E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mitt Romney today said if the United States knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, it would not have gone to war in the country.
"If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in," Romney told NBC's Chuck Todd on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown" this morning from New Hampshire.
Asked if the U.S. would have gone in at all, Romney contended, "Well, of course not. The president went in based upon intelligence of weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action, the president would not have been pursuing that course. But we did not know that. Based upon what we knew at the time, we were very much under the impression, as a nation -- and our president was under the impression -- they had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was intent on potentially using those weapons, and so, we took action based upon what he knew. But to go back and say knowing what we know now, would we have gone in? Well, knowing what we know now, they did not have mass destruction, there would have been no effort on the part of our president or others to take military action.”
But someone who might disagree with Romney is former President George W. Bush. Bush told FOX's Brit Hume in 2005, for example, that he "absolutely" made the right decision, even though there were no WMD.
BUSH: I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision.
HUME: So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?
BUSH: Absolutely.
Romney agreed in 2008 that it was the "right decision" -- even though it was, of course, well known by then that there was no WMD in Iraq.
"It was the right decision to go into Iraq," Romney said at the January 2008 NBC debate in Florida. "I supported it at the time; I support it now."
Part one of the interview here. Part two here.
Romney reiterates individual mandate is ‘conservative’ idea
Romney also was again asked about his support of an individual mandate as governor of Massachusetts. Romney called it the “conservative” option for him in Massachusetts, one that had its originations at a conservative Washington think tank as an alternative to what then-First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed. It was something Newt Gingrich also supported.
Yet, at a Dec. 3 forum with hosted by Mike Huckabee, Romney said, criticized the Obama-proposed health care plan this way: “Obamacare is about taking over 100% of the people's insurance in this country."
Romney wants Super PACs eliminated; calls for unrestricted funds for campaigns
On Super PACs, Romney said they’re not good and should be eliminated, but refused to criticize the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Instead, he blamed Congress. He also reiterated his opposition to prior efforts by Congress to restrict money in politics. (Back in 2007, he criticized McCain-Feingold: “McCain-Feingold has not worked,” Romney said, per AP. “It's hurt my party, it hurts First Amendment rights. I think it was a bad bill.")
He also essentially called for unlimited funds to go to campaigns.
"I think the Supreme Court's decision was following their interpretation of the campaign-finance laws that were written by Congress,” Romney said. “My own view is that now we've tried a lot of efforts that can restrict what can be given to campaigns. We'd be a lot wiser to say, 'You can give what you like to a campaign. They must report it immediately, and the creation of these independent-expenditure committees, that have to be separate from the candidate, that's just a bad idea. ... I'm not going to criticize the Supreme Court. I'm going to criticize Congress for passing a law that limits what campaigns can receive and opens the door to these Super PACs and to PACs, which have now been around for a while. We're seeing this is where the most damaging allegations arise."
It’s not clear, however, that unlimited money to campaigns would eliminate Super PACs, considering candidates do not want their names attached to the most devastating negative attacks, but they also benefit from them.
Leave a Comment:
Yes, that is Mr. Romney's position today. What will it be tomorrow? (The next poll results will give us the answer)
Ah no...
Sorry, Mitt but that's why you verify before your foot gets lodged in you mouth. Looks like it's time for another flip flop.
Romeny/Christie 2016... because we stand a better chance than Newt! Or maybe... We don't suck as bad as Newt. Now that's how you take America Back!
You know, I think Freud would have had a wonderful time analyzing the GOP candidates.
Romney contradicts Romney. Where's the news in that? Tell me about when his position isn't shifting with prevailing political winds.
He certainly is chugging at the stale talking points of the 'base', eh? It's been pretty clearly established that the 'intelligence' in the lead up to the war were PHONY,...How does he feel about THOSE facts?
Doesn't matter, really, because tomorrow, he'll have a different opinion and claim he never stated his FIRST position. I can't wait for the advertisements highlighting this candidates hypocrisy!
Go, Mittens, Go!
What his position is depends on who he is talking to. Regular news he is more progressive. Fox News he is more conservative. A man with no soul! Can you imagine him as President? Our military ships and planes would be Made in China, our social security and disability payments would be processed in India and our tax returns in South Korea. Romney's America would anything but American.
If he was going to make the statement he did he should have gone all the way and discussed the manufactured "intelligence" that made that war happen. We as a nation have a history of wars based on manufactured intelligence. Research the Mexican- American War and the Spanish American War as good examples.
-"If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in,"
Obviously, Mr. Romney, obviously!!
If ifs and buts were
Fruits and nuts
We'd all have a merrier Christmas.
@Mark
Fruitcake!!! Fruit and nuts. Make it the right way and you can build an indestructible house with it.
well they want to go into Iran with rumors of them potentionally having the ability to build a bomb in the undefined future. So why the hell not go into Iraq with the bs intel that the WH, CIA and other intel agencies had to know was bs. If Rommeny believes that the WH thought the intel was legit he must say the same thing his party has been saying about Pakistan, they are either imcopentent, or culpable.
Ever since 9-11 happened on Republican watch, followed by the costly mistake of the Iraq war, failure to get bin Laden, etc., etc., the GOP is NOT the Party of national security or foreign policy. I hope the Dems run a 3 AM call ad against the Teapublican candidate. Really, not ONE of these yahoos should be anywhere near the red button (imagine it, go ahead, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain -- haunting).
@True Patriot,
Please don't leave out Romney. He has demonstrated a wicked temper through his campaigning and his arrests. Reactionary people and red buttons don't mix. I much prefer the presidents steady, no drama hands to carry the football.
@Wayne -- Right. And where is Lieberman when we need him to whisper corrections in Romney's ear (Psst, they did know there were no WMDs. Are you really that gullible?).
Yep, Romney can get snippy. Just imagine the 3 AM call our president just received about N.Korea. These GOP/TP candidates can study up all they want (Palin, Cain, etc.) but they are not and never will be qualified to take that call.
Talk about flip - flopping :
I have just read that Barack Obama has sent a letter of congratulations to a gay couple that was just married (I believe in Brooklyn) and also mentioned in the letter that his views about the subject were "evolving".
Please don't anyone try to tell me that he is not in the campaign mode. Talk about pandering
Forgive me for bringing this up on a different topic site - but you won't find this story on MSNBC.
Holy cow, I just heard the rest of the statement by Romney. There was no UN resolution authorizing a preemptive strike against Iraq. Please see the last sentence of my post #1.12 above.
Well Gingrich woulda if it were even a rumor of a rumor! (and NO that's not a good thing!!!)
Well Mr. Romney is trying to humanize himself. I saw him on Charlie Rose on PBS Monday and he looked more relaxed then when he had the interview with Brett Baier. All of his policies i disagree with but I can see him getting more swagger back in his step now. I just had to laugh at him because he talks out of both sides of his neck. Mr Rose asked him about the payroll tax cut, and basically he said "It's only a band-aid but at this time a much needed band-aid." A little bit of double speak don't you think ha ha h.
Jeffrey, so true. I also disagree with his policies but what puzzles me is why republicans would choose him without knowing what he really believes because he's had the opposite opinion at some point in the last year or two if not month. I wouldn't trust him ever.
Jody
The sad thing about the GOP field is there is no one left to nominate. Unless they draft someone, or broker their convention - they have to ride with Willard (hopefully not on the roof of his station wagon).
I think I am getting whiplash from Weathervane Willard's flops (or was that a flip, I lost track).
phinephancy, there is Jon Huntsman if they could forgive his sin of working for the enemy. While I certainly disagree with his policies as well and dislike his recent frequent pandering, he's a far better candidate than Romney and I think he's smarter and more likable.
Jody, the base looks at Huntsman as a RINO. Which, if you think about it, is funny. He is truly one of the more conservative guys in the field. Perfect Veep material.
Huntsman IS a RINO. When he ran for governor in Utah, he carried traditional Democratic areas. Even the alternative newspaper ("City Weekly") in Salt Lake supported him.
With that said, I agree that Huntsman is the best the Republicans have. But still a pale shadow of President Obama.
I'd like to point out that there was ample evidence that Bush and the Neocons were fabricating the WMD issue to use as a rationale for war long before the war actually commenced. Many people, many experts on such issues, never thought Hussein had a viable nuclear program. All that talk of "Mushroom Clouds" was a gigantic lie.
That Romney flipped back and forth on the issue is hardly surprising.
As far as Romney's anti-Super Pac screed I call BS.
Romney really doesn't have a core. There are some darn fine reasons most Republicans don't want to vote for him.
You nailed that one straight on nisl.
nisl, absolutely there are good reasons why so many republicans keep searching for anyone but Mitt.
Ditto, good post nisl.
Well said nisl!! There were the Downing Street Memos as well which basically stated the British knew the U.S. was fabricating the whole damn thing: http://warisacrime.org/node/1
If the Brits were on to Bush, then you know the story was blown wide open if it had gotten all the way across to the other side of the pond.
The only people NOT on to it were the Fourth Estate in this country and our Congress. John Conyers tried to hold hearings on the Downing Street Memos, but the republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing room with heat and light in the building. Remember? Yeah,....the repubs had a merry old time while this country was careening into a Great Recession.
Tell that to the poor Kurdish people that were slaughtered with mustard gas that Saddam didn't have WMD. Last I checked, mustard gas is listed (and banned) as a WMD. But did you forget that part?
JK1963
They were also talking about "mushroom" clouds. Remember that? I know Colin Powell does - and he is still PO'd about it.
The " traitorous" Kurds who were helping the Iranians? Those Kurds? The Bradley Manning type Kurds?
Why is it that you always bring up the kurds, but never the date of when this mustard gas attack allegedly took place?
Saddam told us he had the remaining stockpiles destroyed. The UN inspectors confirmed this as true. Bush lied, and still LIES, about what he knew and didn't know.
Mittney campaigned in Mass. for the governors position on "He's a Progressive and the citizens have nothing to fear about voting for him" He's a liberal, a republican in drag, and the republicans, except for a small slice, just don't trust him. He single handedly destroyed the republican party in Mass.
Why would the national party elect him to more than federal septic system tester is beyond me.
The more time goes on the real republican candidate will come to the fore, it will happen slowly because none of the establishment Political parties or the media want him, but the American people do. (especially the true conservatives)
Egilman,
Truly not being "snarky" here, but who in the field of GOP candidates fits that bill?
None of you in here no what you are talking about when it comes to Iraq. I don't believe anyone in this room saw a shred of the intelligence that led this country's MILITARY to war. I saw a lot of the intel over the years and some of the main sticking points were "Desert Storm never ENDED....we were at a cease fire" Saddam was suppose to abide by several UN resolutions and he ignored about 17 of them. He fired upon our aircraft, possesed weapons that were unauthorized, etc...... the resolutions also stated that we reserved the right to resume if not adhered to. Clinton had other things preoccupying his mind so he could care less about what Saddam was doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
We were training since 1991 to re-enter Iraq and frankly entered at will during the period from 91 -2003. Who do you think prepped the theatre for an invasion? Who do you think lased targets for coalition aircraft? It damn sure weren't the protester 5000 miles away in San Francisco. Some things are classified and some aren't.
Paul,
You are delusional. Please cite a source.
@ Paul
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8353787/Libya-mustard-gas-most-potent-chemical-weapon.html
That ended in the early 90's. In2003, the weapons inspectors were searching places they had never been allowed to search before and still had found nothing. In fact, I believe the Shrub invaded when he did because he was afraid the American people would start listening to the inspectors.
In 2007, a poll was taken where almost 40% of American people STILL believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. A good example of how well the Big Lie works.
And as to that mustard gas, it was that Super Patriot, the Brain Dead Ronnie Reagan that sold the chemicals needed to make the gas to Saddam. Oh, and Poppy Shrub. So, along with Saddam, I would blame them, too.
JK1963 proving my point for me. When Sadaam used the gas on the Kurds then the weapons were pretty well spent weren't they? He'd run out of the gas.
A report dated 1990 states that Iran gassed the Kurds too:
http://politics.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&num=1043114168&start=
Also your observation is chronologically challenged. When Sadaam gassed the Kurds, it was in the 1980's. We invaded Iraq in 2003,.......a full 15 - 20 years after the Kurds were killed. A lot of time had elapsed.
Oh,.....and where do you think he got the gas from? You guessed it. Ronnie Rayguns sold him the gas. Here's a picture of none other than little Donny Rumsfeld pressing flesh with Sadaam to seal the deal.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
I want to thank you sooooo much for bringing it up.
You liberals are too funny. All the childish name calling is really a testament to your level of intelligence. Why don't you go back to your xbox and let the adults have a conversation will ya?
All you Cons are the same. Shoot down Right Wing talking points and they run under the porch and play victim.
Not magnanimous in defeat are ya'?
Calling us "you liberals" is tantamount calling us names. It is impossible to have an adult conversation when prevaricators like you are involved.
And here I thought you were proud to call yourself a "liberal." My mistake...if you think it's name calling that is your insecurity. I was referring to your "Ronnie Rayguns", "little Donny Rumsfeld", "brain dead Ronnie Reagan, and "poppy scrub". If you can't at least have the civility to reference people by their correct names without lowering yourself to a 1st grader, then you really should be playing with an Xbox instead of being on here.
Dude, that's what they're Mummies called em'. I had nothing to do with it.
And you bring up a valid point. I find the term "Liberal" to be a compliment rather than an epithet.
Well...only you would find that term a compliment. And you still didn't justify the use of "poppy scrub" or "brain dead Ronie Reagan", not that I would think you would have a valid justification.
Merry Christmas!
From another Proud Liberal! You poor deluded knuckledragging teabagger!
Oh, I am PROUD to be called a Liberal; but when you put the sneer "you" in front of it,...we can tell you're being derisive.
Most of us could care less, though. Your ability to 'reason' through complex issues keeps us motivated day in and day out.
So thanks!
Porter....I see that in addition to being a liberal you are also a mind reader. Too bad you fail at both since I'm not a Tea Party member nor subscribe to their beliefs, but you just assumed it. Typical...but that what we have seen time and time on this board, so I'm used to seeing the 1st grade insults... Hope your parents are proud...
Mitt Romney today said if the United States knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, it would not have gone to war in the country.
===
And sooooo what information would Mitt have had access to to backup such a statement? The fact of the matter is, this Country was readied for war with Iraq well before it was stated that we would be going to war with Iraq. It was done. The talk was theater.
If by that same logic, once all the means were used to determine that there were no weapons, we would have ended our occupation there at that same time.
If by Romney's words we went to war because of WMD, we would have left the minute we determined that there were none. I'm thinking we determined that there were no WMD well before the 9 year mark.
Wait a minute, I thought we invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the middle east, or "to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." You mean it really was all about the WMD's? Lets call up George W. Bush and Cheney to explain it all to us again.
No Amy, lets just let SATAN deal with thier sorry A$$e$. Everyone knows it was about makeing Saddam pay the Ultimate price for threatening to Kill Daddy Bush,and OIL.
Occupy SoggyBottom!
I thought we invaded Iraq to avoid future riots in Los Angeles. I mean, the way it was explained is that Iraq was the evil cause of ALL of societies ills. So yes, let's get the current round of GOP presidential campaigners to tell why/why not the Iraqi war was worth it .. and also let them tell us why war in Iran is now necessary. We all know that is what they really want to justify.
I really think the "go to war - any war" make up for these guys is try and show their "manhood". As long as the bullets being fired aren't at them!
Amy -
I was reading yesterday in the Bangor Daily News - you now have more welfare recipients than taxpayers.
Looks like you all are headed in the direction of Cali, Ill. and some of the other totally screwed states.
That sucks, particularly given the small size of your tax base.
Good luck.
Why, Merry Christmas to you, Spanky. Hope you are ready for a happy holiday season.
Hey Phine,
I stand for the proposition that before a nation can go to war, the opposing leaders vouching for war need to gather personally for a battle royal, the outcome of which would decide if we have a war.
(once they have killed each other off we all can then vote to have a peace party instead, could you imaging the profit making potential of that one?)
Egilman,
Back in the 60's there was a commercial showing two old men fist fighting (they represented the leaders of two opposing countries.) The idea was to let the old men fight the wars. Think it could be apropos for today.
And Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Yeah.
Weren't they supposed to assault us with candy and flowers as "liberators"?
Yeah...and the vast oil revenues were supposed to pay for the war that wasn't even on the books until an honest man, President Obama, put it on the books. Think we should send Bush and Uncle Dick over there to collect on that debt??
Spanky....I have a suggestion for a New Year's resolution. Relevance. You're making me wonder if my tax dollars are being spent on internet access in state run mental institutions. We're discussing Mitt and Iraq and you chime in with "welfare recipients in Maine"....and butterflies and little birdies talking in your head.....
Poetry Shocked. Absolute poetry.
Glad someone said it.
If President Bush had allowed the UN (IAEA?) nuclear inspection team to complete its work which was in progress, we would have known there were no WMDs. Trouble is that Bush and his neocon pals never had any intention of allowing those inspections to be completed because they knew that over a decade of sanctions had rendered Hussein incapable of continuing his efforts. It is highly probable that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld Wolfowitz had made their decision to invade Iraq before Congress was even asked for the Resolution which Bush then used as authorization for "shock and awe". 9/11 was the excuse these neocon warhawks needed and they did a grand job of lying to the American people and our allies. That's not just my opinion, it is supported by those who investigated and wrote about the lead up to Iraq.
As for Romney, the guy is shameless. It wasn't that long ago when he chastised President Obama for bringing the troops home and ending the war. Why should we believe what Romney says today when his foreign policy advisors are many of the same neocons who pushed for the war long before 9/11 and who would like nothing better than to attack both Iran and North Korea?
That's the thought I had when I read the article. If we had cared whether there were WMD, we would have allowed the inspections to be completed. The reason the inspections were not completed was because they couldn't allow them to find no WMD, and if they couldn't say there were WMD the country would not accede to the demand for war.
There was no need to complete inspections. He was already in violation. The violations were enough to go knock him off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
Tell it to the 4,000+ of your dead brothers-in-arms spent on the Iraq conflict "Airborne".
If you were willing to fight over that, you could have gone ahead and fought. It was not enough to spend a trillion $$$ and invade Iraq over. The problem was that the Shrub wanted to play soldier (after doing everything he could to get out of Vietnam) without getting shot at. He was and still is a coward. So is Dick.
Well, yes, Bush and Dick are cowards. Both used every trick they could find to stay out of the fight in VietNam while 55,000 of America's finest died. (Dick timed his wife's pregnancy to stay out of battle. Check the dates and Dick's draftability at the time. I know ... I was drafted at about the same time.)
However ...
I've always been partial to the theory that the real reason Bush went to war was that he has a massive (and well deserved) inferiority complex.
Bush senior was a genuine war hero and not bad as a President. (And this coming from an Obama supporter.) Bush junior probably started drinking because he knew he was just a drip by comparison. Consider these facts:
Bush Senior: Following the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941, at the age of 18, Bush senior postponed going to college and became the youngest aviator in the US Navy at the time. In 1944, his attack aircraft was hit by antiaircraft fire but Bush Senior finished his attack run anyway and managed to ditch in the ocean.
Bush Junior: Used family influence to get a cushy assignment in the National Guard while others were dying in VietNam, then went AWOL to politic in Alabama.
Bush Senior: Moved to West Texas, entered the oil business and became a millionaire by the age of 40.
Bush Junior: Handed family money, he decided to buy a baseball team.
Bush Senior: Graduated from Yale in an accelerated program that allowed him to graduate in two and a half years, rather than four.
Bush Junior: Indifferent student. Known as a party boy and a boozer by his own admission, he was on the cheerleader squad.
I've always suspected that we owe the debacle in Iraq to that Bush junior's mental defect. He tried, and failed, to do what daddy wouldn't do.
His legacy is a stain on America.
Porter, good stuff,...
the only thing missing was Jr's failure as an oil man who dumped his shares in his misadventure under highly suspicious insider trading and against a contractual agreement - The oil venture went belly up and THEN he bought into the baseball team.
Everything else was pretty spot on. My own theory was that he had a 'hard on' against Saddam over Desert Storm and that was the PRIMARY target for revenge,...9/11 made it all too easy to become something else.
Remember, Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Thing is, we did know there were none or we knew we had no real, new evidence of any.
Saddam gave us the evidence that there were none. Remeber the table full of books and CDs? all of it pointing out that he used to have WMD but had gotten rid of them. We chose not to believe it. We had inspectors scouring the country for the WMD and they weren't being found. Bush kicked them out to start the bombing.
well, he sure is consistent---with his inconsistencies.
Or has Christine O'Donnell put it, "he's been consistent since he changed his mind."
And as Ms. O'Donnell adds a little eye of Newt to her witches brew.................
Ol' Mittsy makes it sound as if his opinion mattered back then. It mattered even less then than it does now!! He can say what the US government would or would not have done in 2003, but the truth of the matter is that he was just as helpless as the rest of us.
Looks like his flip-flopping is taking an expected, desperate turn into out-right lies. His bishop really needs to sit him down and have a stern talk with him. Mormons follow the 10 commandments just as rigorously as any other "Christians".....and his ENTIRE campaign has been about bearing false witness.
Wether it's the Mormon version or the standard Christian version, Hell is Hell, Mittsy.
(...and if Romney were a snake in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve would have had apples, oranges, pears AND grapes served to them in the back seat of a BMW!!)
Shockedand. LOL, that last line is a winner!
Thanks, Jody! It was an inspired moment...
Totally agree with you about the UN inspections. Those who criticize President Obama's foriegn policy seem to have forgotten how nasty the Bush Regime was to not only the UN but to their own people that didn't agree with the "pre-emptive strike". It upsets me that Mittsy would lie about such a serious subject for personal gain. What would he be willing to lie about as president for his own personal gain?
Actually, Mormons don't have any special affection for the ten commandments. They only believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly" and since the ten are in one of the oldest parts ...
Like so many other religious traditions, they have their own which they call, "The Articles of Faith". They were revealed to Joseph Smith personally by God. And there are 13, not 10.
Not a criticism of the Mormons, just a correction to establish facts.
Jody-From what I understand, the IAEA did complete their report, and stipulated that there were NO WMD's. Bush wanted to invade long before that was completed though. Also, from what I understand, he was talking about invading Iraq right after he took office. Vendetta anyone? He finished the job that his daddy started?
Dubya, I do believe, has "father" issues. Always wanting to one up Daddy.
So, in otherwords, in the world of Mittens, the distinction is between knowing what we know now, vs. affirmatively knowing back then there were no WMDs for certain and knowing about it at the time. He better watch out...he's stepping outside the GOP rule of 3 word bumber sticker campaigning.
Could some one please give me a clear definition of the term "flip flop?" If I believed something ten years ago, but in light of new information and intelligence gained within the last ten years I change my mind, am I flip flopping?
What is the difference between "flip flopping" and stubborness and/or stagnation of opinion? Is it ever okay for a politician to change his mind?
While changing your opinion because of addition/new information is a good thing the problem Mitt is that he has changed his stand on CORE issues like abortion.
Dennis, no snark here, but does Willard even HAVE a core?
Core issues are tough.
Like positions on debt and leadership.
Dennis - would you consider Obama's change in position on the debt ceiling to be a 'core' issue?
Also - what is it about 'core' issues that cause your issue? Putting Mitt aside my position of abortion has been 'evolving' over time.
But then again Obama's position of gay marraige has not.
Of course some would say gay marriage is core and others would not.
Dennis, perhaps you should define what you consider to be core issues, that way we will all have a reference point and can compare politicians, issue to issue, flip to flop.
I'll second that spanky,
I would like to have a consistent way to rank politicians on their positions over time and fine out what they REALLY stand for...
Of course if we had something like this, we would probably take all of them out and shoot them when we found out that their only CORE position is not to have one. (since their only CORE ability is to lie convincingly)
The debt ceiling is an artificial political talking point. There is nothing core about it, it can/should be controlled with spending bills.
Core issues are deeply seeded beliefs about our Constitution, laws and your personal religion where religion should never be a factor in a political race.
My position on abortion has never changed since I formed it in the late 50’s. However now I am more understanding other opinions.
Well, "spanky"....next time you divert a conversation away from the teabaggers being racist by bringing up the late Senator Byrd, I'll remind you of this comment. When Byrd's views on race evolved, your kind insinuate that he loved the KKK to his dying day. When Mittsy tells what he knows to be a lie (that Bush would not have occupied Iraq if he would have known of the lack of WMD) about something that he had nothing to do with, you call it "evolution".
If your ideas on evolution hold true, Humans will become apes again in another few thousand years. You evolve in your direction and the rest of us will continue to move forward and away from sleazy liars like Romney.
Not to mention "Operation Desert Fox" http://www.defense.gov/specials/desert_fox/ in 1998 which vaporized all potential WMD sites in all of Iraq. Clinton and Tony Blair launched 2 full days and nights of hundreds and hundreds of sorties from U.S. and British naval assets. The sorties were carried out non-stop 24/7 for two days and nights until every potential WMD site was flattened at least once.
Ground inspectors brought in by the UN afterward confirmed that there was not so much left as a brick on top of a brick,.....AND NO WMD'S REMAINED IN THE COUNTRY.
Right wingies like to say they were smuggled out to Syria, but no confirming evidence was ever found to corroborate this lie.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-found-no-evidence-wmd-moved-iraq/
A big ol' cruise missile can work wonders when properly targeted. :o)
GOPisextinct,
I kind of think if Syria really had WMD that they would have let the whole world know - especially Israel.
True Phine.
The hardest thing to keep secret is a bomb.
At least I would think.
The only real use for a nuclear weapon is mass destruction, it is most effective when used as a threat. To use a nuclear weapon as a threat you need to let it be known that you actually have one, then "Leak" the pics to prove it.
If they "Had" one you would be able to bet the house on their letting it be known.
There was wmds there.Bush sold them to Iraq to use against Iran during the war between the two.Sold them thu a bank set up in Italy using are tax dollars.The company that sold them was then given the contract to develop vacines to protect are troops from them.That was easy to do because they already knew what strains to protect them from.To bad are kids had to die for there profits.Thats the way the DOGS OF WAR works.
George W. Bush referred to Saddam Hussein as "the man that nearly killed my dad". He was going to have a war with Iraq no matter what. WMD or not Bush and his puppeteer Cheney didn't give a rat's patoot what anybody knew or not or what people thought they wanted war. Bush wanted revenge and Cheney to support the military-industrial-complex of which he was a member in good standing.
We should all thank the Republican Party for returning the Government to the Liberal Nation.When your done laughing at them say a prayer for them.
"Please rescue these poor, deluded idiots from their stupor of ignorance, that America can stop circling the drain due to their ignorant choices and resume the progress established by enlightened leaders like FDR!"
Like that prayer?
Are you kidding me, Porter? I freakin' LOVE that prayer!
Easy to say that now! I would love to see a clip/video/quote/vote of what Romney said prior to our invasion of Iraq
Nina, I've been looking for a while now haven't found anything yet. I'll bet he wasn't stupid enough to get caught on video.
Mitt Romney is a Big Fat Liar, by Andrew Sullivan
One of the advantages of having put your soul on eBay is that it frees you up. You can say anything to anyone, and feel no consequences. You can go from promising to be more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy to backing an amendment to the Constitution permanently putting gays into second class status. You can go from calling yourself "progressive" to "the most conservative candidate in this race." And you also can repeat in increasingly crude terms the notion that this president is some kind of anti-American, far-left ideologue determined to turn 21st Century America into Eastern Europe c. 1978 ... and pretend that this is the actual debate we are having and that this is the universe we are living in. Given the alternative galaxies proferred by Roger Ailes, any other narrative might prove confusing for the true believers, I suppose. But if you want to read a long list of the whoppers that Romney has been touting, check out Sargent.
This is a lie:
I hereby challenge Romney to cite a single case or action in which president Obama has said he believes that government should enforce equal outcomes in the workplace or the economy or anywhere else. His signature policy in education is called "Race To The Top", for Pete's sake. He chose to extend the Bush tax cuts. He has actually cut Medicare and taxes on a majority of Americans. The idea that at a time when the debt is soaring the wealthy might be asked to contribute their fair share to balancing the buget is not Marxist. It's something the most right-wing economic government in the West, Britain's Conservative Party, has insisted upon.
One other little contrast to reveal the extent of Romney's deception. Here's a recent debate riff:
Again, I hereby demand from the Romney campaign direct evidence that the president has ever said or done something that can back up this ludicrous assertion of backing a foreign country over one's own. It's a lie. And, by the way, here is the president in this year's State of the Union:
nisl,
As I'm sure you are aware that whole mittney speech was a republican dogma campaign spiel trying to weasel votes. Nobody took it seriously.
Mitts problem is that he thinks that everyone does take him seriously, when it is only the establishment power brokers that take him seriously. The world views him as a joke.
You got that right, Egilman. Romney wouldn't have a hope in Hell if it weren't for Republican power brokers running absolutely scared spitless at the prospect of any one of the other members of the clown troop getting the nomination.
Come on Mitt, you can surely do better than that!! WMD's??? we all know that was a huge LIE!! What a Crock of Bull manure!! That statement is laughable!! Ciao
WMD's were present in Iraq
Yes there were WMD's present in Iraq. What happened to the WMD's was that they were discretely moved to Syria and Iran during Desert Storm by camel caravan and other means. After Osama bin Laden attacked on 9.11.01 Iran and Syria and Hussein knew that Bush would come after Hussein based on the WMD intel which Bush did. The axis of evil tried to draw America into am ambush by creating propoganda against the move hoping that other countries and nations would come to the terrorists aid in repelling the counter-strike against those who had attacked America on 9.11.01.
The move against Hussein was not only a move to oust him because of his use of WMD's on his own people but the move against Iraq was necessary in order to free the people of the Middle East from the oppression that we now see being attacked in countries like Syria and Egypt where the people of these nations are standing up for their freedom of rights.
In Iraq we saw Hussein a murderer of his own people brought to justice before the people of Iraq.
In Libya we saw the Freedom Fighter's kill Ghadaffi a known terrorist who shot down a passenger liner.
In Syria we see their spirit of wanting to be free setting against the walls of Assad's reign.
In Egypt we see women and men standing up for the equality of the woman in land that America knew only a few centuries before.
All of these events have taken place because of the oppurtunity that the enemy presented to the Middle East to rise up against their tyrannical and despotic leaders after America was attacked on 9.11.01.
We cannot merely stand aside and let those in the Middle East fall. We must support them in their struggle just as many nations supported America during our struggle to gain independance.
Mitt Romney would abandon the Middle East to hide behind his castle walls. Mitt Romny is not a president that America can have in office during a time of war. His mere accounts for the reason of Iraq being attacked only because of MWD's describes his notion that humanitarian reasons are not a justifiable reason for going to the defense of people to set them free. Mitt Romney's only interest is in what would result if such WMD's were used against America. He is not interested in supporting the freedom of a people from such oppression and tyranny.
The world has changed. No longer are nations seperated by great divides in communication. The free of the world now have the change to unleash the very hell upon those who would oppress another to free nations such as Iran and Syria of their oppression to bring about equality.
So I ask you America where is spirit of freedom? Does America only keep it for theirself?
We are not, nor should we be the world's police force. That is the job of the UN. Oh, and there were no WMDs in Iraq, which the shrun knew before he invaded.
Where is the spirit of freedom? It's everywhere. But first it has to be defined. Id oubt that your definition is anywhere near mine. So the question become not where it is, but how wide is it? It comes down to what is an individual allowed to do?
Here is the latest list of False Flag attacks... excluding the Gulf Of Tonkin... 1) Okllahoma City- Bill Clinton gets his Anti- Terrorsit Bill signed. 2) 911- George Bush and the New World Order get their wish of War in Iraq. If you want some true hard facts of this nonsensical shadow Government, all one has to do, is just ask me. Oh yes..did you hear the one where they killed Osama Bin-laden?? LMAO!! Ciao Ps: hint hint...Bin-laden had been dead for over 9yrs, killed in the mountains of Tora-Bora.. Merry Christmas to all!!!
They killed several of my close friends a few months ago in a Helicopter... and I AM MAD AS HELL!!!!! I use Leap-Frog for a reason.... like Forrest.."That's all i got to say about that"!!! Do not try to trace my IP..it will do you no good!! Ciao... LeapFrogs..OUT!!
So why does Mitt Head wiat till all the troops are out of Iraq to say they shouln't have gone in. He had aklmost 10 good years to observe that-and never did. He could have obseredthat 4 years ago while running then, and didn't-eventhough ron Paul did do so 4 years ago.
Almosst 10 years of mistaken leadership.. And where was he on paying for the war? whydidn't he adopt "payas you go" so that the defict wouldn't be high and America in trouble with a high debt load. Where was the prudent man-he so claims to be?
Newt Gingich can tell him, never in history has war not been paid for with higher taxes. Romney has never listened to history. for years he called for the bush tax cuts ina time of war. And he still calls for the rich to aviod sacrifices other made with their lives.
This is a leader we cantrust?
Don't think so.
"Romulian Romney" finally came to this conclusion! Really?? This individual has no Foreign Policy clue at all! Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Party of NO has got to GO!!