Mitt Romney Lies Again

June 6, 2007 at 2:33 pm | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, conservatives, corruption, Iraq, Mit Romney, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Revising History, secret combinations, War | 37 Comments

What is with Mitt Romney and the truth? Why can’t he state things like they really are instead of spewing out more and more lies? Take this from the debate about Iraq and the Inspectors searching for WMDs in 2002 and 2003:

“[If] Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in.”

“But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.”

Anyone not a hardcore Republican knows that this is false. Saddam did indeed open up his country to inspectors, and those inspectors did indeed find NOTHING, as Scott Ritter (and many of the rest of us) claimed they wouldn’t.

Greg Seargent hasa news clipping from the New York Times dated June 18, 2003 of Hans Blix, you know the inspector who Saddam let into his country to search for WMDs:

Hans Blix, the retiring chief weapons inspector for the United Nations, has questioned in an interview why American and British forces expected to find large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq when it was clear that his inspectors had failed to report any such discovery.

In an interview on Tuesday in his 31st-floor offices at the United Nations, he said:

“What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons. I don’t see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied the reports” of present and former United Nations inspectors.

This makes Mitt Romney a liar.

Advertisements

37 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Is it a lie, or have the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) simply swallowed the Bush story hook line and sinker without ever doing any critical investigation of the evidence and the testimony on their own?

    Is he just too dumb to be President?

  2. Don’t you remember the cat and mouse games Saddam played with he UN inspectors?
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/04/ltm.06.html

    George Bush came into office and received all this warning info left by Clinton about Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Osama. Problems that Clinton had ignored. Also, Clinton didnt like the way the CIA opperated. He didnt like how we depended on spies and informants, and interrogation to get information. So, he defanged the CIA, he made it a tennis club full of armchair analysis.

    The CIA analysts were telling the President and the Senate Intelligence Committee, Osama is planning a hit but we dont know where, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are seeking WMD. They were doing their best, making their best guesstomates.

    Turn out the CIA information was wrong. The info from England about yellow cake and Niger was wrong. But how was the president supposed to know. How was the Senate supposed to know. How was Hillary Clinton supposed to know. The intelligence was wrong. All of our informants were from 1991 and Bush Senior. After Clinton, there was no direct intelligence information.

    Dems want to say Bush Jr. Lied to start a war for a political motives only. The truth is, Bush and the Senate trusted the CIA, and the CIA was wrong. The CIA was wrong because it no longer had the tools to gather reliable intelligence.

  3. Broz,

    Don’t blame the CIA for it all. The CIA had warned the Bush administration that invading Iraq would bring about exactly what has occurred. The CIA also put qualifiers into their statements regarding WMDs in Iraq, which the Bush administration took out when stating those claims publicly. That is deception. The evidence is there, Broz, that before the war began, Bush and his cabal had plenty of information stating that the war was not needed, that it would sow chaos, and that the CIA was not 100% sure about WMDs in Iraq. Not only that, but the UN weapons inspectors themselves found nothing when they returned in 2002.

    I’m sorry, Broz, but Mitt Romney is a liar.

  4. Daniel, it is pretty serious to call someone a liar, especially based on a statement such as Romney’s in the debate. False accusation is also a lie.

    You might consider some qualifiers or a restatement of the accusation for the sake of accuracy or even common decency. (Republicans — even Republican leaders — are people too who, as people (some would argue) deserve a modicum of decency, such as not being accused of being a liar at every turn. Treating people nicely entails not accusing them of being liars for making policy statements you disagree with on political grounds.) A better way to describe this situation might be to say something like “Romney does not seem to understand what the UN inspectors were reporting” or “Romney is mistaken that Saddam didn’t open up his country” (of course, that is open for debate — since you are presenting the issue as cut and dry when it is not does that mean that you are a liar or is it more accurate to say you are expressing the issue simplistically?) Being wrong about something does not make someone a liar. It takes much more to be a liar than that.

  5. Also, a more careful reading of Romney’s statement is consistent with Saddam’s behavior during the decade since the end of the Gulf War as far as Saddam being evasive and not allowing access to UN inspectors. Saddam was in fundamental violation of UN resolutions for much of the time up until the months immediately before the Iraq War in 2003. The fact that Saddam was in violation of the UN resolutions ending the Gulf War does not necessarily mean that we should have invaded Iraq in 2003. Most would probably agree that we should not have invaded, that it was bad policy. But to say that Romney is a liar because he stated that Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions is inaccurate.

  6. John,

    I stand by my statement. Romney is a liar. The evidence is clearly against his statements, with the one exception that you bring up. Indeed Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions. No one doubts that. But to state this:

    “[If] Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in.”

    After all that has been said, after all the evidence out there, for someone in Romney’s position, a man who wants to lead the most powerful and influential nation in the world, he is either ignorant or he is a liar. I guess I’m giving Romney the benefit of the doubt that he is not ignorant. Perhaps that is what he really is. If that is so, how can anyone support him to lead them if he is this woefully ignorant of such clear facts?

    And what are those facts? At what point has Saddam NOT allowed inspectors into his country? In 1998, you might bring up. Ah, but that wasn’t Saddam who kicked the inspectors out. That was Clinton ordering the inspectors out after Saddam caught some American inspectors red handed at being spies. Clinton didn’t want to deal with the embarrassment and he ordered the inspectors out.

    So really, when did Saddam not allow inspectors into his country? What about 2002? Did inspectors not have access to any site they wished to see? Did the inspectors not plead for more time, not from Saddam, but from George Bush, who pressed for the war, even when there was no need to rush? Did the inspectors not press for a stay so they could make sure their investigations were complete? Who stopped them? It wasn’t Saddam. Nope. It was George W. Bush. It was Republicans who pressed for this war, because well, you can’t be fighting in a desert in the summers, now can you?

    I stand by my statement, and will only retract it when Romney claims he really is ignorant of the facts. Otherwise, for a man in his position, he has no excuse not to know the facts.

  7. Daniel, you apparently have no idea how arrogant and judgmental you sound. You proclaim as a matter of fact that Romney is a liar when any reasonable person should be able to see that being wrong about something is not the same as being a liar. You make strong accusations and lose credibility in doing so. Also, you are overstating your case on the “facts”. Acting like there aren’t counterarguments or other views is very simplistic indeed.

    On the face of Romney’s own statement he restates it into the following conclusion:

    “had Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in”

    One can argue that Romney is wrong about his view of the lead-up to Iraq but it simply is not rational to claim he is lying.

  8. john,

    If Romney would not have said a thing about the inspectors not being allowed into the country, then I would have no problem with his statement. The part of his statement which you quote is accurate. The first part of his statement, which you do not quote, is a lie.

    I really don’t care if you think I am arrogant and judgmental. I am going to tell it like I see it. I think Mitt Romney is a liar and a man who is pretending to be someone he is not just so he can get the votes of the hardcore right.

    Where does he lie? Did Saddam let inspectors into his country? The answer is yes. Mitt Romney says no. He therefore is not telling the truth. I really don’t feel bad for Romney. He’s continuing someone else’s lie. The fact of the matter is that far too many, from Democrats like Clinton to hardcore Republicans all continued this lie until it became the truth to them. But it is still a lie.

  9. And let me add why I think this is so important. Mr. Romney states it himself. This is why this lie is continually pressed by those on the right:

    we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in.”

    Mitt Romney told the truth there. If it weren’t for this pervasive lie, that Saddam didn’t let inspectors in, “we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in.”

    That’s what the war in Iraq is based on. A lie.

  10. Romney’s statement isn’t a lie. It might be wrong — even factually wrong — but it isn’t a lie. I feel sorry for your kids who are told pretty much every day that they are liars.

  11. Daniel, one of my comments got eaten again.

  12. john,

    Why are you personalizing this. My children have nothing to do with this. Can you stick to the topic, or are you continue getting personal?

  13. Mark,

    For some reason, I see no comment from you. Nothing in Akismet. I’m sorry.

  14. john,

    The two of us are clearly not on the same page in regards to what is a “lie.” So please, in the spirit of understanding, please tell me what you consider a lie. When does someone, say a politician lie?

  15. From The New Pentagon Papers, by Karen Kwiatkowski:

    ‘It is interesting today that the “defense” for those who lied or prevaricated about Iraq is to point the finger at the intelligence. But the National Intelligence Estimate, published in September 2002, as remarked upon recently by former CIA Middle East chief Ray McGovern, was an afterthought. It was provoked only after Sens. Bob Graham and Dick Durban noted in August 2002, as Congress was being asked to support a resolution for preemptive war, that no NIE elaborating real threats to the United States had been provided. In fact, it had not been written, but a suitable NIE was dutifully prepared and submitted the very next month. Naturally, this document largely supported most of the outrageous statements already made publicly by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld about the threat Iraq posed to the United States. All the caveats, reservations and dissents made by intelligence were relegated to footnotes and kept from the public. Funny how that worked…

    ‘War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the reasons given to the Congress and to the American people for this one were inaccurate and so misleading as to be false. Moreover, they were false by design. Certainly, the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq — more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms. Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track and not a euro and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role. These more accurate reasons for invading and occupying could have been argued on their merits — an angry and aggressive U.S. population might indeed have supported the war and occupation for those reasons. But Americans didn’t get the chance for an honest debate.

    ‘President Bush has now appointed a commission to look at American intelligence capabilities and will report after the election. It will “examine intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and related 21st century threats … [and] compare what the Iraq Survey Group learns with the information we had prior…” The commission, aside from being modeled on failed rubber stamp commissions of the past and consisting entirely of those selected by the executive branch, specifically excludes an examination of the role of the Office of Special Plans and other executive advisory bodies. If the president or vice president were seriously interested in “getting the truth,” they might consider asking for evidence on how intelligence was politicized, misused and manipulated, and whether information from the intelligence community was distorted in order to sway Congress and public opinion in a narrowly conceived neoconservative push for war. Bush says he wants the truth, but it is clear he is no more interested in it today than he was two years ago.’

    More on the aforementioned National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, from Creating a Worthless Intelligence Agency:

    ‘After the 9/11 attacks and the Bush administration’s decision to go to war with Iraq, the focus shifted from ignoring unwanted intelligence to actively creating false intelligence. The critical item was the NIE of October 1, 2002, entitled “Iraq’s Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction,” which became known inside the CIA as the “whore of Babylon.”[15] It explicitly endorsed Vice President Cheney’s contention of August 26, 2002 – “We know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons” – and was signed by DCI George Tenet with “high confidence.” “The intelligence process,” writes CIA veteran Ray McGovern, “was not the only thing undermined. So was the Constitution. Various drafts of the NIE, reinforced with heavy doses of ‘mushroom-cloud’ rhetoric, were used to deceive congressmen and senators into ceding to the executive their prerogative to declare war – the all-important prerogative that the framers of the Constitution took great care to reserve exclusively to our elected representatives in Congress.”

    ‘In succeeding months numerous review commissions revealed that the October NIE was only one of numerous failures by the truth-tellers to do what the people of the United States pay them to do. The Senate Intelligence Committee, the 9/11 Commission, and the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group under Charles Duelfer all reported that the CIA’s so-called intelligence on Iraqi WMD was fictitious. Even more dangerously for the White House, these reports suggested that its so-called war on terrorism and its attack on Iraq rather than on the true perpetrators of 9/11 were based on false intelligence, much of it manufactured in the Pentagon.

    ‘The number three civilian defense official in the Pentagon, Douglas Feith, had set up the Office of Special Plans, an operation devoted to going through all the raw intelligence available to the various spy agencies and finding items that offered possible evidence of (or hints of evidence of) links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It was this effort to get around both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, neither of which had found links or ties between Iraq and 9/11, that eventually led some officials to break ranks and charge that the war against Iraq was in fact undercutting the “war on terrorism” – specifically, Richard A. Clark, the White House’s coordinator for counterterrorism in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, in his book Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terrorism; and the CIA’s Michael Scheuer in Imperial Hubris and in his letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees entitled “How Not to Catch a Terrorist”[16]’

  16. Also, reading How Did Saddam Hussein Become a Grave Threat? in its entirety is also enlightening.

  17. Mark,

    Thanks for sharing those. Mr. Rozeff did some great research there. I think it is highly instructive what Bush administration officials, from Rumsfeld to Powell said before 9/11:

    Early in Bush’s first term, in February of 2001, Powell and Rumsfeld said that Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld: “Iraq is probably not a nuclear threat at the present time.” Powell: “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” Powell also declared the containment policy a success. Powell: “And even though they may be pursuing weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, it is not clear how successful they have been. So to some extent, I think we ought to declare this a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in a box.” While “his activities present a danger to the region, they are not a danger to the United States.” He repeated this assessment in May of 2001: “The Iraq regime militarily remains fairly weak.” In July of 2001, Rice spoke of “progress on the sanctions…He does not control the northern part of his country. His military forces have not been rebuilt. This has been a successful period.” As late as 9/16/01, Cheney said (in answer to a question regarding terrorism) that “Saddam Hussein’s bottled up.” Asked if we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, he answered “No.” In 1995 General Hussein Kamel, who was the director of Iraq’s weapons program, had defected with crates of documents and told U.N. officials “All weapons – biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.” CIA Director Tenet’s January 2002 review of global weapons did not mention Iraq but did mention North Korea.

  18. Daniel, this isn’t a deconstruction problem. Everyone knows what a lie is. Romney is not lying. If you are right about the facts, then Romney is just wrong, not lying. A lie is when your child steals a cookie and says she didn’t. A lie is not when your child says France is the biggest country in the world when it isn’t.

    That is why I used the example of your children. I presume that you do not call your children liars when they are simply wrong about an interpretation or about the facts. Thus, you understand the concept of what is a lie and what is simply being wrong — and the difference between the two. Although you do not call your children liars when they are simply wrong, you are happy to do so for Mitt Romney. To be consistent you should either apply the same standard of what is a lie to Romney that you apply to your children, or you should call your children liars everyday. The example is both cogent and appropriate.

    It is just silly for you to call Romney a liar for that statement and to argue about whether or not he’s a liar. Being wrong is not the same as lying. And even farther from lying is simply holding to a different policy view.

  19. Romney seems to be unafraid of making categorical statements about the root causes of the occupation of Iraq. If he were to have said, “My understanding is that….”, we could accuse him of being woefully misinformed. I would be extremely doubtful that no one has yet attempted to correct him as to the mistaken nature of what he apparently believes to be true or wants us to believe that he believes is true. To continue to make categorically incorrect statements about why we’re in Iraq at this late date makes it very difficult for me to believe he can possibly remain in the “woefully misinformed” category. Either he’s lying, or he has great difficulty in the face of all that is known at this point in time in discerning the truth of a given matter, or he chooses to remain ignorant. None of those possibilities endears him to me as a potential occupant of the White House.

  20. john,

    Like I said, it isn’t Romney’s lie to begin with. Here is George Bush, himself, stating the lie all the way back in 2003:

    The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.

    Bush lied on July 14, 2003, one of his multitude of lies. It would behoove Mr. Romney, if he really wants to be considered an honest man to not parrot Mr. Bush’s lies onward.

    Or are you saying that a man like Romney is not a liar because he trusts the president of the United States to tell the truth? So because he continues the lie someone else made, he is somehow immune from being called a liar just like the originator of the lie?

    Mr. Romney should know better than this.

    And you should know that this is not the first time Mr. Romney stated this lie about Iraq and the weapons inspectors. Read the following:

    But regarding the IAEA inspectors, maybe Romney simply misspoke when he got the facts exactly backward. Anybody can screw up once. The problem, however, is that this wasn’t the first time he has tried to rewrite this historical chapter.

    In a May 7 appearance on Fox News, when he was asked by Sean Hannity whether in hindsight he viewed the Iraq invasion as a mistake, he gave virtually the same answer: “If we knew that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and if he had complied with the United Nations resolutions to allow IAEA inspectors into his country, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

    And he’s getting away with it. Hannity neglected to correct Romney on the facts. CNN debate host Wolf Blitzer didn’t protest (although, in that format, the attempt might have been awkward). The Washington Post covered the CNN debate, but didn’t even mention the remarks. Ditto the report in The New York Times. (So much for the so-called “liberal” media.) But corrections probably wouldn’t have mattered to the GOP primary voters whom Romney is seeking to woo; among many Bush loyalists, empirical facts about this war have long ceased to be a priority.

    The big challenge for Romney would come later, if he wins the GOP nomination. Uttering falsehoods about why we went to war – particularly in an autumn debate – probably wouldn’t fly with swing-voting independents, most of whom now believe that the invasion was a mistake and that the ruling Republicans misled the nation. In 2008, no Republican can win if he leaves the impression that he will be as averse to factual reality as the man he seeks to replace.

    These debates the Republicans have held to this point have truly been illuminating, more about the character of the Republican party than the candidates themselves, after all they are mere prostitutes seeking to serve the desires of the electorate, and they’ll say and do whatever the hell the electorate wants (with probably the exception being Mr. Paul). But seriously, what the hell is wrong with Republicans today? Are they really satisfied with someone who utters such falsehoods? Are they really satisfied with someone who wishes to double the torture at Guantanamo? Do they even understand that the Bush administration has gone and disappeared children of terrorists? And this is acceptable to them? What morals are Republicans fighting for? What standards, what Christian beliefs remain untainted that they are still fighting for? Where is the decency in the Republican party today, john? Where is the morality, the ethics? What the hell has happened to all that, where the Republicans are more concerned with pardoning a convicted liar (Scooter Libby) than in telling the truth?

    Let me tell you, unless you change now, you Republicans, you will look back at these days in utter shame and embarrassment as human beings, as Christians, and well, that should about cover it.

  21. Who are you speaking to with the “you Republicans” statement? Why are you trying to get me to answer questions on behalf of the Republican Party?

    Also, I should repeat, being wrong about something is not the same as lying about something. I think this statement is very simple and straightforward — even to the point of being virtually undebatable. I suspect you believe this too but are willing to apply a different standard to someone who represents a different political viewpoint from your own (i.e. Romney).

  22. Be careful, you are verging on telling lies yourself.

    For example, Are they really satisfied with someone who wishes to double the torture at Guantanamo?

    Romney said Guantanamo should be doubled. He said nothing about “torture” at Guantanamo. You are adding words and even concepts to what he actually said in order to be able to make the arguments that you want to make. What he said was dumb enough — he should have been more clear by saying that more terrorists should be behind bars, which I think is the most reasonable interpretation of his words, certainly more reasonable than assuming that he meant that torture should be doubled at Guanatamo — without you changing what he said to suit your arguments.

  23. john,

    I agree with you that there is a difference between being wrong about something and lying about something. Let me ask you this, was George Bush wrong or was he lying when in 2003 (just months after the war began) he said what he said:

    The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.

    Is that a bald-faced lie, or was he just wrong? Was he forgetful that just months earlier inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and they could not find a single WMD? Mitt Romney says exactly the same thing:

    “[If] Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in.”

    Is that a bald-faced lie, or was he just wrong? Has the lie been repeated so much and so often that an ignorant fool like Romney actually believes it to be true?

    I suspect you believe this too but are willing to apply a different standard to someone who represents a different political viewpoint from your own (i.e. Romney).

    Hardly. I hold everybody to the same standard.

    Romney said Guantanamo should be doubled. He said nothing about “torture” at Guantanamo. You are adding words and even concepts to what he actually said in order to be able to make the arguments that you want to make.

    Um, john, please review the transcript. The subject of discussion was the Jack Bauer fantasy scenario. Romney’s answer was to double Guantanamo, i.e. Romney felt the best answer was to continue the “enhanced interrogation techniques”.

    When asked about interrogation methods for terrorist suspects, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the goal should be to prevent future attacks and suggested doubling the capacity of the terrorist detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

    “I don’t want them on our soil,” Romney said. “I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers that they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.”

    I’m not adding anything to what he said, and definitely implied by his words, John. Romney really believes the “enhanced interrogation techniques” — which are based on Soviet and Nazi techniques — are perfectly okay for America. He was not talking about putting terrorists behind bars. Look at his words carefully. He was quite specific that he wanted terrorists to NOT have that privilege. “I don’t want them in our prisons,” he says.

    Please understand, I wish we were not having this conversation, John. I’m still quite flabbergasted that our country is even debating these techniques of Soviet and Nazi origin. I am astounded that a Mormon believes they are not torture. I wish we could have a more cordial and proper debate, but there are some topics for which certain candidates that support such evil things do not get the benefit of the doubt. They are in a position where ignorance is not an excuse. If they truly are that ignorant, what the hell are they doing getting so much support as a candidate for president of the country? Do Americans really want that kind of simpleton, that kind of ignorant bumpkin to lead them? What does that say about our nation? Or at least the part of our nation that wishes those kinds of candidates?

  24. Romney really believes the “enhanced interrogation techniques” — which are based on Soviet and Nazi techniques — are perfectly okay for America.

    This is not true. He did not say this, even in the transcript. He said Guantanamo should be doubled. He said this is because he doesn’t want terrorists on American soil or in American prisons. He did not say it was because he wanted them to be tortured at Guantanamo. In fact, the transcript provides clarity that you are indeed embellishing for the purpose of making your strained point. The transcript shows that Romney was referring to Guantanamo as a holding place, i.e. he was saying more terrorists should be behind bars, that is what “doubling Guantanamo” means on the face of the transcript. He said nothing of torture.

  25. john,

    You are right, in that transcript he did not add more to his previously stated words regarding terrorists, Guantanamo, and enhanced interrogation techniques. He didn’t need to, because he had previously stated his support of exactly that. As a sound byte, saying “double Guantanamo” has the exact effect he intended. His audience knew exactly what he was referring to, and it was not simply to put terrorists behind bars outside the American judicial system. His audience knows that he was referring also to the enhanced interrogation techniques. Why do they know this? Because that was the subject of the line of questioning: torture.

  26. I don’t know what it brings you personally to go on believing that Romney supports torture but by all means, continue.

  27. john,

    I’ve blogged a few times about Romney’s views on enhanced interrogation techniques.

    Mitt Romney Supports Torture

    Romney Still Supports Torture

    And the following two show how those “enhanced interrogation techniques” that Romney supports but doesn’t call “torture” are in fact just that, and borrowed from both the Nazis and the Soviets.

    Vershärfte Vernehmung, Torture, or Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

    Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, Borrowed from the Soviets

    Those are the facts, john. I wish they weren’t. I wish more Americans realized how awful these things are, but unfortunately they don’t. And these who purport to be our “leaders” are not helping, but in fact, aiding and abetting the torture to go on.

  28. If you believe that Romney supports torture then argue against that and against his campaign based on your views of torture, foreign policy, international law, and morality. I see no reason for the ad hominem accusations of him that he is a liar or a torturer or whatever else. Calling him a liar is not part of rational debate about these issues.

  29. It is not an ad hominem. He lied. You think otherwise, because you’d rather think of him as a doffus, rather than a well learned politician who could lead us well in this complex world. How and why wars are started are things Mr. Romney should know. As someone wanting to lead this country, it is absolutely irresponsible to NOT know the events that led to the start of a war he would possibly have to run.

    Do you not think that it is vital to know why and how a war was started that you will eventually have to run?

  30. He isn’t lying. Being wrong about something isn’t the same as lying.

  31. It is if you keep repeating it in the face of overwhelming evidence, john. This is the second time Romney repeated George Bush’s lie.

  32. Daniel,

    Great debate. I agree with you 100%. I too expect way more from a Presidential canidate then what Mitt Romney has shown us thus far. A lie is a lie. Support for torture is not in America’s best interest and is sickening. A man has honor or no honor.

    vt

  33. The problem with Mitt Romney is in most cases he gives a good or “expected” answer as any politician does, but Romney is part of a complex culture that does much to obscure its true positions. Learn more about Mitt Romney and his positions in a series of academic articles regarding his politics, faith, and culture.

    http://www.ExposeRomney.com

  34. Hans Blix’s comment: “What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons. I don’t see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied the reports” of present and former United Nations inspectors.

    That is an interesting comment especially considering the fact that coalition forces DID find chemical weapons after the 2003 invasion to remove Saddam.

    “US-led coalition forces in Iraq have found some 500 chemical weapons since the March 2003 invasion…”

    http://tinyurl.com/2wwxpb

  35. Darren,

    You’ve got to be kidding, right? Do you realize what Rep. Inhofe and Sen. Santorum who prepared that forgettable and disappointing press release are talking about? They’re talking about stockpiles WE ALREADY KNEW ABOUT! They’re talking about stockpiles from pre-1991!

    seriously, please increase your level of discourse if you wish to debate here.

  36. Yeah… I guess finding some 500 chemical weapons since the invasion isn’t a big deal at all… I mean that is soooo pre-1991 🙂

    Daniel, my heartfelt apologies for this unfortunate level of discourse. Lol. Apparently, we just aren’t as smart as left-wing intellectuals who *know everything.

    Heck, with that in mind, raise our taxes to Carter levels, start big government programs and run our lives for us. You should because of your intellectual supremacy and greater levels of discourse. (Yes, Daniel, I am being a little facetious). 🙂

    Take care,

  37. Darren,

    Um, those 500 chemical weapons weren’t ‘found’. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. They were not “found” because they were never “lost.”

    But your Fuhrer Santorum would never tell you that, because he is, or was, selling a story, a certain script, and damn the facts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: