Posted on 04/03/2007 4:43:04 PM PDT by WalterSkinner
I can't wait, either. When you see Hunter fielding questions in interviews, he always answers confidently and he gives straightforward answers without PC flourishes. I think when people see him side by side with the slick politicians they are going to connect with him.
Thanks for the ping Ultra.
I didn't watch the ABC News Good Morning America segment, but the report according to ABC News is given at the bottom of this post.
My question is how is it possible to have milestones without a time frame? How do you tell Prime Minister al Maliki that X,Y,Z Iraqi Army groups should be ready to stand-up but not say "next month", date X, month Y, "next year", etc. Is it reasonable to say "whenever"? Has anyone ever received such an open-ended assignment from a boss? I'd wager that the U.S. brass have many such discussions of time frames with their counterparts in the Iraqi military.
Of course, we all realize that the Democrat Media automatically jumps to the conclusion whenever the word "timetable" is used that it must mean a date certain for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
I hope Mitt makes this distinction explicitly as he did with CBS when he said "a series of milestones, timetables as well, to measure how well they're doing", i.e., that timetable goes with milestones, not with troop withdrawals especially when the press asks a leading question using the words "withdrawing U.S. troops". Otherwise, the Dem Media will run with their interpretation of the word 'timetable' which is synonymous with cut-and-run. I expect Romney will take Rep. Hunter's warning to heart when dealing with the press in the future.
April 3, 2007 — Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate who sits atop the GOP pack in fundraising, appears to have grown comfortable with talk of "timetables," in addition to talk of "milestones," when discussing U.S. involvement in Iraq.The former Massachusetts governor is quick to note, however, that these timetables should be private and not published.
Romney Supports Private Timetable in Iraq
When asked by ABC News' Robin Roberts on "Good Morning America" if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement."
The former governor went on to explain, "You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the leadership of the Iraqi government."
When asked a similar question on CBS's "Early Show," Romney responded, "Well, I wouldn't publish [a timetable] for my adversaries to see," advocating instead "a series of milestones, timetables as well, to measure how well they're doing."
"But," Romney said, "that's not something you publish for the enemy to understand, because of course they could just lay in the weeds until the time that you're gone. So these are the kinds of things you do privately, not necessarily publicly."
While Romney's Tuesday call for "milestones" is nothing new, he has mostly shied away in the past from employing the more politically charged terminology of "timetables."
When asked if Romney's Tuesday morning show comments represented something new for the Republican presidential hopeful, Romney spokesman Kevin Madden described them as "consistent with his previous statements about milestones and metrics towards success in Iraq."
I support a clear, public timetable...
To the enemy: We will stop when you surrender. PERIOD, end of story.
jw
He wasn’t the first to do so.
Sen. Mark Pryor proposed something along the same vein just last week. He wanted the Congress and the WH to keep the secret.
“In a war, a timetable is an impossibility, by the nature of war itself,..”
BINGO!
Will the GOP debates be on TV?
Romney’s sharp, but not sharp enough to be my president in a time of war.
Will we be allowed to see any but the anointed three candidates?
Michael Frazier
“Will we be allowed to see any but the anointed three candidates?”
http://www.reaganfoundation.org/pressrelease.asp?press_id=108
Here’s the link but, it doesn’t say who will be there.
Hunter has credibility. Romney does not. It will be a good thing to see the candidates side by side in the debates to actually make people take an honest look at the ‘names’ and how they come across to Hunter with his obvious knowledge and expertise on these matters. Hunter is the man that should be our next President.
Oh, but don’t you know he is ‘unelectable’?! Yes, he is a very reassuring, leadership type of man. No one in this race for President is any better. He’s the best to come around in some time. And for people to want to tell us Romney is more ‘electable’ and that BS, look at what you sacrifice! Romney is NOWHERE near being ready for a general election and definitely not the right choice for the presidency with foolish proposals like this.
Yep, like Mc and Bosnia (and my how the jihadis have grown). /s
Don’t get me wrong, Hunter was my choice; But to come out for Huck (obviously, he schooled him on China re: the debate after... thank goodness), and NOW the press want to listen to him? After freezing him out from the beginning?
That man stumped his *ss off... go to youtube and check it out... meanwhile crickets from the MSM, until he said he was stepping down. A man with the mil experience, who would build a fence... they can’t have that.
This isn’t R or D in this election... this is CFR.
BTW, did Duncan mention Mc couldn’t be bothered to vote on it?
Just being fair and balanced (unlike Fox lately).
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.