Thursday, December 28, 2006
Wrong, Mitt, wrong.
Human Events interviewed Mitt Romney. On the most important question, Romney ducked and dodged.
Q: Do you think right now the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq?
Romney:The term is overly charged, I’m afraid, and so I’m not going to try and define who’s winning and who’s losing. I don’t think we’re making anywhere near as much progress as we had anticipated we would make.
There’s no question the administration was surprised by the fact that after the fall of Saddam Hussein it was a much tougher road than they ever expected. Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, as you recall, said we’re just sweeping up a few dead-enders. Well, it turned out to be a lot more than that. We had insufficient troops in place. We had insufficient plans. We did not have the appropriate rules of engagement in place. Obviously, there were management lapses — events such as Abu Ghraib make that clear. For all those reasons, we did less than the entirely effective job that we would have hoped to be able to do. And as a result, we’re in a difficult position right now.
But to assess whether we’re making progress or not, I would presume we’re making progress, but certainly not at the rate we were hoping to make progress and, in some respects, that is disappointing.
= = = = =
Bad show, Romney. Your advantage is clarity of vision and clarity of leadership. If you're going to evade the most important question, you're not qualified to lead.
"Events such as Abu Ghraib": The only problem with Abu Ghraib is that we pussied out and stopped when the traitorous media spotlighted it. If we were serious about fighting a real war, we would have given medals to Lynndie England, and we would have recommended the "events" of Abu Ghraib as a shining example for other soldiers.
Hillary is starting to look mighty good. ¶ 12:16 PM
Q: Do you think right now the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq?
Romney:The term is overly charged, I’m afraid, and so I’m not going to try and define who’s winning and who’s losing. I don’t think we’re making anywhere near as much progress as we had anticipated we would make.
There’s no question the administration was surprised by the fact that after the fall of Saddam Hussein it was a much tougher road than they ever expected. Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, as you recall, said we’re just sweeping up a few dead-enders. Well, it turned out to be a lot more than that. We had insufficient troops in place. We had insufficient plans. We did not have the appropriate rules of engagement in place. Obviously, there were management lapses — events such as Abu Ghraib make that clear. For all those reasons, we did less than the entirely effective job that we would have hoped to be able to do. And as a result, we’re in a difficult position right now.
But to assess whether we’re making progress or not, I would presume we’re making progress, but certainly not at the rate we were hoping to make progress and, in some respects, that is disappointing.
= = = = =
Bad show, Romney. Your advantage is clarity of vision and clarity of leadership. If you're going to evade the most important question, you're not qualified to lead.
"Events such as Abu Ghraib": The only problem with Abu Ghraib is that we pussied out and stopped when the traitorous media spotlighted it. If we were serious about fighting a real war, we would have given medals to Lynndie England, and we would have recommended the "events" of Abu Ghraib as a shining example for other soldiers.
Hillary is starting to look mighty good. ¶ 12:16 PM
