Republican presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, gestures during an interview with The Associated Press in Washington, Thursday, June 7, 2007.
Posted on 06/07/2007 1:15:44 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Thursday rejected the Bush administration's vision of a Korea-type, decades-long U.S. troop presence in Iraq and suggested a need for benchmarks to gauge progress.
"Our objective would not be a Korea-type setting with 25-50,000 troops on a near permanent basis remaining in bases in Iraq," the former Massachusetts governor told the Associated Press.
"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," Romney said.
In a wide-ranging, hourlong interview with AP reporters and editors, Romney said the Bush administration would be wise to publicly disclose some goals for success in Iraq to restore public confidence. Benchmarks that would tip off adversaries, however, should remain private.
"This is a time when it would be helpful for the American people and the people of Iraq to see that we are actually making progress if that's what's happening," Romney said.
Helpful measurements could include power-sharing with the Sunnis, division of oil revenues, the status of certain militias, as well as the numbers and training levels of Iraqi military and security forces, he said.
"If you don't publish any kind of milestone or benchmark," Romney said, you leave people thinking "you're only telling us the things that you wanted to tell us."
Like his rivals in the Republican field, Romney supports the conflict and President Bush's recent troop buildup but has increased his criticism of how the administration waged the war and handled the invasion's aftermath.
Most Americans oppose the conflict and disapprove of Bush's job performance. While a majority of Republicans still back the president and the war, their continued support is not guaranteed and some GOP leaders are growing restless.
The White House last week offered the comparison between Iraq and the Korean War as the Pentagon announced the completion of the troop buildup in Iraq that Bush ordered in January. U.S. forces have helped keep an uneasy peace in South Korea for more than 50 years.
Presidential spokesman Tony Snow says Bush has cited the Korea analogy in looking at the U.S. role in Iraq, and the president has suggested that his successor will inherit the unpopular war now in its fifth year.
Romney said the comparison sends the wrong message.
"We have communicated to the people in the region and the country that we're not looking to have a permanent presence in Iraq and I don't think we want to communicate that we were just kidding about that," he said.
Romney noted that the U.S. has bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, and said: "We can have a presence in the region, but I think that at this time we need to exercise care not to communicate to insurgents something that they can use to say 'Ah ha! America does intend to be an occupier forever!'"
Discussing his proposal to increase the military by 100,000, Romney said improving recruitment incentives will achieve that goal and reviving the draft is unnecessary.
Romney also answered questions:
_On health care: "This is a topic where I don't think the Republican Party can sit on the sidelines and just say no." He boasted about passing universal health care in Massachusetts, but treaded carefully when asked about a national mandate requiring all workers to have health insurance. "In our evaluation of what worked in our state, the only way it could work ... was to make sure that everybody participated in the system," he said.
_On Social Security: "I will not pursue the raising-taxes option," but he would not rule out raising the retirement age, cutting benefits or creating personal accounts.
_On gay rights: "If there are people ... who hate gays, than I'm not their guy," said Romney, who acknowledged he previously opposed the military's ban on openly gay service members but now: "It's working. I wouldn't change it."
_On the perception he's a serial flip-flopper: "In the style of Mark Twain, I would suggest rumors of my changes in position have been greatly exaggerated."
_On the Senate immigration proposal: "It's Washington coming together and reaching a great compromise that doesn't work." He said the U.S. must "replace gradually and humanely people who are here working illegally today with our own citizens and with legal immigrants."
_On the decisions by top rivals Rudy Giuliani and John McCain (news, bio, voting record) to skip the Iowa straw poll in August, a traditional test of organizational strength: "You can't help but think that makes me far more likely to win" in January's caucuses.
Republican presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, gestures during an interview with The Associated Press in Washington, Thursday, June 7, 2007.
The liberal enemy.
Well, I guess we better figure he meant what he said when he supported abortion on demand, the radical gay agenda, banning guns, etc.
Republicans are so gullible, it's unbelievable...
Dumb move.
For those who say we need to get out of Iraq because we might make the Muslims mad, too bad. They'd hate us, even if we pulled completely out of the Middle East.
“He said the U.S. must “replace gradually and humanely people who are here working illegally today with our own citizens and with legal immigrants.”
Wow I wonder what McCain has to say about that!
“He said the U.S. must “replace gradually and humanely people who are here working illegally today with our own citizens and with legal immigrants.”
No guts.
No, Mitt, REAL Republicans don't sit on the sidelines. They fight for FREEDOM.
April 7, 2006
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, [James Carville] Back Mitt Romney's Health Plan
In what could be a blow to Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations, two Democratic White House hopefuls have offered preliminary endorsements for his health care plan, which would force small businesses to offer health insurance to all uninsured employees.
"To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable," Sen. Hillary Clinton told the Associated Press on Thursday.
The Romney plan, which has already been passed by the Massachusetts legislature and is waiting the governor's signature, mimics in some ways Mrs. Clinton's own Hillarycare proposal, which crashed and burned in 1994 with disastrous political consequences.
In another sign of trouble for Romney, Hillary isn't the only Democratic presidential aspirant singing his plan's praises.
"I like this health care bill that's passed," Sen. John Kerry told radio host Don Imus Friday morning. "I think it's terrific. Massachusetts has set a good course on that and I give everybody involved in that credit."
The Romney plan would tax individuals who don't buy their own health insurance. And businesses who didn't provide health insurance for their employees would be penalized $300 per year. A similar proposal in New York carries a much stiffer penalty for businesses - $300 every five weeks.
Romney says he favors removing the business tax. However, when Mrs. Clinton was asked about cutting back the penalty, she told the AP: "That would unravel the plan."
The comments echoed Hillary's defense of her own 1994 proposal. When small businessmen complained that it would bust their budgets, the then-first lady famously declared: "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized business out there."
The Romney plan is also winning praise from another strange bedfellow, Clinton strategist James Carville, who likes the proposal's bipartisan pedigree.
"It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Republican Governor. Democratic legislature," Carville told the AP. "Romney is an ascendant guy."
Just added another one I will never vote for. Flip flopping as hard as Kerry. Problem for people who try to be on both sides of the fence on issues is where it puts the fence post.
Guess someone should of given him this.
U.S. commander points to progress in parts of Iraq (Rats, RINOs, MSM and Al-Qaeda, you’re losing)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846566/posts
HERE are your benchmarks Gov. What the people on the ground are telling you.
The solution is not to nominate someone like Romney who has governed hard Left, and now wants folks to believe he’s hard right.
I don’t care if we stay for 100 years...we cannot leave Iraq without victory, Governor.
Of course you're not. They're incontestable. The facts are the facts.
We were protecting against Communism in those nations. We weren't there protecting ourselves from getting killed. If he intends to ring out our role as the world's lone supercop, he will get my applause.
He just lost me.
"Yes, I flip-flop. But not about imposed Socialized medicine
or removing the right of citizens to vote."
Those aren’t benchmarks, those are positive reports.
Benchmarks are those things that tell you what you are trying to accomplish, so that when you DO accomplish them you can show that your plan is working.
It’s like if you jump in your car and drive around, you could stop every hour, take a picture, and say “That’s where I am now”. But that’s just a picture of where you are. A benchmark would be a plan to get somewhere, and then if your picture SHOWED you were where you said you were going, that would be good, and if you were somewhere else, you’d probably want to change direction.
This administration has done a poor job explaining to America what we are trying to accomplish in the details. Sure, we are trying to win the war. But tell us what the specific things are we are trying to accomplish, so we can see that the surge is accomplishing them.
We put more troops there for a REASON. Tell us the reason, and then tell us after a while if we have acheived the results we were hoping for.
I’m ambivalent about where we leave our troops when Iraq is stabilized. If there really is not much fighting, we probably can use some of the big bases we built as a regional force location. But we can do that in any friendly country, so I don’t think we need to commit to a 50-year presence NOW. At some point we can bargain with the Iraq government for long-term things.
Oh, that will drive the moonbats completely nuts, and they will do a "Draft Bloomberg" movement that will dwarf the "Draft Fred" thing we've just seen.
I could be misinterpreting, but would anyone agree with me that Romney's position on Iraq is, "We'll give you some time to get your Sunnis and Shiite together, but after that, you're on your own," ?
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.