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.
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.