Mitt Romney on Iraq
Just Like Starting Over
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Mitt Romney's statement in advance of tonight's speech by the president mostly hits the right notes in supporting an increase in troops in Baghdad, although you can see him straining to both embrace and distance himself from the Bush Administration from the opening line: "I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change." But it also includes this head-scratcher: "Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror."
Now, I understand the argument that we have not done that adequately, but does Romney really believe we have not even been trying to protect the civilian population of Iraq from violence and terror? What exactly does he think 130,000 soldiers have been doing there for three and a half years?
UPDATE: In fairness, since some of the Contributors have had some sport here with Romney's slow reactions to foreign policy stories in the past, I should note that my preferred candidate, Rudy Giuliani, is refusing to comment until he hears President Bush's speech tonight.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Random Election News — Comments (17) »
Mitt Romney on Iraq 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think what he is saying is that the members of this administration and leaders of the military need to find new techniques and stradegies to secure Iraq. When you look at this, the rank and file military men/woman have been doing everything that they have been asked to do. The direction that they are getting is crap and needs to move in a new direction to achieve the goal of victory.
A soldier can only do what he is being asked to do, so the people that are giving direction need to figure this thing out fast or what is the point of having them there? I understand that war is a lot of times going to be long drawn out things but our soldiers are fighting a war with handcuffs on. Let them blow crap up and kill bad people like they have been trained to do, and for hell sakes do you think securing the boarders would be a good idea.? That is when we will see progress.
Although I went off there about the direction of the war...I think Romney was saying, he supports the troop build-up but give them clear objectives with good stradegy to accomplish them.
if Romney issues a statement correcting the abomination that is presently his position I intend to ban both you guys.
Why, you ask?
Back in December, Romney ignored the ISG report for a week. The rom-bots on this site praised him to high heaven (oh, he's a governor, he's in China, that benighted place doesn't even have sunlight much less telephone or internet access, how could he interrupt his last junket as a lame duck governor to read a measly three page executive summary?). Then Romney issued a statement, after everyone had forgotten what the ISG was, and the same rom-bots praised him for his insight.
No more.
If Romney changes this statement both you guys are history.
That makes perfect sense because they clearly violated the posting rules.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com
***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***
There must be more going on here because I can't see why the two posters above should be banned. Your beef seems to be with the timing of Romney's ISG statement. However, neither of the two posters above said anything about the timing of Romney's most recent statement. Their comments were dealing with the substantive aspects of his statement.
Part A
- Point out the parts which break posting rules
- Point out the statements unsupported by facts
- Point out the substantive statements
Part B
Discuss
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Just so we are clear, here are the posting rules:
1. No profanity
2. No personal attacks
3. No harrasment or demonization of a particular individual (this should be clarified to exclude Hillary)
4. No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.
5. Do not sign up with accounts impersonating identifiable public figures.
6. Do not post a press release from any candidate running in 2008 as a blog post.
7. Do not pimp a candidate or tear down a candidate because you are getting paid to do so.
8. Do not post something here that you've posted in multiple other places in an effort to promote or harm a candidate for office.
Okay, so where did the above posters violate the rules? One of them has probably since violated the rules with a post futher down, but I don't see what they did up above. Everything they said seemed to be relevant to the original post by Dan.
All I am asking is why the above posters are being threatened with removal. That is why I was wondering if there is something else going on that I am not privy to.
When you find a pointy stick, don't try it out on a moderator. Even if he or she doesn't harpoon you, the rest of us peons figure out right away you're not real far up on the IQ chain.
More free advice... say you're sorry and move onto something else.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
I'm a big fan of Giuliani, but I understand that the man is not always right. We've had some difficulty of late with Romney supporters who seem unable to grasp the same distinction as regards their guy.
I don't actually quibble with Romney's position here, although I'd prefer it be a tad less obviously calculated. My gripe is with the boneheadedness of the assertion that we have not previously been protecting Iraqis from terror and violence. A little "well, that wasn't written very well but I doubt that's what he meant to say" goes a long way.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
goven that the President is going to speak tonight, I would have prefered he wait one day and comment on the substance of what the President says.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
I guess I haven't read paid enough attention to the posts of the two people above to know whether they simply parrot Mitt's positions or not.
I don't disagree with this rule (is it a rule?), but it seems there are some others on this board that seem to agree with almost everything their candidate (not Mitt obviously) believes.
I really don't know what rules I have broken that would constitute a ban, although I have no doubt you would ban me because I have a different thought process than you, as I know someone you have done that with.
Silly me, I thought that this blog was made so that people could come in and exchange ideas even if they were different.
Please forgive me Supreme Dictator Streiff.
Let me along with everyone else know what we can and cant say so we can still be part of "your discussion"
What a joke!... Someone on a conservative site trying to supress what others think.
demonstrated that you can think. This post just reinforces that perception.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
I have no dog in this fight - I, frankly, don't give a tinker's dam who the front-runner is at this stage of the game... OK, that's not true; McCain makes my teeth itch, but Romney doesn't, 'kay? - anyway, I am disinterested on the political level about this particular conflict, so understand me when I say this.
You have a problem with a moderator, email the Directors. Keep this kind of posting behavior up, and I'll boot you myself.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Since the President is due to actually announce what his policy will be, tonight, I think Rudy's position - waiting on the actual announcement - is the right one.
I don't much care about the timing of Mitt's announcement one way or the other.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
I have to agree with you. As I said when I defended Romney not initially responding to the ISG while on a trade mission to Asia, the only person whose opinion matters about what to do in Iraq for the next two years is President Bush.
By the time we elect a new President in 2008 the situation will undoubtedly be much different in which case any posturing about the ISG or the President’s address tonight (or before it) is about as meaningful as voting for the Libertarian candidate for President.
Why don’t you read this, extensively. Then come back and tell us how those entire arguments fail on all counts.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Did you happen to catch the President's speach? I guess I was way off base saying that the troops had handcuffs on them and couldn't accomplish victory with the current stradegy. :)
Or, I guess you can listen to what the President said in admitting this and taking ownice for it.
This should put to rest whether or not there was any thought given to my comments as criticised before...although I don't expect attitudes will be changed.
Let's pray that this new direction works and that the Democrats can quit with the defeatist attitudes.
God bless the troops, may they destroy all evil in the way of victory.
I find it amazing that people here look past what you are really saying and see what they want to see in order to rip you.
***THE TROOPS ARE DOING FANTASTIC!***
It is common sense that they are unable to accomplish what they went there to do under the current stradegy. I know they are making strides in securing the people of Iraq but they are handcuffed.
Why is it that you can't see that they are unable to really do what it is that they have been trained to do because the politicians of this country are worried about feelings and political correctness.
Is it really that bad for me to think that way? I want to win the war. I think we can. But how can you say that the stradegy is working? Either you are ignorant or have some reason for repeating the tired old line from Pres Bush. "We are making progress."
Nice warden comment by the way. That really makes your points strong!
As a tentative Mitt supporter myself, I am beginning to perceive that my position might put me on thin ice at Red State, and such being the case I'd like some elaboration here. While I certainly agree that some of what was written by the two posters in question is poorly reasoned, I still don't understand:
What rules have they broken?
And especially, what does what Mitt says in the future have to do with anything?
Thanks for your patience with me, if this is obvious to everyone else.
As you may have noticed, a number of the Contributors are at least tentatively for Romney, including at last check Erick. Our problem has been with the tendency of Romney-related posts to attract an unusual number of commenters who get unduly defensive about their guy and have difficulty understanding or dealing rationally with specific criticisms of him.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
But what I'd also like to know is this: is causing this frustration for an editor grounds for banning, or must a poster break some rule?
It seems from my question and your response that the answer is the former, but I feel that should be made common knowledge - which it is not - if it is indeed the case.
Or have the posters broken some rule?
Also (and this is for streiff), why does what Romney say in the future have such importance in whether or not these posters can continue at RedState? Seems irrelevant...
Look, I really don't understand how anyone can say that the stradegy in Iraq is working. That is all I am saying here. It looks like this is a case where some of the older posters and controllers of the site disagree with me and want to put the new guy down. Fine, if that makes you feel powerful go ahead. I am not a Romney minion. Do I support his presidency? Yes. Do I think he is perfect? NO. I was making a statement based on fact about Iraq. If it was working gloriously there would be no need for more troops, or any other change of plans. But look at what is happening.
I had a lot of respect for this site. Thinking it was a place that people could handle others opinions. I am as conservative a person as you can be so it's truly suprising to see this going on within a site like this.
I know you feel a little singled out here, but let's try to get to the bottom of this without resorting to sweeping generalizations (the same might be said of those who feel compelled to lump "romneybots" all together, BTW) or unfair criticism.
does Romney really believe we have not even been trying to protect the civilian population of Iraq from violence and terror? What exactly does he think 130,000 soldiers have been doing there for three and a half years?
I don't see the role of our military as being to protect the civilian population of Iraq from violence, and I don't think the military sees that as their role either. So I disagree with Romney on this, and I think your criticism of him is off the mark. The role of our military is to train the Iraqi forces to protect their own people and keep the lid on the country until (hopefully) forces of moderation emerge. There are signs this is happening.
But clearly, we have been attempting to do it. I'm not sure why Romney thinks we haven't, or if he doesn't what he is trying to say.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm not sure what he meant by "for the first time" but I do think he is addressing one of the main issues slowing progress in Iraq. I hope he clarifies that portion of his statement. Perhaps he means that the US should take more responsibility for security until Iraq can do more for themselves. That is conjecture on my part though.
I have a friend from Iraq and his family was fortunate enough to be able to afford to relocate to Kurd territories. Some of his friends though are not and the security in Baghdad is horrendous. If I was there I would probably find myself in some sort of militia just to try to protect my neighborhood. Why? Because no one else is. Is this a situation in which democracy can thrive? Where neighborhoods take turns shooting rockets at each other?
Security needs to be addressed and it seems that there are more militia loyal police then Iraqi loyal police. That said, the only one in position with all the facts necessary to make the decision is Bush and I think he will make the right choice.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
Nothing at all against our soldiers in Iraq (all of whom deserve our praise and prayers), but does anyone know what they've been doing over there in the main since we won the war and the terrorism/insurgency began? Seems to me that because of failed political leadership in the U.S. and Iraq, combined with questionable leadership from the top levels of the U.S. military, the soldiers have been lurching from short-term mission to short-term mission with little demonstrable effect or trying to train Iraqi "troops" who don't seem all that interested in fighting much of the time.
Politically, Romney is doing the exact right thing on Iraq: Supporting the goal, but criticizing past tactics and not identifying too strongly with a course of action now. McCain's current position of a big troop surge may be more courageous, but it's very dangerous politically (and may, in fact, be wrong militarily at this point).