-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In an interview with Fox News Sunday today, Mitt Romney declined to say whether the United States should have invaded Iraq knowing what we know now. Romney did say the invasion was “appropriate” based on what was known in 2003. Byron York quotes Romney’s answer when Chris Wallace asks him whether the invasion was correct in hindsight*:
“Oh boy, that’s a big question,” Romney responded. “And going back and trying to say, given what we know now, what would we have done? Would we have invaded or not? At the time, we didn’t have the knowledge that we have now. At the time, Saddam Hussein was hiding, he was not letting the inspectors from the United Nations into the various places that they wanted to go. The IAEA was blocked from going into the palaces and so forth. And the intelligence in our nation and other nations was that this tyrant had weapons of mass destruction. And in the light of that belief, we took action which was appropriate at the time.”
This is actually not a new position for Romney. In 2007-08, he also refused to take a position re-litigating the Iraq war, calling one such question a “null set.” David Freddoso observed back then, “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.”
*UPDATE: A commenter below takes issue with my paraphrase of Wallace’s question. According to the transcript, here is the exact question: “First of all, looking back - and hindsight is always 20-20 - should we have invaded?” The York item I link to above also contains the exact quote. If Romney had answered yes or no to hypothetical question, this would seem to give us some insight into whether he thought the decision to invade was “correct.” But hopefully this update clears up any confusion.
Interested Conservative| 12.18.11 @ 4:00PM
Well - I doubt he's playing to Ron Paul's base, and it seems obvious it is playing to Obama's independent voters.
Still - while this may disappear for the Iowa and NH races, I expect we'll see it come up again.
Interesting that he doesn't qualify the question by supporting the invasion and deposition of Saddam, but argues about the "occupation" or management of the aftermath. That seems to be where the GOP is, if not a substantial majority of the country.
Jack in Wi.| 12.19.11 @ 1:31AM
Sane and patriotic conservatves knew that the whole run up to war was lies and BS. Among these great hero's who spoke up against this massive failure were Me, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, General Brent Skowcroft, General Norm Schwartzkoph, Congressman John Duncan, Bob Novak, Joe Sobran, and anyone else who had an independent brain and was well read. We all knew that Hussain was a secular Muslim hated by Bin Laden. He was an old man barely holding on. His people were starving and his military was living on beans and grass. We leave in ignominy after 9 years of failure. The Neocons promised us a great regency like MacArthur's in Japan. Instead we leave Iraq in the hands of the Shia friends of Iran. That is what 5000 Americans dead and 50,000 wounded, and 4 trillion dollars have accomplished. We leave a ruined Iraq where we will be hated for 100 years. Some mission. Some accomplishment.
Clint| 12.18.11 @ 4:01PM
The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney Is The Ruling Elite Patrician, Who Gives Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
1-2 Punch| 12.19.11 @ 12:33PM
@Jack in Wi. and Clint Being Ron Paul suppoters, what is your purpose here at AmSpec? You guys drop "neocon" on everyone posting here. If were all "neocons" here why come here and post?
Mike W| 12.18.11 @ 4:02PM
Good for Romney. Even better for him if he had said what we all know now - we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
He weasels out by saying it was appropriate for what we knew in 2003. I will call BS on that. Most logical people knew that the invasion was based on bogus information in the first place. Saddam didn't threaten us and had nothing to do with 9/11. But at least he didn't say he would fight it all over again.
Clint| 12.18.11 @ 4:59PM
Veteran Officer Dr.Ron Paul Knows History And Doesn't Want Our American Warriors Used As Cannon Fodder For The Global Police Agendists.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316304
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Wayne| 12.18.11 @ 7:15PM
Too bad he is too old.
Clint| 12.18.11 @ 8:10PM
Too bad you ate that crap sandwich.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Chuck| 12.18.11 @ 4:15PM
A typical Romney yes and no answer. Elect him and the GOP will yes cease to exist in 4 years and no bad for the country.
Bumr50| 12.18.11 @ 4:43PM
Squishy RINO.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:55PM
He must confess! He must confess!
Off with his head!
C Bowen | 12.18.11 @ 6:25PM
I don't believe there is a Republican running for President who thinks Saddam was behind 9/11.
Are you going to vote third party--Saddam Done 9/11 Party?
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 9:36PM
You have a mental issue.
And don't forget to invite Alex Jones to your Blame America First, anti-semitic, anti-conservative, terrorist sympathizing, God hating, anarchistic party the next time we're attacked by your pals, the jihadis'!
Bob K.| 12.18.11 @ 6:09PM
These kind of questions based on hindsight are nonsense! Any and all answers to them will also have to be based on knowledge and facts not known at the time of the incidents. The proper question is "Based on all the facts known by President Bush would you have approved the invasion of Iraq in 2003 if you were President. And if not, why would you not have approved it?" And I would bet, Freddoso to the contrary, that none of those Republicans in 2008 were not asked the question in that manner.
Dan| 12.18.11 @ 7:29PM
Not nonsense!
Think of what the query elicited, it revealed Romney yet again trying to have it both ways.
THAT reveals character, that reveals the kind of decision maker he is, and would be in the White House.
IN FACT, the equivocating you're seeing now would be exacerbated by the pressure devolving upon the occupant of the Oval Office.
Bob K.| 12.18.11 @ 9:26PM
Looking back, and hindsight is always 20-20, should Mr. Antle have quoted Mr. Wallace accurately when Wallace really asked Romney "should we have invaded?" instead of whether the "invasion was correct?"
Antle can't get simple facts straight. Looking back on this and as Chris Wallace says "hindsight is always 20-20;" should we continue to believe what Antle writes?
Don't equivocate.
Al Adab| 12.19.11 @ 11:14AM
This type of dissembling is typical of the establishment wing of the GOP. Never take a stand and so never make a mistake. Sadly that becomes a mistake in itself. Is it any wonder people fail to follow the GOP? At least the Dems stand for something.
Salt Lake Ken| 12.18.11 @ 6:46PM
Under pressure the best and worst come out in people. In Mitt's case the best, he stays calm and cool and reasons things out. Gingrich on the other hand sends out marshalls to arrest federal judges if they disagree with him. Gingrich, the GOP loose cannon and his big mouth have done him in just like the late 90's. Yup history does repeat itself.
sjccoach| 12.18.11 @ 6:58PM
Another reason why I'll stay home or vote third party if Romney is the nominee. Answer the question and be honest about your feelings. I'm tired of this guy sticking his finger in wind to find the right answer.
Wayne| 12.18.11 @ 7:14PM
If he had any sense of current events he would know the invasion of Iraq happened with Bush 1 and it had to do with Saddams invasion of Iraq. If Romney would say we should NOT have invaded then I could respect him. But we choose to agree with a cease fire with definite terms. If Romney said we should NOT have agreed to the cease fire or the terms I could respect him. Instead he accepts the premise that the invasion was in 2003. WRONG, it was far earlier and we just returned because Iraq violated the terms of the case fire. I hate the rewriting of history.
C Bowen | 12.18.11 @ 7:49PM
It was wrong; it was criminal when one considers the Administration's campaign to link Saddam to 9/11--which they admitted was not true.
And worse, it was a mistake.
Wayne| 12.19.11 @ 2:03PM
Sorry, age gets us all eventually. I could vote for Rand Paul, but Ron Paul is just over the hill.
Dan| 12.18.11 @ 7:22PM
If he wants to affect an agnosticism about Saddam's intentions, that's bad enough, but what was really dreadful for Romney, was his failure, four years ago, to take a position on the surge.
Recall the context, Iraq was turning south in a major way, American casualties climbing, the media howling, libs agitating in the streets, Cindy Sheehan going kooky, and Romney wouldn't take a position one way or the other on whether we should pull out or stay and fight it out.
BD57| 12.18.11 @ 7:55PM
I guess I'm just "different" ....
I don't think it's a legitimate question. We DIDN'T know then what we "know" now, so all the "hindsight" question does is legitimize the Monday Morning Quaterbacking that politicians love.
Here's the thing ... no matter what they might say, one way or the other, it tells you nothing - it's an invitation to grandstand.
As can be seen in some of the comments .....
vb| 12.19.11 @ 8:56AM
Absolutely! We also cannot predict what Saddam would have done when sanctions were lifted (and there were constants pictures on European TV of Iraqi children suffering because of those sanctions). We cannot tell how the oil for food profiteers in the UN, France, and Russia would have pushed for the lifting of sanctions. Nor can we tell what Saddam might have done with the AQ groups in Iraq when he could pose as the strongman who got rid of the US. He could well have sent them out to further terrorize us and others, just as Iran is doing today.
It is immaterial whether Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion. The significant question is whether he would have reinstated WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted and he was freed from the glaring eyes of the US. My guess is that he would have and that the world would have been far less likely to intervene if he did. I suspect that his oil for food friends might have been willing to sell him anything he wanted.
Why should Romney indulge in narrowly focussed hindsight?
David| 12.19.11 @ 1:36AM
The argument as to whether or not our invasion, and subsequent occupation with a failed nation building agenda, was justified or not will be ongoing on both sides of the isle for years to come.
What scares me the most about Romney is that he hedges all of his answers looking to be able to reinterpret them down the road to fit the then current crowd he's performing for. He seems scared to death of staking a claim to a position without equivocating so that he can't be pinned down.
If he's responding to questions and situations like this while running for office, he won't be able to make unequivocal decisions if he gets into office.
http://www.caglecartoons.com/m.....62_600.jpg
bill| 12.19.11 @ 3:44AM
Because Romney is not a conservative, he's a pseudo-democrat.
bill| 12.19.11 @ 3:44AM
Because Romney is not a conservative, he's a pseudo-democrat.
JP| 12.19.11 @ 8:01AM
Hindsight is a fun game to play. It goes without saying that the Iraq invasion was not well thought out; nor was its aftermath prepared for. But then again, the invasion of Iwo Jima was a disaster. And after 70 years everyone is an expert.
As usual Mitt wants to play it safe. One wonders if the inavasion went smashingly well if he would find a way to take credit.
JimH| 12.19.11 @ 8:26AM
While the merits of going into Iraq are disputed, I think they are less in dispute than what we have done there in the years afterward. The evidence is that Iraq either was or was trying to appear dangerous. Were they the biggest threat to us at the time? I don't know. Their bad luck that we decided to act. Having deposed Saddam we should have just left, leaving a warning that we would return if any new regime acts against us. It is the nation building and military actions in support of it that have been bleeding us, not the government overthrows.
Derek Leaberry| 12.19.11 @ 8:41AM
Mitt Romney knows that the invasion of Iraq was a disaster yet he also knows that he can't say the truth because fools like Bill Kristol don't see it that way.
Oldefarte| 12.19.11 @ 10:11AM
Of what I know of his response, I mostly agree with Romney's semi-lack of support for invading the ME after 9/11/01. I also to a minor degree agree with Ron Paul's foreign affairs position regarding same, in that such invasions accompolish nothing in the long run [and end up incurring the rath of the invaded countries in the end]. Has our foreign interventions resulted in any demonstratable benefits to this country? Did any country [other than Israel and England] diplomatically/militarily lend their support to us in our ME military campaigns? Hell no, and the defecit/debt cost to our government and it fund-supplying taxpayers is/was immense. I don't extend my belief to Paul's ultimate NEVER GO TO WAR symdrome, but instead propose the use of missles/atomic weapontry as a method of last resort in confrontations with foreign enemies. Can't start a nuclear war you say? Why not, and end it extremely by same? What stopped WWII and brought the Japanese to the negotiating table [Nagasaki, Hiroshima]??????