It is true, as you write, that “Romney wasn’t as enthusiastic about [the surge] and in his body language, if nothing else seemed ready to distance himself from it if it failed.” But he went further than that. In June 2007, when there were already good signs that the surge was working, Romney told an interviewer, “I think we would hope to turn Iraq security over to their own military and their own security forces, and if presence in the region is important for us than we have other options that are nearby.” (This is quoted by Dobbs in the Post) That may seem innocuous enough now. But you remember how things were at the time. That was the way both Democrats and Republican supporters of withdrawal described their plan in those days. The idea was to pull U.S. troops out of the fighting in Iraq, hand over the fight to the Iraqis, and station U.S. forces “nearby” or “over the horizon.” That was how advisers to Hillary Clinton described their preferred option. It was how people who supported the Baker-Hamilton commission report described their ideal option. They didn’t call for immediate and total abandonment of Iraq – and very few do so today. When people who favored withdrawal explained their plan, it was as Romney described it. The fact that he also talked about “timetables” in an earlier interview, albeit secret “timetables,” also puts him in what was then the withdrawal camp. Everyone who was fighting for the surge in the early months of last year – and that was not a very large number of people back then-was desperately looking around Republican ranks for support. Most Republicans on the Hill were quiet. Most conservative commentators were not working up any enthusiasm, to say the least. And aside from McCain, the leading Republican presidential candidates at the time were being careful. It was clear that both Giuliani and Romney were tempted to let McCain take the issue and self-immolate. But of the two, I remember, Rudy was the one who decided to put himself most clearly on the side of the surge. He began speaking out on the need for more troops in his public appearances. The contrast with Romney is even more striking in this regard. As best I can recall, Giuliani never talked about timetables, withdrawal, or about stationing forces “nearby.” Among the three leading candidates, only Romney took that line.
Robert Kagan, an advisor to McCain, wrote this piece in response to this post by Rich Lowry.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I’ve followed the dueling between both camps on this with some interest. Lowry was for Mitt’s side and the Weekly Standard for McCain’s side. There has been a remarkable amount of high-level debate on it – a substantive issue – although I felt that we were all getting into an exercise in semantics about “benchmarks”, “timetables”, etc…
January 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
McCain is such a dirtball liar. Read the entire Romney interview that McCain selectively quotes. Romney makes it abundantly clear that he is not in the withdrawal camp.
I suppose that it is possible, like McCain, to believe that Romney was in favor of withdrawal one second and then the next second against it. For the rest of us that have at least the intelligence of a field mouse, it is abundantly clear that Romney is refering to benchmarks (yeah, McCain came out in favor of those a while back) that are secret and discussed only between us and the Iraqi government.
I guess McCain’s idea of running a war is to have no plan, no timetable of when certain accomplishments should be made, no intelligent thought about it whatsever.
Oh yeah, one more thing. I am sick of McCain trying to take credit for Petreaus’s genius. McCain supported a surge and a new strategy, which leaves a whole slew of details to be filled in. This leaves McCain with the ability to either take credit if things work out (i.e., I advocated a surge and new strategy, they are both working, see) or to deny responsibilty if they don’t (i.e., I advocated a surge, but there was no real change in strategy). McCain supported the war and knew that things needed to change, but he did not come up with the solution, despite what he may say.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
This perfectly matches my recollection of those months.
Mitt was clearly ready to declare defeat, cut, and run. He just wanted to make sure he kept his options open by talking about secrecy. He was probably just confused that his sons might get redeployed from manning the Mittmobile in IA where they were gunning for votes. I’m not sure he realized that when he said they were “serving” he was actually speaking figuratively.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Actually, it was Romney who was the first to talk about increasing the military by 100,000, even before Rudy.
McCain said himself that if timetables and benchmarks were not achieved by Iraqi gov’t, then the US could not complete their mission.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
i love when mitt said that the surge “appeared” to be working. it is such a harmless line but it has driven john mccain absolutely batty. mccain is so obsessed with his martyrdome status on taking the hard positions that he is still not able to get over this one little word that mitt slipped in there. if mitt did it on purpose to antagonize his opponent then i like it even more.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
MarkG,
Of course this perfectly matches your recollection.
Neither did our former President have sex with that woman. If you say something often enough, it becomes the the truth in McCain/Clinton Land.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
ENHQ,
You’re right in that this has been an exercise in semantics. Romney, himself, never set forth a timetable for withdrawal. However, he most certainly did say that Bush and al Maliki should have a timetable for withdrawal; just one that would remain a secret between the two leaders so Al Qaeda wouldn’t strategically ‘wait in the weeds’ or ‘lie in wait’ for our departure from Iraq.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
McCain WOULD DESTROY THE ECONOMY and we would have to withdraw from Iraq anyway for financial reasons. That is what matters.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Aron, but Mitt would use any established secret dates as guidelines. In McCain’s statement he specifically said if they did not meet the dates, he would pull out…not complete the mission.. in McCain’s words.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
All this does is prove that they’re both right. Romney didn’t say that we need a timetable, but it can easily be taken as an implication from his statements.
I think it’d be easier all around if both of them realize that it was a foolish mistake on McCain’s part, shrug it off, and move on with actual important issues as opposed to semantics about what someone may have implied at one point.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Romney isn’t even talking in FIRST person in these quotes – he talking about what he thinks Bush is probably doing. I read it as Mitt acknowledging that the troops aren’t just AIMLESSLY in Iraq, and that he has confidence the President has a plan that he is not OBLIGATED to reveal to the public. THATS ALL
I don’t know how people can analyze it to death and think its anything but a vote of confidence in BUSH!!!! If you are REALLY TWISTED you can manipulate and contort it to mean exactly what McCain is inserting that is means…which is EXTREMELY ASININE.
Proves how desperate and bullish McCain is.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I find this at The Politico messege board:
“grover71
grover71
Location: westfield, MA
Party: NA
Reply #: 3
Date: Jan. 29, 2008 – 7:49 AM EST
Let’s return, once again, to McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list, which is now a Top 11 list.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance†in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved†the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money†to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse”
January 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Falz could add a McCain flip flop on his own immigration bill. He’s opposed to it, now that he’s seen the light.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
#13, it is, in fact, a true flip flop. First he was for it. Then he was against. Now he is for it again.
Didn’t you see in the past day or two where he said he would sign it if it came to his desk as President?
January 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Wow, the “surge”. Whoooooo. And where are we in Iraq? Just exactly what has the surge done? Will our boys be coming home now? No. We’re not in a very different spot than before. And who do we credit for being involved in all these military decisions for the past few years, who is out there bouncing up and down about the surge? McCain. Don’t forget, he was also part of the poor mismanagement and public misinformation that started the Tar Baby war in the first place. McCain is war-hungry and he will be a war president. Those who can’t see it are fools.