Posted on 01/30/2008 6:41:36 PM PST by kristinn
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.
Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain's thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects. McCain said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.
Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he 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."
SNIP
McCain in no way is withdrawing his backing for the war or President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops. It was unclear what consequences or timetables McCain would spell out, or whether he believes that Congress has the authority to enforce them.
SNIP
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said: "I called for that . . . several weeks ago. I'm glad that John McCain agrees with me.
"He's somebody who has enormous influence with the White House. He's been one of the key champions of this escalation of troops."
Hat tip to McGruff for posting a link to the article on tonight's debate thread.
Benchmarks for the Iraqis and timetables whose sole basis is one’s own political popularity are not the same thing.
Courtesy ping.
FLIP FLOP ALERT!
Here, here. Not sure why people can’t seem to discern the difference between a static timetable and a series of ratcheting benchmarks (which we are currently using to assess troop levels). Let’s not forget that this statement was in tandem to unparalled support for a surge when it was not popular.
Romney supporters who seek to paint McCain as inconsistent are in the most fragile glass house I have ever seen.
One thing though.
There is a differance between benchmarks and timetables.
Bush was for benchmarks, but not the timetables the dems wanted.
"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. You don’t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re gonna be gone. You want to have a series of things accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and Iraqi police and the leadership of the Iraqi government.(")
It was then pointed out to Romney that President Bush has said he would not support anything from Congress with a date certain for withdrawal. He was asked where he stands and if he would do the same. His response:
"Well, of course, can you imagine the setting where during the second world war we said to the Germans, ‘Gee if we haven’t reached the Rhine by this date, well, 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’ll just lie and wait til that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don’t do that with the opposition."
Hat tip to Ann Coulter for the background on this, although this is a different source than hers:
Romney backs Bush’s ‘surge’ in Iraq
By Rick Klein, Rick Klein | January 10, 2007
WASHINGTON — Former governor Mitt Romney Wednesday endorsed President Bush’s plan for a troop increase in Iraq, breaking his public silence on the troop ``surge’’ by arguing that a stable Iraq is only possible if US forces can provide security to Iraqi civilians.
Hours before Bush spoke Wednesday night, Romney issued a statement calling for five additional combat brigades in Baghdad and two Marine regiments in Al-Anbar province — precisely the plan for as many as 21,500 new troops that was outlined by the Bush administration before the president’s speech.
I think that McCains alzhemiers has made him forget that all wars are fought with timetables.
Sounds like the same idea to me...
yet McCain went after Romney for it.
We are in a heap of trouble with the way things are looking.
With that, McCain proves beyond any doubt what a slimeball politician he is (as if anyone who’s observed him over the years would have any doubts). In the debate just ended at the Reagan Library, the little liar and hypocrite again made all the same ridiculous accusations in a heated exchange with Romney.
How anyone thinks this volatile character is temperamentally suited to be president is beyond me. I think only a small percentage of voters actually pays any attention to the ongoing campaign, and what each of the candidates are saying.
Now can you talk Ann into volunteering or campaigning for Romney??????? It sure would be nice. She is one of the smartest women in the USA.
I sure hope the Romney camp gets their hands on this one.
bttt
I think we need to dump all four of these turkeys and start over!
That exchange between Romney and McCain was almost surreal in its absurdity. I’m still trying to figure out who came out looking more petty because of it.
“Romney supporters who seek to paint McCain as inconsistent are in the most fragile glass house I have ever seen.”
You’re deluded.
Great Posting
EMAIL is our friend...
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.