Romney Assails Pelosi on Syria Visit

Newsday ^ | April 4, 2007 | Liz Sidoti

[Clintonfatigued]

Good shot by Romney. Rudy Giuliani also denounced Pelosi’s actions.

[carton253]

The more I hear from Mitt the more I like him.

[rob21]

Mitt Romney wants a timetable for retreat in Iraq. I will never support him.

[libstripper]

What’s his position on the “global warming” scam? Right now I veiw McCain as totally unacceptable and am wavering between Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson. Hence, I’ve not given any money to anybody.

[zarf]

Romney looks like Bob Eubanks.

[zarf]

Hence, I’ve not given any money to anybody.

I've got to remember your strategy on my next date.

Honey. I can't decide between Chinese, Indian or Continental cusine...could you pay?

[Unmarked Package]

Mitt Romney responded to a question from Sean Hannity regarding the trip to Syria by Pelosi in an interview on April 4, 2007 aired on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: What do you think about Speaker of the House Pelosi, against the will of the White House, the recommendation of the State Department, is going to Syria to meet with the Syrian president? Is that the wrong thing to do? Does that send the wrong message to the world?

ROMNEY: It's outrageous. What she's doing is absolutely outrageous. I'm afraid she has been taking John Edwards's talk to heart, which is that there are two Americans, one led by the president and the other, which is led by her.

But there is one America. It's the United States of America. We have one foreign policy. If people don't agree with that foreign policy, they can elect new leaders. They can elect a new president in two years, and they can pursue a different course.

But the idea of having the speaker of the House, the third person in line for the presidency, of the United States, being with Assad, being welcomed and given diplomatic coverage, shots of her on TV and the media and the way she's being used by the Arab press is just outrageous.

[carton253]

Really? A timetable? Tell me more. I had not heard that.

Romney supporters is that true?

[Rummyfan]

I’m glad to see some Republican coming out strongly against this fool’s errand by Pelosi.

[EternalVigilance]

Wow. How courageous. /s

[rob21]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1811315/posts

“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.” “

Thanks to this interview, al-Qaeda now knows that Mitt Romney would set timetables, but that they would be “secret”.

[carton253]

I'm a Duncan Hunter voter first and foremost but trying to find a second candidate is getting harder and harder to find.

The only timetable is victory. Not benchmarks and milestones.

[Unmarked Package]

"Mitt Romney wants a timetable for retreat in Iraq."

Absolutely false, rob21. AKSurprise has given you the facts in Post #7.

It's Romney's position that 'timetables' are associated with milestones, not dates for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq regardless of conditions in the country as the word is interpreted by the Democrats and the Democrat Media.

It's not a change in Romney's policy position or any different from what President Bush and the U.S. military brass are already using with the Iraqi government and military forces.

Milestones to stand-up Iraqi military units and security forces without a timetable would be a meaningless, open-ended wish list. The timetables for milestones are indeed already kept secret as best they can be.

[napscoordinator]

Next week he will change his story.

[carton253]

Well that makes me feel better to know.

[George W. Bush]

Thanks to this interview, al-Qaeda now knows that Mitt Romney would set timetables, but that they would be “secret”.

Nonsense. Unless we are going to garrison Iraq through all eternity, the leader of Iraq and the president will naturally confer on such matters.

Are you suggesting that they should be forbidden to discuss, for instance, whether an American group should be pulled back and be replaced with a new Iraqi unit? That is what we expect to happen over the next year or two. And of course it will not be announced publicly. No reason to give the resistance element any warning of what we're doing so they can counter it or plan their own deployments accordingly.