ADDED: They removed the "Sources" intro to the headline, which now says outright: "Romney to Quit Race."
UPDATE: The speech:
I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.
Posts
106 comments:
Tagg must have convinced him to quit blowing his inheritance.
Yuck. He was the least repellent of the three. He should have not tried to reinvent himself as a social conservative.
Yep, it looks like he strapped Tagg in his carrier to the top of the County Squire station wagon and is heading home.
At least now that he is out of politics, he can get married. Again. And again. And again. And again.
Very interesting to see what Huckabee does now. If he's eager for the VP slot he'll be out by the end of the week or next week. What he does in the next days will really be revealing what he has been up to for a while.
Now McCain can move right while he's out of the spotlight, repair his relationship with conservatives, and start getting a lot of money for the Fall. Republicans are getting a months and months head start in the general election. Kudos to Romney for his honor in stepping aside now for the good of the party.
I agree that he should not have tried to reinvent himself. Doesn't McCain's success give the lie to the idea that Republican candidates have to pander to the "base"?
john z.: McCain's robocalls pointed to his unbroken 24 years of opposition to abortion, contrasting with Romney's record. So on that one issue, McCain was able to pander to the base.
Romney should withdraw. It's clear that the Party is in self-destruct mode, and has been so since about 2005. I have, too, decided not to throw good money after bad.
The party needs some time in the wilderness. It needs to feel the humiliation of minority for a while ... to get that bitter taste in its mouth time and time again to remind it what life was like before Ronald Reagan.
Then, and probably only then, can it emerge stronger.
Tough love, baby.
I'll be a "Maverick Voter" this go round, and vote for Hillary or Obama to ensure the long-term survival of the conservative party.
Vice President Huckabee.
The Republican party and the conservative establishment haven't a fricking clue what's about to hit them.
Enjoy the Rapture!!!!!
Nice Anti-Mormon comment TROOPER YORK. Attitudes like that are the reason we'll be saddled with a 71 year old RINO candidate and 20 million screaming Mexicans looking for amnesty. I hope your principled vote for Smuckabee to smite those darn Mormons was worth it. You idiot!
Wow. I did not see that coming. But Romney can read the writing on the wall. Losing California was major, as was coming in third in Missouri.
Romney is every bit the quant: He has run the numbers, sees he can't win, pulling the plug.
It is too bad if true. If McCain lacks a majority by the time of the convention, it could be brokered and that means the one with the highest numbers going in doesn't always win in the end.
Ha Ha!
Someone check on K-Lo.
former law student:
Is it pandering if you're just pointing out that you've been consistent on a particular issue for 24 years ? I've always thought of pandering as saying things you didn't really believe in just to curry favor with others.
Dude it was just a joke. Besides, I have to be registered as a Democrat in New York. So I can vote for the worst candidate like I do when I vote for the National league players in the All-Star game. That's how McCain got the nomination you know. Cross dressing.
Speaking of principled vote, I voted for Thompson this last Tuesday in the California primary. If conservatives would have rallied around Thompson, the real conservative, early on they wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, they played with him, wanting him to somehow dance for them, and pander just right to earn their favors. Thompson didn't dance, he just had good policy and a good record. And he got pushed aside as everyone rallied around the artificial conservatism of Romney, who was thought to be able to at least win, and maybe was telling the truth about all his newfound policy realizations.
McCain has fire in his belly. That's what everyone wanted. That's what everyone got. That was the only factor that really ever mattered It was the only thing that mattered to National Review. It was the only thing that really mattered to so many conservatives. Trying to prop Romney up as the 'real conservative' was a joke given his record.
The conservatives threw their weight behind someone who they thought could win, and they got burned by McCain's belly fire.
Now McCain is the candidate. And he'll be much better on so many issues, in my mind, including the war and including judges that it would be a betrayal of conservative values not to vote for him.
So, I'll vote for him in the Fall.
Unless, of course, Obama wins the Democratic primary and I get filled with all manner of hope and dreams and warm feelings and cheerfulness towards all the citizens of the world when we join hands and sing encouraging songs of togetherness.
If Romney ends up in a McCain cabinet, what department does he get?
He's superbly qualified for something not tied to foreign affairs (there goes Defense or State). He's too big a fish for Commerce.
Treasury? Or Homeland Security? He'd be perfect for FEMA, but that's not cabinet level.
Hewitt has no comment about this story yet.
Saw that he posted this yesterday: Like Reagan In '76, Romney Is Staying In
This puts the Huckster in a difficult position.
He only stayed in to help McCain and Keep national spotlight. If he drops out, no one will remember him when the V-P is picked in August/Sept. If he stays in, he'll Piss off McCain and the establishment.
Prediction: He'll drop out this week, and disappear back to Arkansas.
Someone check on K-Lo.
Her reax:
Romney just dropped out for the good of America, he said. Staying in would forestall a national McCain and we must defeat the defeatist; he did the honorable thing and is a winner for it.
Well, not really. But now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party, etc. etc. And Romney has rallied round.
and disappear back to Arkansas.
We can hope so.
Will there be more debates?
Equal time for McCain, Huck and Paul?
gy: to pander is to gratify the desires of others, according to mw online. McCain's robocall reminded me of Governor Gray Davis, begging not to be turned out of office, telling his base he was the pro-choice, anti-gun governor, implying that ousting him would close the clinics and flood the streets with guns.
"Doesn't McCain's success give the lie to the idea that Republican candidates have to pander to the "base"?"
If it is the "base" of the party and you are "pandering" this is indicitive of the fact that you are not of the party and that the "base" is not in agreement with you. Republicans (at least in my state) turned out in record lows to vote in the primary.
McCain hasn't been sucessful yet. Remember his big goal is to win the Presidency. I sincerly doubt that is going to happen since the "base" can't stand the man and is willing to see the election go to the Democrats rather than vote for him. If you think the record lows in the Primary were something ....just wait and see the apathy if it is Huckabee on the ticket.
As one of the Republican talking heads said in one of their endless streams of TV interviews. If the country is going to be driven into a wall (as it seems determined to do) at 80 miles an hour, I would rather it be a Democrat at the wheel instead.
Paddy O thinks that McCain can repair his decades of stabbing conservatives in the back. Sorry.... ain't gonna happen.
Flip finally flops.
And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
Mittens is dropping out of the race so we won't surrender in the War on Terror?
MWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Haven't laughed so hard since Darrell Issa said he was dropping out of the California recall election to "Bring peace to the middle east".
What a maroon....
I wonder who wrote the speech. I thought it was nicely congruent with McCain's campaign themes.
Romney was probably guaranteed the veep spot, so that's why he got out. I don't believe that "I love my country" bullshit. He only loves himself; there's no room for anyone or anything else.
Would McCain really want Huckabee for VP? If anyone else were the frontrunner, it would never happen. The establishment doesn't take Huckabee seriously, even the 'religious right' establishment (Dobson, etc). But McCain of all people, might be desperate enough for the base to try. And then the question is, could McCain control Huckabee and all his fair tax, amend the constitution to agree with the Bible weird nonsense. And would Huckabee really push for all that, or was he just saying weird crazy stuff 'cause that was the only way to actually get attention.
If only McCain would ask Fred Thompson to be VP, but I don't think Fred would want it. He didn't seem to want to be POTUS all that much...
Hmm. Does Romney's smear of Clinton and Obama apply to all Americans who want our troops out of Iraq?
Yes, but it isn't a smear if it happens to be true.
I found it one of the better concession or withdrawal speeches. By doing it gracefully and claiming it is for the best of the party and country, he goes out as a gracious loser and not a spoiler, and leaves his options open to run another day.
Huckabee is going to be under some pressure here. Refusing to follow Romney's lead will leave him open to the charge that he is a spoiler and is still in the race for personal reasons, and not for the good of the party and country.
Romney will not be in McCain's administration. McCain will lose in 2008 and Romney will be the presumptive frontrunner for 2012 (and he's still got plenty of money).
Mitt Romney decided to reinvent himself as the social conservative, after George Allen's makaka moment, and people didn't buy it.
I would of been interested in seeing how well he would of done if he ran as the candidate he ran in Mass-especially against Mccain.
His business background, government experience could of been a good combination and many independents would of voted for him if he didn't become a social conservative in the past year.
It's unfortunate. I liked him as a governor of Mass but when he started to run for President I despised him because he basically flipped on every issue.
Tagg must have convinced him to quit blowing his inheritance.
Except that most of his fortune was self-made.
Do Obama and Clinton want to surrender? If not, what is their plan for not removing our troops in defeat and would leaving strike forces in Iraq constitute "getting out?"
ahhhh The courage of my convictions !!!!
kinda
"when the going turns hopeless, the hopeless get going"
Romney is clearly no fool--the real test of a person's judgment is knowing win to pull the plug. Romney gets high marks with me for doing this. And he still has options in the future, so all in all a good decision. And I do happen to believe that there is considerable anti-mormon prejudice in this country (particularly resident in the Huckster--the sooner that buffoon disappears the better; channelling Henry the second: who will rid me of this recalcitrant pastor)
Romney is clearly no fool--the real test of a person's judgment is knowing win to pull the plug. Romney gets high marks with me for doing this. And he still has options in the future, so all in all a good decision. And I do happen to believe that there is considerable anti-mormon prejudice in this country (particularly resident in the Huckster--the sooner that buffoon disappears the better; channelling Henry the second: who will rid me of this recalcitrant pastor)
hdhouse said...
"when the going turns hopeless, the hopeless get going"
Romney proves my point that all politicians- both parties included-lie when they move their lips. A week or two ago he stated he was in it til the end. I guess back then, the end was near.
I get filled with all manner of hope and dreams and warm feelings and cheerfulness towards all the citizens of the world
I once was filled with warm feelings and cheerfulness with a world citizen once. It was in Thailand and it only cost me $20 for a half hour. I figure it would be cost a bit more nowadays with the dollar in the proverbial crapper at the moment. I’m counting on Obama to fix the economy so I can get discount rates next trip.
Tagg must have convinced him to quit blowing his inheritance.
Except that most of his fortune was self-made.
In the first sentence, think the "him" refers to Mitt Romney and the "his" refers to Tagg. So "his inheritance" refers to Tagg's.
Good riddance, scumbag.
McCain isn't going to give Huckster the Veep. McCain needs to shore up support with Conservatives and unite the party.
Huckster won't do that. Further, McAmnesty views things on a personal level and is a DC elite insider. He'll pick someone he knows and likes and is acceptable to Republican establishment, aka the WSJ and Hugh Hewitt.
Or given his screw you attitude toward conservatives, he might choose Lieberman.
Boy, what a hateful, demagogic, and fearmongering little concession speech that was. Every bit as bad in parts as the Pat Buchanan tirade that signaled the beginning of the end for the Repubs in 1992.
Y'all can snicker at Obama's "hope" and "change" rhetoric all you want, but if the choice is between that and Romney's brand of OMG the Democrats want to put bin Laden on the $1 bill! brimstone, it's not even going to be close in November.
What a sleazeball.
I hope he had fun wasting his and taxpayers' money for the past year.
At least McCain keeps his vitriol in check. There's a difference between disagreeing over tactics in the "war" on "terror" and blatantly saying someone wants to let terrorists win. Send this guy back to all the other crazies in Utah.
And yes, Mormons are crazy.
I once was filled with warm feelings and cheerfulness with a world citizen once.
Ha! Love this.
Now the republicans have Mccain who admits he knows nothing about the economy and that we will have more wars-very inspiring.
titus: not to worry--these two concepts are, in fact, related. Wars are good for the economy. As all republicans know, that nasty old FDR got us into a war with the Japanese to get us out of the depression. All McCain has to do is make sure there's a good conservative at the Fed, and keep us at war.
Romney beat himself. He made three major strategic errors (which, in an example of shameless blog promotion is here).
The three can be boiled down to one error: He decided to not tell the truth about himself.
Mark Daniels
I never realized Clinton and Obama were running on the terrorist appeasement platform. In fact, I thought Obama was downright warlike in tracking down Bin Laden.
former law student, let's see if the cons can suggest that Obama wants to surrender and bomb Pakistan in the same sentence.
Tracking down Bin Laden makes a nice sound bite (and I note that Romney used it as well)--but at this point, Bin Laden, if he still alive is largely irrelevant to the war on terror. I mean, I would like to whack the guy myself, but I suggest it is of much greater concern to me to know what their policies might be with respect to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq.
fls & peter: It'll take a while for them all to go coherent on the one anti-Obama message. I'll bet it includes his full name though.
Hey didn't you guy's hear about it?
They already tracked down Osama. It turns out he is Britney Spears manager. I kidd you not.
Please excuse the fat finger.
We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. Hillary and Obama want us to retreat from Iraq.
You can whine and complain about how it is a "smear" to say that Hillary and Obama want to surrender to the terrorists -- but it isn't Mitt Romney's fault that you're out of touch with reality. That Hillary and Obama want to surrender to Al Qaeda is an objective fact, no matter how much it may pain you to admit it.
Obama people talk about hope.
I know most of you aren't going to get this.
But there is a man that knows hope.
Hope gets you out of the Hanoi Hilton.
I don't know how Obama sells the message of hope in respects to the war.
Have you noticed or does he know that during the
"Yes we can" parts of his speech he knows not to do something like-
We can pull out of Iraq!-
Yes we can!
Now why....why not?
And there is another candidate that has taken on a real issue of ugly racism stared into the mouth of the ugly beast and dared to jump ugly back....
But "we" can't even mention what that is without this thread going to hell...
Obama what has he done about "it"?
Rien.
And there are aspects of it that are inhumane-doing nothing is not the humane answer unless you like your caste systems...
Whoever supplied the text needs to be beaten 'round the head and neck on account of the punctuation. It makes me cringe.
Althouse has included a representative comma, so I'll leave with this:
And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism!!
Aren't you excited by these speeches?!?!?
They already tracked down Osama. It turns out he is Britney Spears manager. I kidd you not.
Which was quite upsetting to the Olson Twins and Lindsey Lohan could not be reached for comment.
Well the Olsen twins are busy with their evil plan to kill Jake Gyllenhaal.
Lindsey Lohan hasn't woke up from Mardi Gra yet.
By the way all the guys who porked Lindsey have started a club. The call it the Riders of Lohan. They have tatoo's and handshake and everything.
They have tatoo's and handshake and everything.
For "everything" to heal however, it'll take a few courses of antibiotics and some Clorox.
former law student, let's see if the cons can suggest that Obama wants to surrender and bomb Pakistan in the same sentence.
That's a roughly accurate description of Obama's schizo foreign policy. He wants to surrender in Iraq and invade Pakistan. I suspect that the latter is just Obama making an offhand remark in an attempt to look macho, getting heavily criticised for it (and sparking anti-American protests in Pakistan), and then deciding to go double or nothing on it -- Yes, I totally meant to do that! I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to invade the Sudan, though. Lots of people who support him seem to. I've seen them agitating for it in the square just north of the White House a few times.
Well sometimes even that doesn't work, so they just tell 'em that it's a cold sore.
Re: Madawaskan:
Obama what has he done about "it"?
Rien.
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, that's not entirely correct. See here. As with everything else Obama does, though, I suspect he was just pandering to some constituency or other when he voted -- now he's pandering to other constituencies, and arguing the other way.
balfegor-
Sudan: Progress for Darfur Peace Force
By WARREN HOGE
Published: February 6, 2008
The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said that Bangladesh and Ethiopia had offered to lend helicopters to the new African Union-United Nations force for Darfur and that President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan had dropped objections to Thai and Nepalese troops. Just 9,000 of the projected 26,000 troops are in Darfur because of the Sudanese government’s reluctance to approve non-African soldiers and the unwillingness of military powers to meet repeated requests from Mr. Ban for the 18 attack and 6 transport helicopters the force will need. John Sawers, Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations, said the developments were welcome but added, “Anyone who dealt with Sudan over the last several years will be wary of announcements of progress.”
NYT.
Umm we had some military involvement in that. Airlift and then Aussies sent in forward ground air controllers. Not sure what the status of that is anymore.
OK I'm off to follow your Obama link.
OK I see it-I get the strategy....
The "government" isn't that "iffecient" .
Umm we had some military involvement in that. Airlift and then Aussies sent in forward ground air controllers. Not sure what the status of that is anymore.
I'm surprised the Sudan would let us do that much. And that the Chinese wouldn't raise a quiet protest in the background -- the afflicted areas are all adjacent to Chinese oil concessions after all. That said, this is a pretty striking demonstration of how pathetic UN "peacekeeping" missions are. 26,000 troops would have been wholly ineffective at policing essentially the whole eastern part of the Sudan -- some 200,000 square miles or so, larger than Iraq. 9,000 is a bad joke. It's barely an increase over the previous 7,000 man African peacekeeping force, a force conspicuously incapable of preventing hundreds of thousands of people from being killed. This is a gesture, nothing more. And the government of the Sudan seems determined to ensure it remains so.
I'm looking over this thread and seeing the usual hate we routinely get from the Left... and reflecting over Democrat assurances that Obama will move us all beyond the typical partisan spite. Isn't it interesting that the party that gave us BDS now complains that we need to move together beyond the poisoned atmosphere [with their candidate, of course].
Just like their insistence that we can all get along, if only we do things their way.
My concern with Obama is his foreign policy team. They seem grossly naive. We've already sat down with Iran and talked them to death. Nothing has changed because of it, except that Iran has exploited diplomacy to horde more time & space for its WMD programs and increased its support for terrorist orgs. If you want a good preview of the diplomatic quagmire to come, just look at the last 40 years of Israeli/Pali "talks".
"We just needed a little more living space. This is my last territorial conquest." Intelligent and educated diplomats bought into that.
That said, this is a pretty striking demonstration of how pathetic UN "peacekeeping" missions are.
When we arrived in Somolia, we set up camp next to the Paki compound. Of the troops they sent to bolster the UN force, almost all were sick/lame/lazy. We had to divert medical resources to help them. Of course, the never came out of their compound. They were there in name only.
Balfegor-*ugh*
Ya it got to the point where I could not look anymore...
The Chinese that's interesting. They have been building electric plants, other infrastructure without any of the "human rights" constraints and they are in it for the longterm.
Africa is the future and Blair gets it.
Kenya-that's getting interesting like a train wreck.
If Obama wins that would be a double bind.
Man what to do about that....
I guess the Brits and Canucks are moving-but will it be enough?
I know exactly zilch about Kenya other than taking it for granted because it was touted as "stable".
madawaskan said...
But there is a man that knows hope.
There are two men who know Hope, a postage stamp, backwards, white trash, third world village that breeds low life politicians who become governors. Their names are Clinton and Huckabee.
Middle Class Guy-
Oh! Cripes I thought of that when I wrote it-was hopin' to hell someone wouldn't catch it. Too funny.
Since Romney is a dedicated Iraq hawk, I assume several of his sons are volunteering for the U.S. Army to carry on the fight in Iraq.
No?!
Rich white Romney boys do not serve in the Army, or so it seems.
McCain has sent his boys into harms way, give him some credit for that.
That was the only speech I listened to by him and I must say a very good speech indeed.
McCain mentioned in his televised CPAC speech that Romney had called him and congratulated him.
It's nice to get this wrapped up, and now let's turn McCain into a rocket using all the former rivals as boosters.
The basic push of Bush and his terms in office was just to spread Democracy to the Middle East via Afghanistan and Iraq. Everybody has always known this. It's not about oil or anything else.
This meta-narrative, stemming from Amartya Sen, is, one would think, something that the Democrats would want to get behind. But somehow in the Civil War they weren't behind spreading democracy either.
What gives?
The Democrats don't want to spread democracy or universal human rights, or rights for women. I suppose they want to keep these things for themselves. It beats me why this is so.
save_the_rustbelt: Since Romney is a dedicated Iraq hawk, I assume several of his sons are volunteering for the U.S. Army to carry on the fight in Iraq.
No?!
Since you're a dedicated pacifist/appeaser, I assume you are currently waging a hunger strike on the steps of Congress to stop this "immoral illegal" war? Are you willing to put your life at risk [as you demand of Romney's sons] to defend a principle you believe in? No?!
Then you're no different than the "chickenhawks" you scorn. And also a hypocrite.
Rich white Romney boys do not serve in the Army, or so it seems
No, we serve in the Marines. Born and raised in Highland Park [Dallas TX], had two corvettes at 16 and a wardrobe by Ralph Lauren.
Volunteered in 1991. Six year open contract to serve in Infantry.
But please, throw us some more ignorant stereotypes. You could "enlighten" us with your views on Southerners...
McCain has sent his boys into harms way, give him some credit for that.
I realize that left-wingers tend to live in the past, but I always thought they were stuck in the 1930s -- not the 1630s. Fathers don't "send" their sons into the military anymore, doofus. That McCain's son volunteered to serve speaks well of the son. It says nothing about McCain himself.
On a side not, isn't it interesting that the folks who whine about "chickenhawks" never seem to care that, say, Chelsea Clinton has refused to enlist in the military? After all, her mom voted for both of the wars we're currently fighting.
"No, we serve in the Marines. Born and raised in Highland Park [Dallas TX], had two corvettes at 16 and a wardrobe by Ralph Lauren. Volunteered in 1991. Six year open contract to serve in Infantry."
That's real nice. So, what have you done lately, other than shout at people on internet message boards?
I'm looking over this thread and seeing the usual hate we routinely get from the Left
That's really rich from a blog where referring to Obama as B. Hussein and wondering if liberals either want to have dinner or at the least tea with Osama Bin Laden are the norm. Whining about hate from "the Left" in here is about the same as Romney whining that McCain was being disingenious.
Can anyone really believe anything Romney says? He really wants the Republicans (McCain) to win so they can win the war on terror, but has spent the entire time up until painting McCain as an older Obama, with no conservative cred. And, he had no problem with people like Ann Coulter and others in the past month or so saying they'd rather vote for Hillary than McCain (because he thought that getting the backing of idiots like Coulter would actually help his chances)
Please, he's getting out now because he has no chance. Stop playing the "noble Republican" card when you've spent all your money breaking "Reagan's commandment" and attacking everyone you could.
Good Bye, Good Riddance to the biggest Phony in politics.
Based on this speech, he's just the sort of guy we need more of in politics.
That's real nice. So, what have you done lately, other than shout at people on internet message boards?
Worked for the RNC, Micheal Steele's campaign, and the Senate Intel Cmte. And you?
But my point was to counter the ridiculous claim that "rich white boys" don't join the military. Why does that bother you enough to get personal?
Invis: That's really rich from a blog where referring to Obama as B. Hussein...
Knew I should have bet on a feeble tu quoque response. The behavior of non-Leftists and non-Democrats on this board is irrelevant to my point: your side is the one claiming Obama will clean up the policy debate. After eight years of undermining the war effort and slinging shit at your political enemies, all of a sudden you want everyone to play nice. Not gonna happen.
Here ya go Invis, since you love the tu quoque fallacy so much:
1) GOP falsely accuses Clintons of using dogs to keep blacks from turning out for Obama, but
2) Dems falsely accused GOP of same in Florida 2000, so
3) Cynical play of racial card by GOP is permitted and excused
Gee, devolving into the dirty tactics that you believe your opponent uses is SO liberating...
Of course, instead of defining yourself by what you think your enemy does, you could aspire to a higher standard. Ya know, call out your own teammates for foul play, instead of justifying it by what you think the other team does.
peter hoh said...
former law student, let's see if the cons can suggest that Obama wants to surrender and bomb Pakistan in the same sentence.
I don't think Obama wants to surrender but many of his supporters do.
This now, I think, well represents the center-right view on Iraq:
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.
I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen. -from John McCain speech today.
Meade this is Obama's position on Iraq as best I can find it-in his response to an open letter by Deepak Chopra-
5. What do you intend to do to end the war in Iraq?
I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. I thought it was a "rash war," that would damage our interests, trap us in a sectarian conflict, and divert us from finishing the effort against al Qaeda. Changing the definition of success to stay the course with the wrong policy is the wrong course for our troops and our national security.
The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now - not six months from now. That is why my plan would begin withdrawing our combat brigades immediately. We can draw down 1-2 combat brigades a month, getting all 20 out within 15-16 months. My plan envisions maintaining a small follow on force in Iraq or the region focused on force and facility protection and counter-terrorism. Because there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in Iraq now - with more than 4 million Iraqis having been forced from their homes - my plan would also dramatically increase investment in refugee assistance. Lastly, in an effort to get Iraq's political leaders to resolve the political disagreements at the heart of their civil war, I would work with the United Nations to call a constitutional convention in Iraq, using aggressive diplomacy to get the neighbors to back that convention and stop the flow of weapons and terrorists into Iraq.
Huffington Post
See that difference-less than six months.
Where is he getting the 'six months" reference point?
That is Hillary's line in the sand or timetable.
As to what he means by aggressive diplomacy-?
Your guess-hell if I know.
Also Deepak asks him about international responsibility and he rests his answer wholly on Martin Luther King-their doesn't even seem to be any synthesis of it or internalization.
Which really means you cannot refute it without criticizing Martin Luther King even if it seems particularly out of joint or independent of the question.
Actually maybe the question was bad for trying to ascertain his foreign policy but the press isn't asking any better ones.
somefeller said...
That's real nice. So, what have you done lately, other than shout at people on internet message boards?
What have you done lately…
I mean, you challenge others, so tell us what you have done, other than go to work everyday, make a buck, and live in comfort.
had two corvettes at 16 and a wardrobe by Ralph Lauren.
Is the wardrobe comment a brag or a complaint? I can't tell.
See the other comment thread re: Corvettes :)
mitt says obama/hillary want to surrender to AQ and establish sharia law, but of course the commenters here are jabbering about how deranged their mythical left is
awesome!
The amazing thing is how clueless this is:
The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now - not six months from now. That is why my plan would begin withdrawing our combat brigades immediately. We can draw down 1-2 combat brigades a month, getting all 20 out within 15-16 months. My plan envisions maintaining a small follow on force in Iraq or the region focused on force and facility protection and counter-terrorism. Because there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in Iraq now - with more than 4 million Iraqis having been forced from their homes - my plan would also dramatically increase investment in refugee assistance. Lastly, in an effort to get Iraq's political leaders to resolve the political disagreements at the heart of their civil war, I would work with the United Nations to call a constitutional convention in Iraq, using aggressive diplomacy to get the neighbors to back that convention and stop the flow of weapons and terrorists into Iraq.
The humanitarian crisis is not unfolding, since at least since mid-fall, there has been a reversal and the net outflow has reversed to a net return.
The totally arbitrary withdrawal schedule is equally questionable. Why one or two combat brigades a month? Why not four? Is there any relationship with the situation on the ground? Apparently not. But if things are improving, as all statistics seem to imply, then pulling out troops too quickly would be cutting and running.
I wonder what he thinks the troops are doing in Iraq besides "force and facility protection and counter-terrorism". Maybe supporting those involved in such. But beyond that. In other words, he is essentially proposing to pull all the support troops out, leaving most of the combat troops there. While that makes a good sound bite and may look good on paper, it will look a lot worse when the combat troops run out of food and bullets because there is no one left to deliver it.
And then the suggestion that the U.S. should force the Iraqis into a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution that they worked so hard to pass. Maybe, just maybe, they should be allowed a bit of self-determination.
Besides, along with all the other improvements we are seeing in Iraq, one of them is sectarian reconciliation. Most of the pressures pushing the Sunni Arabs out a year ago have greatly subsided, and the cry right now in many places of Iraq is "We are all one."
Finally, what does he think that the Surge has done? One thing is that it has been far more successful at cutting off arms and foreign jihadists sneaking into Iraq than any diplomacy has. The idea that more diplomacy would work better than the Surge has is just plain silly. The Syrians have lying to us all along, and have no intention of changing that. And, pretty much the same for the Iranians. The Shi'a Iraqis telling the Iranians to stay home have been far more effective than anything we have or could say to them.
The last two posts are indicative of typcial discourse on this blog.
Exalted, representing the Left, distorts and exagerates what Mitt said in order to dispatch his feeble strawman. True to form Exalted.
While Bruce, not a Lefty, carefully analyzes and critiques Obama's foreign policy position, with facts and logic.
Bruce Hayden:
Like past such offensives in Iraq (the original invasion in 2003 and the early 2005 offensive that retook Fallujah and other cities) the surge had the effect of decreasing the level of violence in the country, but it is always a temporary reduction. And just to make the point, U.S. military casualties jumped upward again in January after four straight months of decline.
Like in any guerilla warfare situation, an increase in our troop strength will reduce violence-- but only until the other side adjusts their tactics. The textbook on such warfare is Sun Tzu's Art of War (which was written over 2,200 years ago) and which includes the following passage:
All warfare is based on deception.
Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active,
inactivity.
When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far
away, that you are near.
Offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike
him.
When he concentrates, prepare against him; where he is
strong, avoid him.
If we were smart we would take the increase in troop deaths in January as a wake up call that the tide is starting to come back in and get out now while we could still claim that we had won something. But if we wait then sooner or later things will return to the way they were before this offensive, and even if we stay there for John McCain's hundred year war we won't find a military solution.
INO, there is nothing that we can do that we haven't done already in Iraq over the past half decade, and the longer we waste our army there the less ability we retain to influence events anywhere else.
the longer we waste our army there the less ability we retain to influence events anywhere else.
I think you're underestimating how our army's presence is influencing neighboring rogue states like Iran and Syria. Or how it figures into Israeli plans to attack Iran's nucelar weapon programs.
Also disagree re the surge. Its not simply more troops, its a change in tactics. We're no longer chasing AQ & insurgents around in circles, we're clearing and holding instead, driving the main force towards Syria.
I also don't understand Obama's "wisdom" of pulling out all troops. If Iraq is going to survive and not become a proxy for terrorist orgs, it will need American air support. That means mechanics and air controllers and STA teams on the ground to lase targets.
Well I'm re-reading it and -
How would you like to be these poor bastards-
My plan envisions maintaining a small follow on force in Iraq or the region focused on force and facility protection and counter-terrorism.
You know with less than six months to prepare.
Holy sacrificial...uh I'm outta words that's gruesome.
Fen says: "Worked for the RNC, Micheal Steele's campaign, and the Senate Intel Cmte. And you? But my point was to counter the ridiculous claim that "rich white boys" don't join the military. Why does that bother you enough to get personal?"
Fen, I'll give you credit, working for the RNC and Senate Intel are good things. That shows that, unlike most internet political warriors, you've spent at least some time in the trenches, not just spouting off on blogs when you don't even know who your county party chair is. Michael Steele, well, not so much, but that criticism is only because it's not hard to get a job on longshot/hopeless campaigns. And I say that as someone who's worked on such campaigns from time to time, including even in the GOP during my misspent youth. And the "rich boys don't join the military" issue doesn't provoke me, because I've known more than a few rich boys who do such service, and think that line of argument is mostly a waste of time, unless one is talking about certain elements of the conservative chattering classes, whom I've noticed have taken a hit from their own side these days. I just pushed back because from what I've seen, you like to get personal, so I decided to give a taste of that. Plus, as an (adopted) Houstonian and lifelong Texan, I couldn't resist the opportunity to bust the chops of a Dallas boy.
Middle Class Guy says: "I mean, you challenge others, so tell us what you have done, other than go to work everyday, make a buck, and live in comfort."
Well, last time I checked, working everyday, making a buck and living in comfort (all of which I do in spades) was the American dream and the very definition of American success. So no apologies for that. What, are you some sort of Bolshevik who doesn't like that sort of thing?
Man, Roger was on a roll! What got into you, man? Is there a new Roger? The Henry II reference - was perfect!
********************
save_the_rustbelt said...
Since Romney is a dedicated Iraq hawk, I assume several of his sons are volunteering for the U.S. Army to carry on the fight in Iraq.
No?!
Rich white Romney boys do not serve in the Army, or so it seems.
McCain has sent his boys into harms way, give him some credit for that.
Love how so many Lefties use "white" and "rich" as if they were curse words. And of course always call white men of the Romney son's age "boys" but would have conniptions and calls for hate speech prosecution or moral consequences if someone called Obama a rich black boy.
As for the cowardly assholes concept that any man in favor of war has the power to order his sons into the military and if they don't they lack courage?? Well, that is projection...Just as it is with a wealthy Hollywood type convinced he was born of an Oppressor People and he would be both noble and happy if only he had been born black to a single mother....
The sad hypocrisy of the Left is on display. At one time, Lefties had balls - like the American communists that left their well-paying lawyer, importer, tailoring jobs from NYC to Chicago to accept 50-50 odds of coming back alive from fighting the Fascists in Spain, and escaping the NKVD death squads.
Nowadays, no Lefty is to be found risking their tushies or sending their sons and daughters off with a command to fight in Darfur, Tibet, Burma, Somalia, etc., for "justice". Zero. Nor are they ordering their sons out to blow gay people to prove they don't say they support the gay lifestyle - but tell their sons to avoid it.
And I've never seen a "chickenhawk" taunter who claims to be "horified and disgusted by the plight of the homeless" offering to put a few winos, druggies, and mentally disordered up with room and board in their own homes....
****************
Romney made a classy exit while still taking some hard swipes at the Dems. Also creds for no faux lovematch harmony set-up with McCain. His speech, as so many of his recent ones and debate performances have been - came from a guy who would be an articulate and able Chief Executive - who can lead.
Now Romney can spend a few weeks after this kicking himself for starting off making a fool of himself to suck up to Southern Baptists in "The Base" to win early primaries. I liked the Romney at the end of the Campaign far more than the "I'm Mr Conservative and I'm a 100% lover of Jesus and everything Reagan ever did" stretch he tried to make.
In his next phase, one thing Romney needs to work on is gaining expertise on being a Commander in Chief, something McCain who BTW, was passed over as unfit to be a senior executive officer in 1982, was able to lord over his opponents.
But there have been many excellent CiCs with no military or non-combatant military service like FDR, Lincoln, Reagan, Thatcher, Jefferson.....and some jingoistic war heroes that wrecked nations and stubborn "my way or the highway" ex-fighter jocks that from Goering to Dubya have left a wreckage trail behind them.
And just to make the point, U.S. military casualties jumped upward again in January after four straight months of decline.
Well, no, not really.
The monthly fatalities over the past nine months were:
May-07 126
Jun-07 101
Jul-07 78
Aug-07 84
Sep-07 65
Oct-07 38
Nov-07 37
Dec-07 23
Jan-08 40
Casualties "jumped" in January only in comparison to December -- which had the lowest fatalities of ANY month of the war save February '04 (which had 20). But January was entirely in line with October and November. It may be that the long-term trend will reverse itself. But drawing that conclusion from a single month is silly, especially since such tiny numbers are always going to be the subject of random fluctuations from month to month.
Like in any guerilla warfare situation
This isn't a guerilla warfare situation in the normal sense of the term. We aren't fighting locals; for the most part we are fighting foreign troops hiding *among* the locals and using intimidation to keep them in line.
They can't freely adjust their tactics. They have to keep intimidating the civilian populace; if they stop doing that, they lose, period.
I just pushed back because from what I've seen, you like to get personal, so I decided to give a taste of that.
If you follow closely, you'll find that I only attack those that instigate it.
Plus, as an (adopted) Houstonian and lifelong Texan, I couldn't resist the opportunity to bust the chops of a Dallas boy.
Oh thats fair game. But you hit like a girl ;)
They have to keep intimidating the civilian populace; if they stop doing that, they lose, period.
They lose either way. The muslims in Iraq are beginning to hate AQ et al more than we do. Thats a result of forcing AQ to fight in their backyard to save face. Their brutal tactics have alienated the very people they counted on to shelter them.
Henry said...
If Romney ends up in a McCain cabinet, what department does he get?"
Henry, I think I would put him near the tumblers or over the sink where I keep the odds and ends. I do have a cabinet in the bath room that has room....
Trooper saidBy the way all the guys who porked Lindsey have started a club. The call it the Riders of Lohan. They have tatoo's and handshake and everything.
You know, just when I think I come up with a Trooper worthy clip, he comes along and bitch slaps me like a red headed step-child.
You are in a league of your own sir.
C4: thats why I love your commentary, sir. Never PC and have an excellent working knowledge of history! I am still the same ole person: natioinal security hawk, social liberal. I just hate to see outright prejudice against someone like Romney because of his religion. Given a choice, I would always prefer to have LDS neighbors, compared to say, residents of New Orleans.
Post a Comment