In an interview with Fox News Sunday today, Mitt Romney declined to say whether the United States should have invaded Iraq knowing what we know now. Romney did say the invasion was “appropriate” based on what was known in 2003. Byron York quotes Romney’s answer when Chris Wallace asks him whether the invasion was correct in hindsight*: “Oh boy, that’s a big question,” Romney responded. “And going back and trying to say, given what we know now, what would we have done? Would we have invaded or not? At the time, we didn’t have the knowledge that we have now. At the time, Saddam Hussein was hiding, he was not letting the inspectors from the United Nations into the various places that they wanted to go. The IAEA was blocked from going into the palaces and so forth. And the intelligence in our nation and other nations was that this tyrant had weapons of mass destruction. And in the light of that belief, we took action which was appropriate at the time.” This is actually not a new position for Romney. In 2007-08, he also refused to take a position re-litigating the Iraq war, calling one such question a “null set.” David Freddoso observed back then, “Yet he is unique among the serious Republican presidential contenders because he has never said he would do it all over again, and they all have.” *UPDATE: A commenter below takes issue with my paraphrase of Wallace’s question. According to the transcript , here is the exact question: “First of all, looking back – and hindsight is always 20-20 – should we have invaded?” The York item I link to above also contains the exact quote. If Romney had answered yes or no to hypothetical question, this would seem to give us some insight into whether he thought the decision to invade was “correct.” But hopefully this update clears up any confusion.
Follow this link:
Romney Won’t Say Whether U.S. Should Have Invaded Iraq
I have never heard Romney give as good an answer on his changing positions as he just gave on abortion. It was entirely believable, even moving. But Chris Wallace’s follow-ups were devastating to him. WOW! Especially on guns. Romney is handling it as well as possible, but Wallace’s question really brought home, to conservatives, how liberal Romney was at one point on social issues. This might really hurt him in Iowa AND South Carolina.
Continued here:
Romney’s Answer on Abortion Was Absolutely Perfect
Chris Wallace: Iowa “won’t count” if Ron Paul wins
Read more from the original source:
Chris Wallace: Iowa “won’t count” if Ron Paul wins
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe Mitt Romney should take seriously this shot across the bow by Fox News host Chris Wallace : [Mitt Romney] has not appeared on this program or any Sunday talk show since March of 2010. We invited Gov. Romney again this week, but his campaign says he’s still not ready to sit down for an interview. After all, for just how long has Mitt Romney been running for President by now? 2009? If he’s not ready now to be play you’re-on-the-griddle with Chris Wallace then when the heck will Romney be ready? When Romney’s trying for the nomination again in 2016? I imagine that the temptation is strong for Romney – or his supporters – to shrug this one off, but I’d recommend against that, for a couple of reasons. First off, it’s a bad idea for a candidate to start acting as if he or she is above the petty considerations and/or obligations of campaigning; even if the media lets you get away with it in the primary they’re unlikely to let you get away with it in the general*. Second, specifically: Mitt Romney already has no reputation for bravery . Being perceived as hiding from the Sunday shows won’t help him erase that problem. Third, finally, and to draw off from the first reason: who the heck told Mitt Romney that he was entitled to act like the nomination was merely a formality, anyway? He’s a former governor and a mortal being, not some sort of mythological figure. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *Unless you’re a Democrat – and the Awful Example of President Barack Obama should show you the perils of that particular poisoned fruit. If the media had smacked him around more, he might not have turned out to be such a… sub-optimal… President.
Read this article:
Chris Wallace calls out Mitt Romney.
Now I didn’t like it when Chris Wallace asked Michele Bachmann if she was flake last June because he unfairly singled her out. But I am having second thoughts. Bachmann certainly raised legitimate questions in Monday night’s GOP debate about the wisdom of Texas Governor Rick Perry mandating the HPV vaccine and of the possibility of cronyism. But when she publicly stated that the Gardasil vaccination causes mental retardation following the debate she drew the wrong kind of attention to herself. At the very least, it should give pause to those who will choose the GOP’s standard bearer next year. After all, President Obama has not been equal to the task and is wearing out his welcome. But if voters are going to replace Obama next year we are going to want to replace him with a person who will mind the store, accept responsibility for his or her actions and speak to the issues affecting Americans in
