Romney in that interview (the part that people cut out and don't want you to hear): "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.
Maybe so. I don't support either candidate and I think they both have done a rather poor job in explaining the issue.
But in the context of the question and the fact that "timetable" was generally accepted as a code for retreat last year, Romney seems to imply a willingness to support such a policy.
At any rate, I think both candidates come out looking worse after discussing this. They both should just drop it and debate the real issues.
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.
Q: "Do you believe there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?"
A: "There's no question that the president and (Iraqi) Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone."
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.
Never known to be dishonest? What about McCain's rejection during the FL debate of his quotes admitting he didn't know about economics? What about his quotes in the AZStar News about McCain's interest in setting benchmarks for the Iraqis? (Google it.) I'm for Obama but this was shameful and Hackabee is McCain's shill. Will he say anything to be Veep?
Romney in that interview (the part that people cut out and don't want you to hear): "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.
smpf38 4 years ago
Maybe so. I don't support either candidate and I think they both have done a rather poor job in explaining the issue.
But in the context of the question and the fact that "timetable" was generally accepted as a code for retreat last year, Romney seems to imply a willingness to support such a policy.
At any rate, I think both candidates come out looking worse after discussing this. They both should just drop it and debate the real issues.
SpyGuy222 4 years ago
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.
smpf38 4 years ago
Q: "Do you believe there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?"
A: "There's no question that the president and (Iraqi) Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone."
Sounds like it to me.
SpyGuy222 4 years ago
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.
smpf38 4 years ago
Never known to be dishonest? What about McCain's rejection during the FL debate of his quotes admitting he didn't know about economics? What about his quotes in the AZStar News about McCain's interest in setting benchmarks for the Iraqis? (Google it.) I'm for Obama but this was shameful and Hackabee is McCain's shill. Will he say anything to be Veep?
Tohkeeoh7 4 years ago