McCain's False Accusations
Analyze This...Once More for the Cheap Seats in the Back
By Ericka Andersen Posted in 2008 — Comments (56) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Republican frontrunner John McCain last week accused his opponent Mitt Romney of supporting timetables for withdrawal from Iraq earlier this year.
Specifically, McCain said, “Gov. Romney wanted to set a date for withdrawal [from Iraq] similar to what the Democrats are seeking, which would have led to a victory by al Qaeda in my view."
McCain relies on one quote that Romney said about seven months ago in a television interview. In answer to the question of timetables for the war in Iraq, Romney said the President and Prime Minister Al-Maliki should have “a series of timetables and milestones” to speak about in private.
“You don’t want to the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone,” Romney said. His comment made no mention of specific withdrawal dates.
Read On...
In another statement, McCain compared Romney to the Democrats, saying, “If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher.”
In Wednesday’s Republican debate, McCain pulled out the accusation again. Here’s an excerpt from the CNN debate:
HOOK: Yes. I'd like to start with Governor Romney.
Obviously, Iraq is still a major issue in this campaign, and over the last few days there's been a real back-and-forth going on here. Senator McCain has said over and over again that you supported a timetable for a phased withdrawal from Iraq.Is that true?
ROMNEY: Absolutely, unequivocal -- if I can get that word out -- unequivocably, absolutely no. I have never, ever supported a specific timetable for exit from Iraq. And it's offensive to me that someone would suggest that I have.
And I have noted that everyone from Time magazine to Bill Bennett over there to actually CNN's own analysts, he said it was a lie and it's absolutely wrong.
I do not support that, never have. We've had -- we've -- and Senator McCain pointed to an interview I had back in April with ABC, when I said that our president and their prime minister should have timetables and milestones.
We have timetables and milestones for progress that we're making together. But I never suggested a date specific to withdraw and, actually, she asked me a question and that question was: "If Congress were to give you a date specific for withdrawal, would you, Senator, veto it?" I said I'd veto it.
I'm opposed to setting a specific date for withdrawal. By the way, we've had, since that time, 10-12 debates. Senator McCain never raised that question in any of those debates.
If he ever wondered what my position was, he could have raised it. I instead have pointed out time and time again, and let me make it absolutely clear again tonight, I will not pull our troops out until we have brought success in Iraq, and that means, for me, that we do not have safe havens for Al Qaida or Hezbollah or anyone else, that our troops have secured the population from that kind of threat, that they will not have safe havens from which they could launch attacks against us.
And if there's any misunderstanding, those words should make it perfectly clear, as have every single debate that I've attended...
Even after this strong denial, McCain renewed the charge. Here’s another part of the debate:
COOPER: Senator McCain, tough words.
MCCAIN: Well, of course, he said he wanted a timetable. Before that, we have to understand that we lost the 2006 election and the Democrats thought that they had a mandate. They thought they had a mandate to get us out of Iraq.
And I was prepared to sacrifice whatever was necessary in order to stand up for what I believed in.
McCain stuck with the charge even after moderator Anderson Cooper challenged him with the actual quote:
COOPER: So, Senator McCain, the quote is from Governor Romney on GMA that you've been quoting. The actual quote is, "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones"...
MCCAIN: Timetables and milestones.COOPER: ... "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."
The quote -- and Sen. McCain’s argument attached to it -- don’t connect. Romney was speaking of one thing and McCain wanted it to be something else, so he simply ignored what Romney said and kept arguing.
Romney has since called it a “false accusation” and a “dirty trick.” During the CNN, LA Times and Politico-sponsored debate, Romney said he has, “never, ever supported a specific timetable."
Newspapers across the country have denounced the charge as ridiculous. The AP called it a “distortion” and the Washington Post fact checker said “McCain has distorted the meaning of a nine-month old quote from Romney.”
As Romney pointed out, there have been at least 10 or 12 debates since the “timetables” quote and McCain didn’t mention it until now. What McCain thought he could use as political ammunition against his opponent has become a gun turned the other way.
John McCain’s credibility is already low with conservatives. How can he repair it by making false charges such as this?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Super Tuesday Preview — Comments (65) »
McCain's False Accusations 56 Comments (0 topical, 56 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
you say you predict John McCain will die in the next four years. You base that on what exactly? I think you should take your morbid opinion and stuff it where the sun don't shine.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
as the night wears on. It IS Superbowl Weekend, and so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is alcohol. You might want to start fresh in the morning.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
serious. This poster disrecpects and American Hero by saying we should have a physical "top to bottom", and that it is likely he will die in the next 4 years. Let me say something to you Vegas, what exactly did I say that was abusive again?
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
and increasingly nasty tone to your last half dozen posts -- kind of a cumulative effect. It is becoming obvious...
This is the last reply I will be making, and I don't intend to get involved in your...whatever it is
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
1. Your title is abusive and disrespectful.
2. Actuarial tables published by the social security suggest that, in fact, there's about a 1 in 6 chance that a man who is aged 72 will die in the next 4 years. This data is based on 2003 mortality, but I doubt it's changed significantly since. I haven't located any actual charts, but if you add in 'cancer survivor' to that it is probably significantly higher, on the order of 1 in 4 or 1 in 3. Does that qualify as 'very good chance' as the original poster suggested? Iffy, but certainly it's close enough to not merit your abuse.
McCain Derangement Syndrome types are no better than Paulbots. I apologize for nothing, and I will be here tomorrow.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
well thank the Lord for that!
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Either way, please tell me where I was out of line. I already apologized for the retarded comment. The reference was to someone who said John McCain would die in the nest few years. I found that comment terribly insulting and outrageous.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
class and I know about piling on. What part of class are you exemplifying in this? I have an idea, why don't you just back off prat.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
...you're wrong about this:
you sir are joining something no one asked you to
You are the one who called him out!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
...and this does not leave this room... Lord Vegas is David Hinz and David Hinz is Lord Vegas -- they'll deny it up and down... but it's true!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
and those too into this stuff.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
a sockpuppet does not contact the CEO of the website BEFORE creating a screen name to make sure that everything is Kosher -- with the full knowledge of all of the moderators.
agrees with me is not a sock puppet or alter ego.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
friends to back him up. But if you search upthread, his alter ego Lord Vegas started with me, not the other way around.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
...Maybe a break (just for tonight) is a good idea?
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
McCain and the OP's sadistic disrespect. BTW, I do notice your sig.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
something to play with, I stand by my comments and my apology for using the word retarded, which is not like me. Anyway, out of respect for you and this site, I will drop it and not reply to this stuff.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
you notice my sig and what?
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Take it from a Rudy guy thats been there. This can be tough to deal with. A few deep breaths maybe in order.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If Hinz or Foley asks me to stick around, then I will leave.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Lol as long as you don't say think Brazilian army is outside your door, you'll be fine.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I think thats natures way of telling me to hit the sack.
Take it easy Doc. Things will change after tuesday.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
you see, THAT is just exactly the aggressive, threatening attitude I picked up in your posts. YOU are looking to PICK a fight. YOUR entire attitude is snotty.
I am done with you tonight...hopefully you will be sober tomorrow and able to post intelligently.
Stephen Hayes, Charles Krauthammer and Mort Kondracke agree with McCain:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008/02/hayes_kra...
At the time he did the interview, many people thougth he was talking about a withdraw. Including Mark Pryor:
"“At the end of the day, the president doesn't have an exit plan,” Pryor spokesman Michael Teague said in an interview. “We think he should be forced to develop that, and we’re happy to see Mitt Romney feels the same way."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romney-supports-secret-iraq-timetabl...
There was a lot of ambiguity in Romney words and he refused to take a position on the surge at its conception. It was his soft-talk that allowed McCain to challenge Romney on this issue. And I think reasonable people can honestly disagree about whether or not Romney advocated secret timetables for withdrawal. Frankly, I think he was trying to have it both ways.
In the same article that the Anti-Romney crowd wants to keep referring to, when it comes to timetables for withdrawal,Romney clearly says he will oppose any timetables for withdrawal just like Bush. He goes on to make a nice WW2 analogy about it. If they'd just read a bit farther and work on that comprehension they'd see Romney is against setting a withdrawal date.
FredHeads for Mitt!
I still support him, but this type of politics is not what I want. Romney has also engaged in what I consider to be low politics, and no, that is not an excuse.
at the top of redstate?
This McCainLied thread is really old, has been refuted, as someone points out upthread, by charles Krauthammer and Kondracke, and romney himself seems to want to drop it.
Let me give you some advice:
Trying to engage McCain on any topic dealing with national security, the war on terror, the war in Iraq and especially the surge, is a suicide mission. You will not succeed. You will fail.
This whole McCainLied BS is just an attempt to take the surge off the table as an issue in the general in order to protect Democrats, as I've said countless times here.
Why do you keep bringing it up? Romney tried in the debate. You probably havent't noticed this, but Romney is tanking seriously going into Super Tuesday and McCain is rising. In other words, whatever you're trying to do isn't working.
Jeez. McCain OWNS the surge. If he says Romney wasn't on board then Romney wasn't on board. End of story. So knock it off. It's boring and annoying. I'm bored just typing this. Stop it.
If he says Romney wasn't on board then Romney wasn't on board.
So much for facts. Makes for a good McCainiac.
with the economy going into the tank right now, the surge will be far down the list of items of importance when November comes around. And McCain is not someone I want as our nominee trying to deal with economic issues. For example, as someone who voted against the Bush tax cuts, what credibility would he now have to propose further tax cuts to help turn the economy around?
McCain has been in the U.S. Congress for almost his entire life since leaving the military, and has never dealt with the every day decisions necessary to making businesses grow and prosper. Granted, Romney has no military experience, but given what now appears likely to be the top issue in November, I would rather have as my nominee someone who "gets it" with respect to economic issues.
Timetables are a bad idea because they do not take into consideration actual conditions on the ground, be they secret or public. To argue that McCain is out of line because Romney wanted to keep them secret is a red herring. Secret or not, they are bad strategy and betray a lack of tactical judgement on Romney's part.
Insurgencies are conditions-based actions. Timetables play out in favor of the insurgents because it only takes one or two high-profile attacks to increase feelings of insecurity in local populations. Creating a sense of security was essential to the surge. Romney did not understand this.
Romney had his finger in the wind on this one. There is no quesstion this is a fair attack on McCain's part.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
The timetables and goals he was talking about with relation to the Maliki government were not related to withdrawal. 1 or 2 paragraphs down the same article Romney SAYS he will oppose ANY sort of withdrawal timetables JUST....gasp...LIKE....cough...
BUSH!!!!aaaaarrrrggghhhhh <---falls to ground frothing at mouth
FredHeads for Mitt!
"Timetable" had a clear connotation when Romney made that statement (See Hayes in the Weekly Standard, for one).
If Romney didn't mean it, he shouldn't have said it. A time table is a timetable is a timeta ble. This is when Republicans were jumping ship. Romney was trying to speak to all groups at once. We deserve better.
By the way, I WILL vote for Romney if he wins the nomination.
I would like to get that pledge in terms of McCain from whomever is willing to make it...
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
The question related to timetables to withdraw.
The answer stated: “You don’t want to the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone.”
Withdraw and 'gone' are the same thing.
I hate to break this news to those who cannot comprehend context (you should be a defense lawyer) but context matters. The context was leave, as in withdraw, and as in 'gone'.
There is no way in the whole wide world that Al-Maliki and Bush and have any sort of talk, public OR private about a withdraw of 'gone' of American forces. NO WAY! The very far stretch of saying Romney did not say what he said is beyond logic.
But he did it again. When he found the word 'change' to be a hit with Democrats he embraced their brand and took it. A businessman who spent his life turning around ailing enterprises is an opportunist who goes with the wind, as the wind is where the customers are.
Romney said 'timetables' then had to explain his way out of using the term that Democrats were living on at that time. Today, he is saying 'change' and pushing it almost as hard as Obama.
Please stop this silly argument over semantics. The meaning of words and the context in which they are presented is paramount to whether one wishes to accept what was said.
McCain tried to weed his way out of the fray in the debate by saying Romney's answer should have been 'no'. And if Romney had the conviction of his ideals, and the character to not be swayed by incoming noise, he would have.
But I respect those who disagree, no matter how far off context they may be.
Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com
Just as I begin resigning myself to him as the nominee he pulls this crap.
I agree that some of McCain's rhetoric on this was overblown and that he should have worded his criticism differently. But the more I've read about this, the more I've come to see a sharp contrast between McCain's strong leadership on this issue and Romney's basic evasiveness. Robert Kagan puts it well:
"It may also be worth pointing out that the only reason Republicans have any chance of winning in 2008 is because of the surge. Imagine a Republican running this year as the American position in Iraq crumbled, with images of defeat and slaughter on the TV every night, instead of signs of progress. People might reflect a bit on these facts before entering upon a crusade against someone who behaved with such high-minded political courage, at the apparent expense of his electoral prospects, at a time when many others tried to duck."
Kagan's full defense of McCain and a number of detailed posts on this issue are on the Weekly Standard blog. They are essential reading for anyone concerned about this issue and whether McCain was right to make an issue of Romney's position:
As a McCain supporter I have to admit when he first started on this new line of attack versus Romney I didn't get it. When I listened to the debate I understand McCain's position and I agree with him 100%.
FACTS:
1) Mitt's team values research and polling data. He tried to run his campaign like a business with lots of data, research, and analysis
2) At the time Mitt made his comment the buzz word regarding the war in Iraq was timetables. The dems wanted a timetable for removing the troops out of Iraq
3) McCain was against any timetable and was asked as such at the time
4) Mitt has changed his mind on a lot of issues
5) Mitt discusses timetable as well as conditions
INTERPRETATION:
It is quite a reasonable conclusion to draw that Mitt Romney was trying to walk a fine line by appealing to Americans who wanted to hear words like timetable because the war was unpopular. Can't you see a scenario based on Mitt's internal research that his advisors told him to latch on to the timetable buzzword? I can and I find it very believable. John McCain didn't cave in and stood his ground on this issue and turned out to be correct.
I think it is a valid comparison to show how McCain and Romney differed on their decision making at the time. Did Mitt Romney use the words "I support a timetable for removing our troops"? No, but he sure did appear to be trying to stay in the middle of a critical issue.
This is an example of why Mitt Romney is not fit to be President in my opinion and why I can't support him. Too much polling data. Too much trying to stay in the middle of issues. No leadership on an issue but trying to go the way people think he should go. Finally, this is why his flip flopping on abortion over the years more than serves as an example of why I don't trust him.
IMWITHMCCAIN
that highlights some of this exact exchange, as well asother aspects pf John McCains arrogance, deception an his own little flip-flops.
It happened; he got away with it; and he's not had to acknowledge what he did, he merely insists he's right. We're stuck with him; and I hope those that have given him their support, despite what he's done over the last seven years, remembers how he got the nomination. And one more thing, if anyone suggest's he's up for this job despite his age (72), I suggest they watch him closely. Assuming he is the nominee, I think the real issue will become his pick for Vice President because that person has a very good chance of becoming President in McCains first term, if elected. And just for the record, I think we're insane to elect anyone to a public office, especially the Presidency, beyond the age of 70 without a complete physical, top to bottom.