McCain's Clintonesque Lie About Romney and Iraq Is Disappointing
The Movement Is What Matters : President McCain would marginalize conservatives.
Posted on 01/29/2008 6:57:21 AM PST by VU4G10
John McCain’s false charge that Mitt Romney favored a set timetable for withdrawing from Iraq underscores how disastrous a McCain presidency would be.
Any candidate can make a slight misstatement while talking extemporaneously. Hillary Clinton constantly rewrites her own record and has been caught fabricating, as when she made up the story that on 9/11, her daughter Chelsea was going to jog at Battery Park near the towers, where she heard and saw the catastrophe unfold.
But no candidate in this race has gone so far as to baldly fabricate what another candidate has said, as McCain did over the weekend. That same kind of recklessness is evident in McCain’s explosions of temper, which are meant to intimidate those who do not agree with him or do not support him.
Not naming him at first, McCain said in Fort Myers, Fla., “Now, one of my opponents wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster.”
Talking to reporters minutes later, the Arizona senator was more direct: “'If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Gov. Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher.”
Asked about the comment, Romney said, “That’s dishonest, to say that I have a specific date. That’s simply wrong,” he said. “That is not the case. We’ve never said that.”
Romney asked for an apology. Having moved on to Sun City, Fla., McCain said: “The apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform.”
A look at what Romney actually said in an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America on April 3, 2007 makes it clear that Romney said the opposite of what McCain claimed he said.
Robin Roberts said to Romney, “You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?”
“Well, there’s no question but that— the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about,” Romney replied. “But those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement. 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.”
“So, private,” Robins said. “You wouldn’t do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?”
“Well, of course,” Romney said. “Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we’ll go home, or if we haven’t gotten this accomplished we’ll pull up and leave? You don’t publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don’t do that with the opposition.”
With the exception of Sean Hannity on Fox News, no news outlet fully quoted what Romney actually said on GMA. That’s no surprise. As the New York Times’ recent endorsement of McCain suggests, the liberal media love him. As a former McCain aide told me, that’s because the senator gives reporters total access to him and because he is as liberal as a Democrat on many issues.
On almost “every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side,” former Sen. Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican, has said.
In a stunning example of the media’s slant, the AP’s Ron Fournier wrote after Romney won in Michigan, “The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents’ record, and continued to show why he’s the most malleable—and least credible—major presidential candidate,” Fournier wrote. “And it worked.”
As for McCain, “The man who spoke hard truths to Michigan lost,” Fournier said. “Of all the reasons John McCain deserved a better result Tuesday night, his gamble on the economy stands out”
Not to be outdone, the New York Times ran a story on Jan. 24 headlined, “Romney Leads in Ill Will Among GOP Candidates.” The story said, “In stark contrast to Mr. Romney, Mr. McCain seems to be universally liked and respected by the other Republican contenders, even if they disagree with him.”
The evidence to support that claim came entirely from quotes from present or former McCain aides.
While McCain clearly has formidable supporters, and his stand on the Iraq war was admirable, those who have dealt with him over the years have been appalled by his outbursts of temper, a character trait the media have largely ignored.
In endorsing Romney, Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known McCain for more than three decades, said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office.
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine,” Cochran said about McCain. “He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me.”
“He [McCain] would disagree about something and then explode,” said former Sen. Bob Smith, a fellow Republican who served with McCain on various committees. “[There were] incidents of irrational behavior. We’ve all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I’ve never seen anyone act like that.”
Defending his bill to give amnesty to illegal aliens, McCain unleashed a tirade on Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who had voiced concerns about the number of judicial appeals illegal immigrants could file under the proposed legislation.
“F*** you!” McCain said to his fellow senator. “I know more about this than anybody else in the room!” McCain shouted.
“People who disagree with him get the f*** you,” said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. “I think he is mentally unstable and not fit to be president.”
Andrew H. “Andy” Card Jr., President Bush’s former chief of staff, told me he has observed McCain’s outbursts.
“Sometimes he was pretty angry, but I felt as if he was putting on a show,” Card said. “I don’t know if it was an emotional eruption or it was for effect," Card said.
Democrat Paul Johnson, the former mayor of Phoenix, saw McCain’s temper up close. “His volatility borders in the area of being unstable,” Johnson has said. “Before I let this guy put his finger on the button, I would have to give considerable pause.”
When I appeared on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show to discuss Newsmax’s disclosures about McCain’s temper, Carlson said on the air, “We got a call earlier tonight from McCain’s Senate office suggesting that we not do this story. [They were] annoyed about it.”
That hint at intimidation is another reason why major media outlets may think twice about revealing what they know of McCain’s temper, which is widely whispered about in Washington. Yet along with track record, such clues to character are a compass to how a president will conduct his presidency.
Over and over, voters have ignored warning signs of poor character and have overlooked track records, only to regret it once a president enters the White House and becomes corrupted by the power of the office.
When he was a candidate for vice president, Richard Nixon became embroiled in an ethics issue when the New York Post revealed he had secretly accepted $18,000 from private contributors to defray his expenses. It should have come as no surprise that he would end up being driven from office by the scandal known as Watergate.
If we elect a candidate with McCain’s monumental character flaws, we can expect to suffer the consequences.
LOL! Of course not....but they are going to be on their best behavior until November 15th, 2008...when the USA has a new President-elect.
Illegal Immigration has stopped?
NONE of the current crop of candidates are going to do a damned thing about illegal immigration....as far as deportations, etc..
Context is a wonderful thing. In his statement, Romney used the words “timetables” and “milestones.” he used them together, not separately. To imply that somehow his statement means we are to “cut and run” does violence to the common sense meaning of the language.
Yes, context is everything. Here is the rest of the exchange:
**********
ROBERTS: "So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?"
ROMNEY: "Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 4/3/07)
**********
"So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly?"
"Well, of course."
"You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait UNTIL THAT TIME."
" ..... until that time."
It is in perfectly understandable English to me.
He is saying that you agree on a bug out date but you do not tell the enemy what the Double Secret Probation date is so that the enemy will not "simply lie in wait UNTIL THAT TIME."
In other words, Roosevelt and Churchill agree that the U.S. will bug out of Europe and leave Europe to Nazi Germany if the Rhine is not reached by, say, November of 1946 but "You don't publish that to your enemy".
Our bug out date, if we don't reach the Rhine, is our little secret, just between FDR and Winston, but certainly not for Adolph to know. "You don't publish that to your enemy".
HoooBoooy!!! Good thing that we crossed the Rhine on March 7, 1945! If Adolph had managed to hunker down for another 20 months, Britain and the rest of Western Europe would have been either Nazi or Soviet for the past 60 years.
What are the milestones for bugging out of South Korea?
Read my Post 40 on this other thread.
This issue should not even be on the table.
The correct answer to this question is McCain's position of, "As long as it takes! Period!!"
Even if it takes more than the half of a century that Korea has taken.
Compared to the strategic stakes involved in the Persian Gulf, South Korea is as expendable as last week's leftovers hiding in the back of your refrigerator.
You're nothing but a damn terrorist-loving commie! How dare you question anything he does or says! After all, he suffered in Vietnam.
Even if he burned down an orphanage on Christmas Eve, you'd have no right to criticize him! The election of John McCain as our President will even outshine the second coming of Christ!
(/sarcasm off)
Here's a McCain quote in opposition to your presentation of his position as "As long as it takes! Period!!"
Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, [McCain] said: “I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven’t met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we’re not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options.”Please spin away.
Another good one, similar information as others, but with a slightly different slant about the McCain camp intimidating the press.
McCain has to be beat at all costs!
I am, am I?
Dirtboy put it well on that other thread:
************
To: Polybius
"how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone." and "how long they have to wait until our withdrawal."
You're missing the key point here. A poster claimed that Romney supported a timetable for a withdrawal. But Romney never actually used that word.
Never mind that his answer was to a question that specifically mentioned a withdrawal. Never mind that he used language that was a clear synonym for withdrawal. He never used that actual word, and that nitpick will be repeated and bleated ad naseum against anyone who dares to exercise logic and reason around what Mitt said.
It's not at the level of parsing 'is'. But it's too damn close for my liking. Especially coming from professed conservatives - I thought we believed concepts such as strict constructionism - that the words of the Consitituion have specific meaning. Apparently such values will be discarded by some when such becomes politically inconvenient.
95 posted on 01/27/2008 8:06:37 AM PST by dirtboy
************
Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, [McCain] said: “I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven’t met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we’re not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options.”
In diplomatic speak, "examining your options" means that you are reserving your right to take whatever steps you deem appropriate to protect your vital interests.
"The U.S. reserves all options" is diplomatic speech for threatening all out war if such and such occurs.
Bush: U.S. 'Reserves All Options' To Defend Against North Korean Aggression
That is what "options" mean.
If your allies are intefering with the accomplishment of your mission, f**k 'em, you "examine your options" and protect your vital interests with or without their cooperation.
In the languange of diplomacy, "when we leave" means that you are telegraphing the message "we are planning to bug out".
Odd that you decry parsing, when it's what you're doing to Romney's statements. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole just means you have prior obligation to one side or the other. If you don't like Romney, there's plenty with which to attack him. Making things up, from almost whole cloth, does not strengthen the argument against him, it accomplishes the opposite. McCain's attack might help himself over the top in Florida. I don't think it will help McQueeg in the long run.
Fine. Have it your way.
" .... a timetable in withdrawing the troops?" was never asked.
"..... until you're going to be gone" was never a part of Romney's answer to that particular question.
" ..... lie in wait until that time" was said in reference to duck hunting.
Romney is firmly in the pro-life corner.
And Bill never had sex with the woman, Ms. Lewisnky.
If you think McCain is going to nominate Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, I have a beachfront property for sale. Cheap. If you think Huckabee would be able to find his butthole with both hands in 4 years in the Oval Office, I will give you the beachfront property for free.
So, if you're just on an anti-Romney crusade, the question is why?
But why did McCain win FL then?
Plus there is the matter of his health which the MSM is not bringing up yet. They will if he gets the nomination. It really should be an issue.
Er... Duh.
Wait until they start talking about Cindy the Homewrecker being First Lady—and how McCain is just as much a gigolo as John Kerry. Then he’ll get REALLY mad...
Republican voters have been disenfranchised by their own party elite.
What health issue is going on?
We should promote that too.
McCain is a NIGTMARE!
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.