Mitt Romney supports "private" timetable for Iraq withdrawal

Good Morning America, April 3

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• mitt
• romney
• iraq

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!!!

[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.

[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.

[BorislavX]

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

[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

[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,