Romney backs Bush's 'surge' in Iraq

Boston Globe ^ | January 10, 2007 | Rick Klein

[Sola Veritas]

“Romney issued a statement calling for five additional combat brigades in Baghdad and two Marine regiments in Al-Anbar province”

Romney knows zilch about the military, he was just repeating what someone told him to say. McCain may be obnoxious, but there is no denying he owns that issue on understanding the military and how it works.

It is a losing strategy for Romney to play armchair general. He doesn’t have the gravitas for that.

[ari-freedom]

I also find it hard to believe that Romney would stay the course when things were not so good for us. Yeah of course he's for the surge now. We're winning now! But what would he say when things are not so good? When polls are showing low approval ratings, like with Bush?

Would he provide leadership when times are rough?

This interview from 2006 may provide some clues

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18683



One of the people who is considering a run, Sen. [John] McCain, has advocated sending up to 30,000 more troops to help stabilize Iraq. Do you support sending more troops into that country?

The process that is being pursued right now is that the President and his senior staff are meeting with generals and officials at the front in the theater and finding out their perspectives. That’s something you have to do, along with meeting with al-Maliki to determine where they are and where they can be.

I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor. I’m not running for national office at this stage. I’m not going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That’s something I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say.

But fundamentally, we’re talking about a very different approach than the Iraqi Study Group concluded. Their approach suggested somehow we would pull out in a setting that was less than victorious. We really do need to make sure we stabilize the nation to the extent humanly possible so that Iraq cannot be torn apart by its neighbors and so that a sectarian disaster does not ensue.

[ari-freedom]

I think Huckabee clearly won the debate. He sounded more like Fred and Reagan than John Edwards this time.

[ImphClinton]

What point.

Romney had not announced at that point and was still seriously considering whether to run. He had had no intelligence briefings like McCain had.

Once he made a decision to run and could receive a briefing he had the information to make an informed statement and did so the same day announced by Bush.

What should have he done read the NY Times or Boston Globe. That would be informative. . . NOT

McCain seems to be saying Romney should have made a decision with no facts and gone off half cocked. After all only Senators are valid Presidential Candiates. Must be why we have elected so many as President.

None in the last 30 years if your counting.

[ImphClinton]

Did you read what you Posted??? Or am I misunderstading you?

I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor. I’m not running for national office at this stage. ... I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say.

...
We really do need to make sure we stabilize the nation to the extent humanly possible so that Iraq cannot be torn apart by its neighbors and so that a sectarian disaster does not ensue.

In the next two weeks he decided to run and also swore support for the Surge, hours before the President announced it.

This totally supports Romney fully supporting the Surge and NOT supporting at any time pulling out.

You would have to be a Democrat to twist this to such an extent that merely mentioning conclusions of the Iraq Study group means you support their idiotic conclusions. He clearly said he didn't.

[ari-freedom]

I posted what I posted. I’m just very skeptical of every position Romney says he’s for. Not because I think he’s a liberal. He’s not going to say he wants to cut and run to if he wants the GOP nomination. I think Romney is an equivocator who always gives the “safe” answer

also see
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2VkYTI5NDhkZDhjN2U5MmFlMGQ2YzczMTRmMDY3MWQ=
“Yet he is unique among the serious Republican presidential contenders because he has never said he would do it all over again, and they all have. Asked in a June 7 debate whether it had been a mistake to invade Iraq “knowing everything you know right now,” he refused twice to answer. He called the question an “unreasonable hypothetical” and said that the issue was a “non-sequitur” and a “null set” (he meant to say “moot point”) because we’re already in Iraq. “
-
I want to look up that debate but...it sounds like such a familiar pattern for everything else he says.

[jwparkerjr]

Could not the same thing have been said about Ronald Reagan? He started his public life a supporter of abortion, and signed a bill giving California the most liberal abortion policy in America. He was a Democrat at one time. He signed on to a policy of pure and unadulterated amnesty for illegal aliens. He signed the biggest tax increase, to that time, in America’s history.

I would much prefer someone who has expressed a position, then after learning more about the subject adapted that position to bring it into line with what was most effective.

I am not saying you should support, or even like Mitt, but evolving positions on matters of public debate are not in and of themselves evidence of bad faith or a character defect. People in public life frequently must make a statement or take a stand on the spur of the moment and then later have to adjust that stand based on new information or being convinced the stand or statement was simply not the right.

[jwparkerjr]

Points well taken. Thank you for the detailed response.

They don’t give us much of a choice, do they?

[jwparkerjr]

re: we’ll probably be alright

I agree. It’s easy to get sucked into the moment, dwell on things that are going wrong and then buy into the ‘sky is falling’. Truth is, this is exactly how the system is designed to work and its unsightliness is a large part of the secret of its success. When all is said and done we’ll come out the other end of the process with a nominee, and even more important to remember whoever it ends up being they will be better for America and our party than the alternative.

We’ve simply waited too long in this cycle to make our importance to the process weigh heavily on the powers that be in the GOP. If we are going to use their dependence on the conservative wing of the party as a bargaining tool then we’ll have to start the day after this election. We’ve got to find a way to make ourselves a thorn in their flesh on a daily basis, not a few months every four years.

Look at how little we did the last 10 plus years to make our unhappiness with their hijacking of the conservative name and cause. We gave them what they said they need, Congress and the White House, and then we went back to making a living and doing the things that make us conservatives. Meanwhile the spending went wild, etc.

I say let’s get through this one and then we can turn our attention to making sure they know we’re around for the next four years, and that we’re watching!

[ImphClinton]

McCain said the immigration bill would not come to him as President. Refused to answer if he would sign it at least four times than mumbled he wouldn’t.

Now that is unbelievable. He has stated numerous times before he would sign it. He sponsored it. He has never listened to real republicans before. Now to win he says he wouldn’t sign it. Sorry he is lying. First day in office he would have a meeting on how to gut the fence and get a real amnesty bill. Second he would repeal the tax cuts and raise taxes.

Now I do believe he would strengthen the Military to go to war in Iran and Syria. I might vote for him to do this. Our military has been gutted since Regan. Iran will blow Israel away the day it gets it’s first nuclear weapon it knows will work. They will deliver it through Hezbola or another front.

[ari-freedom]

all the liberal things that Mitt supported in the past were defended with the same sense of conviction and passion that he uses to advocate the conservative positions that he claims to support today.

He makes you believe that he really believes in what he says. That’s what really bothers me.

[ari-freedom]

Refused to answer if he would sign it at least four times than mumbled he wouldn’t.
-

that’s EXACTLY the difference between mccain and romney. Romney has no shame when he lies with a straight face. Would Reagan endorse him? “Absolutely!” What a prick...

With mccain you can tell when he has trouble with one of his positions. He doesn’t lie very well. I don’t agree with everything he has done but at least I can respect him. Same for Huckabee and Ron Paul. They are real men. I don’t want to see Romney at all. He is the republican John Edwards.

[hinckley buzzard]

Interesting. I guess supporting the president's surge strategy is what McCain means by surrendering. Interesting too that Brownback and Hagel both bailed out on the president and now are nowhere to be found. Whaddasupprise.