| Written by N.Z. | |
| Thursday, 02 August 2007 | |
| This morning, Ed Morrisey and I had the opportunity to interview former Massachusetts governor and current presidential contender Mitt Romney. We started with a discussion of Governor Romney's new "Surge of Support for the Troops " initiative, and continued into an overall discussion of the war effort. You can download the audio by clicking here (3MB mp3) or can listen online by simply clicking on the button below. I've also transcribed some key statements from the Governor below. Thanks to Governor Romney for taking the time to speak with us, and we hope to conduct similar interviews with other candidates in the near future. On what Americans should know about the surge:
On Iran and whether he believes Iran sees a stable Iraq as in their best interest: I think we would try and convince them that a stable Iraq is in their interest, but I think they have to be of two minds, because they have to say that anything that hurts America, they like. And of course the messier and the uglier Iraq is, the better they feel about it. They also of course are making a play to become the hegemonic power in the Middle East by achieving nuclear weaponry. And so I think that while a student of history in the Middle East might tell them that it would not be good idea for Iraq to erupt in massive civil war --- it might spill over your borders, you're going to have an enormous number of refugees coming to Iran from Iraq and that would not be good for you, that while those things might be true, and I'm sure weigh on their minds, they also have to recognize that they have a deep desire to destabilize or to weaken rather America and our strength in the region, and to be seen as a great champion of the Shia people in Iraq... they after all are providing improvised explosive devices, and have been providing as well apparently some military resources to help the insurgency as well as sectarian violence in Iraq. So I'm not as sanguine about them being our friend in this regard, I'd like to try to help them become convinced to become a factor towards stability. But I have to admit that my view is that Iran is one of the great threats that the world faces. That their jihadist philosophy, Ahmendijad's denial of the Holocaust, these combine to suggest that they are a very dangerous nation led by an evil person.On Ahmedinijad and Barak Obama: I do not agree with Barak Obama that the President of the United States in his first year of office ought to make a personal visit to Ahmedinijad. This is a person who ought to be indicted under the genocide convention for incitation to genocide. This is a person who should be shunned by the entire world, not dignified by a visit by the President of the United States. Comments (17)   written by David Pyle, August 02, 2007 Wonderful. This man is wonderful and will make an excellent President and comments like this only serve to cement that opinion.  written by Theo Marvin, August 02, 2007 Bring them home now. I cannot support any candidate who won't make that commitment.  written by Mark Bailey, August 02, 2007 The Iraqis know they are NOT a free people. Neither did they ever really ask for democracy. Our example won't make them want it any more. And of we think that dropping a few bombs on Iran will pacify them, we will be instead involved in a country that's more than double the size and population of Iraq. Both countries deserve their own government, not one sponsored by Exxon/Mobil.  written by David Walser, August 02, 2007 Thank you for the interview. It's good to hear candidates discuss serious issues at length. Very well done.  written by Jeff Brennan, August 02, 2007 Hey Theo and Mark At least give Mitt (and the interviewers) a thumbs up for getting a candidate to clearly articulate a position on something important. I mean the difference between this Victory Caucus & Mitt conversation and the YouTube Video Q&A with the Democrats is pretty dramatic. Better yet, be as honest as Mitt is about your position on the war. You don't really want the troops home or for us to give the Iraqi's what they really want. You want the President Bush led war to fail because you loathe him beyond measure. I'd respect that statement a lot more than the gibberish you posted. At least you had the guts to put a name with it.  written by Carolyn Goldstein, August 02, 2007 I think, that Governor Romney presents the right and knowledgeable approach. Furthermore, he returns a sadly, if not desperately, needed civility to the political arena.  written by AJ Gunderson, August 03, 2007 Ive got to hand it to Gov. Romney here....this man knows what he is talking about. I hear leadership in his voice. I agree with all that was said and believe that this man could solidify our status of the greatest nation on earth. Great interview!  written by El-ahrairah, August 03, 2007 Theo, What part of leaving to soon is bad for the Iraqis and the United States don't you understand. Just saying that you want the troops home now without considering the consequences shows your total lack of understanding of world history, or to paraphrase Governor Romney, "your naivity is showing". Mark, You forgot to throw in there "Bush Lied! People Died!". Next time you want to spew anti-war, Democratic talking points, try and do it the right way. Oh, BTW, explain to me that if we invaded Iraq because to steal Iraqi oil, why is the price of oil more now than when we invaded? If the whole reason of the invasion was to take the Iraqi oil for the United States, shouldn't the price of oil be cheaper now? Oops, I forgot, it's all part of some evil Karl Rove secret plot that only tin-hat wearers like yourself have been able to decypher, right? I guess when the mothership comes to take you away, we'll all know the truth, right? written by Theo Marvin, August 03, 2007 Yes, I'm among the 65 percent of Americans who disapprove of George Bush's performance, and I thought the war was ill-advised from the beginning. I wonder: how many of you would be willing to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt after 4 years of outrageous blunders and mismanagement in what's billed as so important a battle? Agreed: thumbs up to Victory Caucus for pinning Romney down on something. That's quite a feat.  written by Jonn, August 03, 2007 Mark: These guys have done a nice job of putting you in your place but a few more comments are in order. The people of Iraq and Iran do deserve their own governments, but what makes you think the regime of Ahmadinejad is wanted by the Iranian people? Or the bloody reign of Saddam was actually chosen by the Iraqis? Every human desires freedom, and the best government system to put that in place is democracy. So of course they want it. Is that not apparent by their voting en masse (better turnout then American elections)? And what about the Iraqi people rising up to participate in the fight against Al Qaeda? The Iraqi battalions and police are becoming more reliable and the citizens are turning against Al Qaeda oppression in their provinces. (btw, nice work El-ahrairah) Not only do they want freedom and democracy, but they are fighting for it. Oil companies have little to do with it. Do your research before espousing liberal talking points.  written by submandave, August 03, 2007 "I thought the war was ill-advised from the beginning" I will assume by "war" you are referring to the Iraq campaign. I'm curious as to your answers to a few questions: - Did you believe in 2002/2003 that Saddam Hussein either still had the WMD previously inventoried by UNSCOM or still had a weapons production capability? If not, upon what basis was this opinion formed? - If you believed Saddam had WMD/production capability, did you deem, post-9/11, that potential for him to use such weapons/knowledge to aid our enemies an acceptable risk? - If you did not believe Saddam had WMD/production capability, did you expect him to again pursue such weapons if sanctions were lifted? If not, upon what basis was this opinion formed? - Did you support UNSCR 1441, requiring Saddam to provide full accounting of his WMDs and programs? If so, what "serious consequences" other than regime change do you think would have been appropriate given Iraq's non-compliance? Do you think such lesser measures would have helped bolster the UN's and US's credibility or reinforced the impression of both as toothless paper tigers? - Given what we now know about Iraq's bribes via the Oil-for-Food programs, do you believe major benefactors (including France and Russia) would have supported your proposed actions? - If you did not favor forcible regime change, what was your preferred course of action vis-a-vis Iraq? Do you think we should have continued sanctions indefinitely? Should we have vetoed any UNSCR to lift sanctions? - If you preferred a containment approach to Saddam and Iraq, discuss the effects that having an intact Ba'athist Iraq requiring prolonged military presence would have on potential military options available to counter a nuclear Iran? Saddam was an enemy of the US and the battle for Iraq was a battle that had to be fought sometime. I think choosing to fight that battle before Iran achieved her nuclear ambitions was the right choice. I am not saying that military action against Iran is inevitable, but it is certainly a real possibility, and having a presence in Iraq from which to stage such action is a much better position of strength than having military assets tied up with containing a hostile army on the western flank of the area of operations. In fact, the stronger our military position is, the less likely military action against Iran becomes. Realistically, there is no victory scenario in the GWOT that includes an Iran or Iraq (or probably Syria and possibly KSA) under the same political regime as pre-9/11. Our goal is to effect such changes as peacefully as possible, but we must be ready to respond militarilly when necessary. Breaking up the Taliban and denying Al Queda its safe harbor was a necessity. Likewise, it was essential to have Saddam and the Ba'athists out of power in Iraq before Iran achieved its nuclear ambitions. Neither of these were possible through non-military measures. written by Theo Marvin, August 03, 2007 Response to submandave: Thank you for the lengthy exam. The issue is really much less complicated than you've tried to make it. I believed from the beginning that a badly executed war would have worse consequences, in terms of our prospects in the "GWOT," than no war at all. I didn't trust George Bush's competence to execute a war effectively, so I didn't support the war. He's wonderful as the cheerleader-in-chief. But a chief executive he isn't. Which is why it's so important that we get it right in 2008. Again, kudos to Victory Caucus for providing this forum.  written by willis, August 03, 2007 "Both countries deserve their own government, not one sponsored by Exxon/Mobil." How do they get their own government, Mark? The one in Iran seized power in a revolution and decides what candidates the populace can vote on. The one is Iraq selected its on candidates and voted them into office. How does Exxon fit into this?  written by Geoff B, August 03, 2007 Theo, I notice you did not respond to submandave's questions. This is pretty typical of war opponents. They were "against it from the beginning" and are "against war." But of course when faced with the complicated facts of the actual history involved before the war they cannot come up with answers or alternatives. Life is about making difficult choices in complicated circumstances -- it should not be about criticizing the people who make those difficult decisions afterwards claiming that you always knew better. As for Romney's answers, they are of course well-presented and thoughtful. He will make a great president. I hope we are smart enough to elect him. written by Theo Marvin, August 03, 2007 Geoff, Again, I'm not "against war." What I'm against is callow and shockingly incompetent leaders taking us into wars that they're utterly unprepared to win. "Life is about making difficult choices in complicated circumstances." How does this noble-sounding rot square with the portrait of the administration's shoddy war planning that emerges in "Fiasco" or "The Assassin's Gate"? But the responsibility is never with those who actually make the policies, is it? It's obviously the fault of those who dare to criticize.  written by R H Martin, August 03, 2007 1/2 of me admires Romney - he did indeed articulate a position on Iraq that is clear, well thought out and better expressed than those of other candidates. The other 1/2 of me feels sorry for him. He just decided to tie himself to a 1 ton anchor and go swimming. The bald political fact is that a position to "stay the course" or something like it has already sunk McCain and will sink anyone foolish enough to follow his example. Add to that the mess over Gonzalez, the NSA surveillance program, the wreckage of the financial health of the federal treasury etc. etc. and what it adds up to is that any Republican candidate who tries to lug Bush and Cheny with them through the campaign is doomed. The Repiublican who rejects Bush and Cheney utterly and offers a credible conservative alternative has a chance in the general election - the elctorate is not as liberal as some Democrats would like to think, but unless a Republican gives them a respectable conservative alternative, the inevitable result will be a return to Democratic control of both the Executive and Legislative branches. |
Mitt Romney: The Victory Caucus Interview
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)