Mitt Romney's tortured logic

[jimtron]

Like a true politician, Romney uses psuedoscience and tortured logic to answer a very straightforward question at yesterday's GOP debate. From an entertaining Salon article (that requires watching an ad or a subscription):

4 minutes. The first question goes to Romney. It is concise. "Was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?" Romney won't answer. He calls the question "a non sequitur." He also calls it "a null set," which is a term from mathematical theory that means something complicated involving X, if X is a measurable space, and the "sigma ideal." Instead, Romney attacks Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid for saying the war is lost.
5 minutes. Undeterred, a reporter from the Manchester Union Leader asks Romney the same question again. "Was it a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq?" Romney says "null set" again, maybe with more feeling this time. Then he says, "That I think is an unreasonable hypothetical."
6 minutes. The question is asked a third time, but now to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. "Absolutely the right thing to do," Giuliani says without hesitation. Ouch. That must hurt for Romney.

 

[IXP]

People should not use words that they don't know the meaning of, especially in presidential debates.

IXP

 

[Azure]

I think Giuliani looks like a bigger idiot for saying it was the right thing to do.

Duuuuh!

 

[hgc]

Fuzzy Math for one thousand, Alex.

 

[jimtron]

I think Romney was pretending that it was a leading question (something like, "who's to blame for the disaster that resulted from invading Iraq.").

 

[Admiral]

Here's a relevant question: you're playing roulette. You bet black, and the wheel comes up red. In retrospect, was it a mistake to bet black?

Or say, instead of betting on a 50-50 chance, you bet on something where the odds are in your favor (as, Romney would argue, going into Iraq was at the time). Say you bet, with even odds, on something that you have a 75% chance of winning. Even though it was, by a gambler's standards, a good bet (that is, with the information you had, it was the right choice), you lose the bet. If someone walked up to you and asked, "Did you make a mistake in betting that way," how would you respond?

(I haven't really made up my mind yet, but I'm wondering what the common use of that language is).

 

[jimtron]

Here's a relevant question: you're playing roulette. You bet black, and the wheel comes up red. In retrospect, was it a mistake to bet black?

Or say, instead of betting on a 50-50 chance, you bet on something where the odds are in your favor (as, Romney would argue, going into Iraq was at the time). Say you bet, with even odds, on something that you have a 75% chance of winning. Even though it was, by a gambler's standards, a good bet (that is, with the information you had, it was the right choice), you lose the bet. If someone walked up to you and asked, "Did you make a mistake in betting that way," how would you respond?

(I haven't really made up my mind yet, but I'm wondering what the common use of that language is).

When it comes to putting many, many, human lives on the line, and risking fanning the flames of terrorism, our leaders shouldn't be gambling. They should be damn sure they know what they're doing, and have exhausted all other avenues, and are listening to their generals, and have a very well thought out post-invasion plan.

eta: back to Romney, he should have said, "yes, because..." or "no, because..." or "I don't know..." instead of making crap up.

eta 2:

Here's a relevant question: you're playing roulette. You bet black, and the wheel comes up red. In retrospect, was it a mistake to bet black?

Yes, in retrospect it was a mistake to bet black.

 

[Roswell-Perseis]

But making up crap works so well for politicians . . .

I mean, what are they gonna do? Tell the truth? Like, omigod, what a dumb idea!

[end sarcasm]

Romney looked like an idiot for what he did, and Guiliani's answer looked so much stronger, even if most of the country disagrees with the sentiment.

 

[steverino]

When it comes to putting many, many, human lives on the line, and risking fanning the flames of terrorism, our leaders shouldn't be gambling.

Truman did.

 

[jimtron]

Truman did.

What's your point? eta: You're agreeing with my statement that you quoted?

 

[davefoc]

Here's a relevant question: you're playing roulette. You bet black, and the wheel comes up red. In retrospect, was it a mistake to bet black?

Or say, instead of betting on a 50-50 chance, you bet on something where the odds are in your favor (as, Romney would argue, going into Iraq was at the time). Say you bet, with even odds, on something that you have a 75% chance of winning. Even though it was, by a gambler's standards, a good bet (that is, with the information you had, it was the right choice), you lose the bet. If someone walked up to you and asked, "Did you make a mistake in betting that way," how would you respond?

(I haven't really made up my mind yet, but I'm wondering what the common use of that language is).

When it comes to putting many, many, human lives on the line, and risking fanning the flames of terrorism, our leaders shouldn't be gambling. They should be damn sure they know what they're doing, and have exhausted all other avenues, and are listening to their generals, and have a very well thought out post-invasion plan.

eta: back to Romney, he should have said, "yes, because..." or "no, because..." or "I don't know..." instead of making crap up.

eta 2:
Yes, in retrospect it was a mistake to bet black.

I think Admiral's question is a good one and I disagree with jimtron's response a bit.

I think the answer to Admiral's question is that the question posed to Giuliani and Romney is ambiguous. It could mean, "Given how things turned out was it a mistake to invade Iraq" or it could mean "Was a bad decision made based only on the information available at the time of the decision to invade Iraq".

It is up to the person answering the question to eliminate any ambiguities. If the respondent to the question wants to convey the information that he believes the answer is yes to both possible meanings of the question he answers like Giuliani did If he wants to act like a fumbling idiot and not convey any information about what his view is he answers like Romney did.

From my perspective, somebody that thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq based on the information available to the Bush administration before the war is wrong. Somebody that still thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq based on the evidence available now has a questionable relationship with reality.

 

[Brown]

Mitt, Mitt, full of *****.

Mitt also made the bone-headed remark that Saddam refused to allow IAEA inspectors into his country.

It almost seems as though pretty boy Mitt is deliberately trying to be more stupid than he actually is, as his remark is, at best, rank ignorance. More likely it is historical revisionism that appeals to the fellow bone-heads who think it's actually true and who will vote for him because he's just as foolish as they are.

 

[Zep]

Neither of them seem to be astute politicians if they can't turn the question around to what they want to provide an answer for. The usual trick is to rephrase it yourself to your advantage, then answer the rephrased question with your preferred stock answer.

 

[SezMe]

Mitt also made the bone-headed remark that Saddam refused to allow IAEA inspectors into his country.

This is the part that I just simply cannot understand. Mitt made a SERIOUS, factual error. He was simply rewritting history. It was far worse than just a bone-headed remark.

Yet Wolf nor the other two "journalists" called him on it. WTF?

If Mitt is the Republican candidate, I predict this little snippet will appear in Democratic ads.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yet Wolf nor the other two "journalists" called him on it. WTF?

If Mitt is the Republican candidate, I predict this little snippet will appear in Democratic ads.

Yep. When under a microscope, not much goes unnoticed, and with the internet, unreported.

Mitt and his team get a D- for prep.

DR

 

[hgc]

Yep. When under a microscope, not much goes unnoticed, and with the internet, unreported.

Mitt and his team get a D- for prep.

DR

Indeed, there was a problem with debate prep. I'd also say that with or without good prep, a person who aspires to be president shouldn't be ignorant of such important details about such recent history, as in the events leading to the invasion of Iraq. Good grief.

 

[Art Vandelay]

When it comes to putting many, many, human lives on the line, and risking fanning the flames of terrorism, our leaders shouldn't be gambling.

Thank you for informing us that you have absolutely no understanding of risk management whatsoever.

[quotr]They should be damn sure they know what they're doing, and have exhausted all other avenues, and are listening to their generals, and have a very well thought out post-invasion plan.[/quote]Except that those other avenues consist of alternative gambles, making your position absurd.

This is the part that I just simply cannot understand. Mitt made a SERIOUS, factual error.

Cite?

 

[RandFan]

I think Admiral's question is a good one and I disagree with jimtron's response a bit.

I think the answer to Admiral's question is that the question posed to Giuliani and Romney is ambiguous. It could mean, "Given how things turned out was it a mistake to invade Iraq" or it could mean "Was a bad decision made based only on the information available at the time of the decision to invade Iraq".

It is up to the person answering the question to eliminate any ambiguities. If the respondent to the question wants to convey the information that he believes the answer is yes to both possible meanings of the question he answers like Giuliani did If he wants to act like a fumbling idiot and not convey any information about what his view is he answers like Romney did.

From my perspective, somebody that thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq based on the information available to the Bush administration before the war is wrong. Somebody that still thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq based on the evidence available now has a questionable relationship with reality.

As one who supported the war but has now concluded that in hindsight I would prefer that it hadn't happened I agree.

That aside, Admiral poses a great question. In the end it is all relative. I've bet against the long shot and lost.

 

[SezMe]

Cite?

Art! We haven't had the pleasure of locking horns in a long time. Nice to see you again.

Cite? CITE?? You want an effing cite that the IAEA inspectors were, in fact, in Iraq and that it was W that kicked their sorry butts out, not Saddam? That they had been there for months? That they had found nothing?

That's like asking for a cite that today is Wednesday. Sorry, can't help ya, Art, but maybe check back in with your kindergarten teacher.

 

[Admiral]

When it comes to putting many, many, human lives on the line, and risking fanning the flames of terrorism, our leaders shouldn't be gambling. They should be damn sure they know what they're doing, and have exhausted all other avenues, and are listening to their generals, and have a very well thought out post-invasion plan.

There's ALWAYS going to be a risk that you're wrong. If you don't accept the possibility that you might be wrong, you're adopting a dangerous attitude.

In case you're wondering whether I supported the war at the beginning of it- I did. At the beginning of the war I was also a 15-year-old in high school, so I certainly wouldn't hold my own opinion to any serious standard.

Yes, in retrospect it was a mistake to bet black.

Part of the problem I'd have with this response is that, if you found yourself in a similar situation in the future, you'd want to make the same bet. But if it was a mistake, why would you repeat it?

It depends on the definition of the word mistake.