Posted on 01/26/2008 6:06:51 PM PST by Delacon
Apparently not. I say apparently not, because a very brief AP report on McCain's charge and Romney's emphatic denial ends with this paragraph:
While he has never set public date for withdrawal, Romney has said that President Bush and Iraqi leaders should have private timetables and benchmarks with which to gauge progress on the war and determine troop levels. He has said publicly that he agrees with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, that U.S. troops could move to more of an oversight role in 2008. It is possible that the AP missed something very obvious in Romney's public record here, but I seriously doubt it. It's just as possible that the New England Patriots overlooked some game tape on Eli Manning. The AP, as anyone following this race knows, has been so anti-Romney as to defy parody. If this is the best they can come up with to put a hint of plausibility on McCain's attack, then McCain's case must be very weak indeed. Calling for private timetables and benchmarks with which to gauge progress, etc.. is a world away from McCain's charge. In fact, it is a highly reasonable posture for even the most aggressive proponent of victory. Ah, how far we have come from the heady days of Cindy Sheehan's ascendancy, when everyone assumed that the retreat from Iraq couldn't happen fast enough, and the last politician to deny responsibility for the war would have to turn out the lights. Give the military and the president credit for ignoring the pundits and senile elder statesmen who tried to talk them into retreat.
But McCain's straight talk express swerved into the mud on this one, and the fact that he chose to do so suggests some desperation. He will only get away with it if the MSM who have invested so heavily in his success cover for him.
For his part, Mitt should have the resources to counter this sleight of hand from the straight talker. And the fact that he does illustrates, again, the danger of suppressing free speech as embodied in McCain-Feingold. When the MSM conspires with a candidate to promote a lie and suppress its counter, someone needs to be able to do the end run.
It reminds me of an essay written by Lynn Nofziger years ago during the OJ trial. Nofziger had been falsely indicted for corruption during the Reagan years and fought the rap and won. He pointed out that any time a state or federal decides it wants to take someone out, the resources it brings to the table dwarf anyones capacity to counter them. We shouldn't fault those -- like the Duke lacrosse players who have the resources and fight back. We should applaud them.
Likewise with the candidate who has the resources to counter an MSM that shoots at him on sight but slavishly panders to his opponent.
McCain’s buddy Senator Graham was on Hannity and C. tonight, and Sean ripped into him on this. Graham refused to answer, just looked slimy and kept repeating the talking points. I considered it the closest we’ll get to an admission of guilt.
“Of course there should be private timetables between the US and Iraqi government. It’s part of having a plan and strategy. The problem comes when you get asshats demanding publicly announced timetables.”
True but McCainiacs want to miss that point. See its all because the dems before the surge wanted a timetable for withdrawal if milestones WEREN’T met. IE if Iraq doesnt do this or that by such and such a time then we will withdraw. That is the kind of timetable that is flat out wrong. It is the kind of timetable McCain is trying to hang on Romney. Now Romney in that interview didn’t say anything like that. The goal is to leave Iraq in a stable condition where the government and the army can maintain it. That is the milestone. We would like that to be sometime in the next year or two. Thats the timetable and its a good one. But it can be changed if the milestone isnt met. That is what Romney was talking about. It was low for McCain to suggest otherwise.
He really is.. that’s a factual statement, not a subjective one. Nobody would say Romney is a better general election candidate. Democrats don’t want to face McCain. Romney is alot easier to beat.
McCain and his advisers aren't stupid, they know full well the media will cover for them no matter what. That's why it's going to be all the more gratifying to see should he lose Florida given how relentless his shills have been trying to shove him down our throats.
What did Romney “see” in terms of the surge in Iraq? That’s the problem. Romney doesn’t have firm convictions.. they are all election year pandering.. and he wants to win, and doesn’t really care what he believes.. that’s why he was able to so easily change on abortion. It doesn’t matter to him the substance of an issue.
Is this how all Mormon's strike you ? Maybe they should kick you instead .
Mitt is hated by the MSM and the other candidates because he is intelligent, handsome, and rich...and he earned it all. He did not use the resources of the federal govt. or become part of the Washington establishment to do it either.
And, he is highly successful in a competitive world. No other candidate has those credentials.
” Nobody would say Romney is a better general election candidate. Democrats don’t want to face McCain. Romney is alot easier to beat.”
Then why is the MSM giving this stupid story legs? Romney scares the liberal media.
I’m a Mormon.. that’s what I meant sorry. I’m saying as a Mormon myself, that’s why I struggle to support Mitt. He’s just not genuine. His beliefs are election year choices.
But McCain's straight talk express swerved into the mud on this one, and the fact that he chose to do so suggests some desperation. He will only get away with it if the MSM who have invested so heavily in his success cover for him.
>snip<
the MSM wants Mitt to win.. they know he is easy to beat.
Otherwise, I would hold my nose and support him instead of McCain.
Boston, MA – Governor Mitt Romney, in direct consideration of the proposed increase in troop deployments in Iraq, issued the following statement today putting an emphasis on the need for clear and measurable strategic objectives.
“I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.
“In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.
“This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.
“The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America’s national security interest to achieve it.”
Romney is easiest candidate for Hillary. The media would tar and feather him over his flip flopping.
Romney has had some success in the primaries because of shear money compared to the other candidates (it buys election workers, media, etc.). That wouldn’t happen in a general election (the money would be about even ... if you count the special interest groups from last election ... the Democrats had an advantage in that department in 2004). Fortunately, Kerry was a weak candidate (painting as a flip flopper ... and from MA ... sound familiar?)
“Romney is easiest candidate for Hillary”
Exactly, but these Pro-MITT guys on here are just living in a dream world. They “see” Mitt marching down Penn Ave, the same way Mitt saw MLK.
I am sure Mitt’s strong stances really intimidate Putin and the PRC.
Neither Clinton, nor Obama is good in economy. McCain is not good either. Romney is much better in this case.
Yes..I am sure it was exactly what Mitt believes... it’s just hard to take him serious on any position, Iraq or otherwise.
LOL, cognitive dissonance run amuck on FR.
McCain is the choice of the MSM. He has been and will be until he wins the nomiantion. Then they will gut him.
I happen to think McCain can beat Hillary or Obama but he'll do it without my vote. There's isn;t a section of the Constitution that Big John hasn't shat upon.
I agree. But the economy is also destroyed easily having another 9/11 agreed? That’s a 1 trillion dollar hit to our economy.
John McCain is the best in this area.. the small things Mitt can do for the ecnomony on the margins doesn’t put him much higher than McCain. A flat or fair tax by any candidate is probably the main thing we might pursue as a nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.