for "milestones" and benchmarks. Good for him, because that is the correct position to have. You would be a terrible leader if you weren't setting goals for the mission and trying to complete it in a timely manner.

[ohiosux]

I don't see what the big deal is with this comment. We need to leave Iraq eventually. He's just stating the obvious. At the time this comment was made, the Democrats were fighting for a SPECIFIED timetable for withdrawal. McCain IS dishonest. Mitt's not even my guy, as I prefer Rudy. The point is that there is nothing to see here; move along.

[observer750]

MITT = MIlitary Time Tables

[johnnysain]

McCain will let Ted Kennedy and Hilary decide what to do in Iraq.

[rwb8282]

Now Mitt has the audacity to call Senator John Sidney McCain III "dishonest". A man who has served his country all his life was just called a liar for saying that Romney supported a secret timetable for withdraw. Judge for yourself. Congrads, Mitt. You have brought a new level of dishonor to politics!

[cmartel2]

Romney never said a thing about a timetable of withdrawal. You're the one being dishonest. If you want to talk about "timetables and milestones," okay. But withdrawal never came from Romney's mouth.

[rwb8282]

Let me guess...semantics. Like he saw his father march with MLK?  Here's the quote:"Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?" ROMNEY: "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about."

But thats not about withdraw? timetables for when to meet for tea?

[CoryT9783]

Lol you're right. They shouldn't guage at all or set parameters for when it would be ok to withdrawal. That's just irresponsible to NOT talk about that.

[Paulsur]

Mitt never says we should withdraw, so yeah McAmensty is a dirty rotten liar as President in waiting Romney says. By the way, here is the quote where McAmnesty suggests withdrawal:

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, [McCain] said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

[krove]

what mitt basically said was, yes there should be a timetable for when the troops are "going to be gone", but the enemy shouldn't know about it.

[jodale1972]

So some of you say he didn't say it and some of you defend him saying it. Kind of sounds like Romney himself talking here. Which is it?

[MrJGFAN]

Another flip flop by Mitt, not to surprised though the guys has been lying since the beginning of his campaign at least he is staying consistent on something.

[cmartel2]

Did you even watch the video?

[maughanmom]

Hello - did anyone even listen to the last line? The libs want to have public time tables so that they can make political hay and keep the defeatist Koz-kids happy vs. having set goals that are NOT PUBLIC even though this scores no points with the cut-n-run crowd. I have no problem with Romney stating he is far NON PUBLIC time tables. Huckster was trying to score a cheap shot - leaving out this key detail - to make it sound as if Romney was right behind the dems on this one.

[JasonTcpa]

I acutally supported a timetable for withdrawl before I opposed it.

[radlandon]

Mr. Romney,

Tonights debate (1/5/07) you said you didn't support a timeline. Did you just flip-flop? You are sounding very fake!

[natewebb]

Do weeds even grow in the sand?

[dharmamarx]

Mitt's not going to pull out troops after al-Maliki's government is stabilized. There is a good documentary on YouTube called "The Bases are Loaded"; watch it (it won't kill you). The US invaded Iraq to build permanent military bases there. We're going to be in Iraq until the oil runs out, and we're going to deal w/ terrorism for decades to come b/c of it. How would you feel if Turkey had military bases all over the U.S.? Bet you'd hate the Turks.