Mitt Romney, Six Months Ago, On Iraq

August 26, 2007 at 2:52 pm | Posted in friedman units, Iraq, Mit Romney, Mitt Romney | 3 Comments

Here, to show how ridiculous Republicans and war supporters are, is an example from Mitt Romney, who six months ago said:

We’ll Know in Five or Six Months if Bush Iraq Plan Working. “I think that should have been done a lot earlier and should have been part of the initial plan. But, be that as it may, it’s now being added to the mission. And when you add a mission to our military that means you need to add troop strength to carry it out. We’ll see how well that plan is working. It will probably play out over a matter of five to six months, or more. But it’s months, not years.

Romney Today:

MILFORD, N.H. — Mitt Romney says he wants to encourage a “surge of support” for the troop surge in Iraq this summer.

To that end, Romney announced at a business here that he is contributing $25,000 of his own money to seven organizations aiding the troops and their families. He also placed the names and contact information for the organizations on his campaign’s website to encourage supporters to give.

“I would like to show a surge of public support that can communicate to our troops over there that we care, we appreciate what you are doing, we want you to come home as soon as you can safe and sound,” said Romney.

Atrios also notes interestingly, that Mitt Romney is worth $250 million some odd, contribues $9 million to his campaign, but only $25,000 to support the troops in Iraq. What is more important, Mitt? That you become president, or that our soldiers get what they need?


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. The logical fallacy here is that there’s no way of measuring when Romney’s support is “enough.” It’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” fallacy. If he doesn’t contribute any money to support the troops, he doesn’t care about them, and if he does contribute, he still doesn’t care about them because it’s not enough. It’s like the people up here in Massachusetts when the temple was being built, who argued that the church didn’t care about the poor because we were spending so much money on high quality furnishings for our temple. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

  2. Besides, whether or not you support the surge, why shouldn’t you support the troops and their families?

  3. onelowerlight,

    There is a good way to measure. Is he willing to give $9 million to the troops that he gives to his own campaign? Putting our money where our mouths are, when Romney gives $9 million of his own money to his campaign but only $25,000 to the troops, it shows where his priorities are.

    Now, I’m all for actually supporting the troops, and the best way to support them is to bring them home, frankly. Seriously, what is their mission there now? To arm Sunnis? What for? Sunnis kill Shi’ites. If we arm them we only increase the lethality of the civil war. Hello! And with American soldiers smack in the middle of this civil war, it means more Americans dead. In fact that’s what the numbers show. If you compare June/July 2006 to June/July 2007, more troops were killed this year than last year. What is the purpose of the surge if not to LOWER violence?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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
Entries and comments feeds.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: