Mitt Romney's tortured logic

[This Guy]

SNIP

Cite?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 18, 2003

(AP)U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.

[SNIP]

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war. "

 

[LostAngeles]

Oh, Mitt... Oh Stupid Democratic Party...

Massachusetts Democratic Party officials claimed that Romney was ineligible to run for governor, citing residency issues. The Massachusetts Constitution requires seven consecutive years of residency prior to a run for office. Romney claimed residency in Utah from 1999 to 2002, during his time as president of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee. In 1999 he listed himself as a part-time Massachusetts resident.[28] The Massachusetts Democratic Party filed a complaint with the Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission, which eventually ruled that Romney was eligible to run for office. The ruling was not challenged in court.[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Campaign_for_Governor.2C_2002_election

Oftimes in class, we use null set and empty set interchangebly. Not that it really makes his response make that much more sense, but perhaps that's what the genius was going for.

 

[jimtron]

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

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.

Except that those other avenues consist of alternative gambles, making your position absurd.

I realize that in politics there are few easy decisions, and there are almost always risks involved in decision making. But the analogy of gambling and roulette was brought up. I don't think the typical gambler is thinking clearly and rationally as they're making bets. With roulette you're basically just hoping for good luck. The Bush Admin. was also not thinking in the most rational matter. W said that he consulted not with his father about Iraq, but with a "higher father." Yes they got bad intelligence, but the evidence seems clear that they were not looking at all evidence in a rational, critical way. Like a gambler, the Bush Admin. did not seem to carefully consider how serious the risks were (they certainly didn't warn us about them).

 

[jimtron]

You bet black, and the wheel comes up red. In retrospect, was it 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.

Admiral, you asked if it was a mistake to bet on the losing color in retrospect. Of course it was--how would it not be, in retrospect, a mistake?

 

[PogoPedant]

Admiral, you asked if it was a mistake to bet on the losing color in retrospect. Of course it was--how would it not be, in retrospect, a mistake?

I believe scale and payoff is important here. If you bet half a dime on the wrong colour, but you had a good time, then it certainly was no mistake. If you bet your house and your wife on the right colour, some might argue that it still was a mistake.

Waging war on a gamble is a mistake, but I don't think the argument has been made that Bush and ilk saw it as such (a gamble).

 

[ponderingturtle]

I realize that in politics there are few easy decisions, and there are almost always risks involved in decision making. But the analogy of gambling and roulette was brought up. I don't think the typical gambler is thinking clearly and rationally as they're making bets. With roulette you're basically just hoping for good luck. The Bush Admin. was also not thinking in the most rational matter. W said that he consulted not with his father about Iraq, but with a "higher father." Yes they got bad intelligence, but the evidence seems clear that they were not looking at all evidence in a rational, critical way. Like a gambler, the Bush Admin. did not seem to carefully consider how serious the risks were (they certainly didn't warn us about them).

But the point stands that just because a decision turned out poorly does not mean it was wrong.

 

[Almo]

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

Duuuuh!

Maybe he's wrong, but at least he answered the question directly!

 

[IXP]

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.

Clearly he needs to get in touch with the guy who wired W. and fed him the answers in the debates last time around!

IXP

 

[IXP]

Oh, Mitt... Oh Stupid Democratic Party...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Campaign_for_Governor.2C_2002_election

Oftimes in class, we use null set and empty set interchangebly. Not that it really makes his response make that much more sense, but perhaps that's what the genius was going for.

Just what is it you think was stupid about this challenge? He declared himself to be a resident of Utah on both his Utah and his Massachusetts tax forms, and saved money by doing so. I thought it was quite incredible that the people of my state elected this scofflaw.

To summarize: If he was a Mass resident, he comitted tax fraud. If he was not he was not elibile to run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mitt_Romney_residency_issue

IXP

 

[LostAngeles]

Just what is it you think was stupid about this challenge? He declared himself to be a resident of Utah on both his Utah and his Massachusetts tax forms, and saved money by doing so. I thought it was quite incredible that the people of my state elected this scofflaw.

To summarize: If he was a Mass resident, he comitted tax fraud. If he was not he was not elibile to run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mitt_Romney_residency_issue

IXP

They didn't appeal the decision.

I too was shocked that the people of my state elected him, until I remembered Tommy Finneran, Speaker of the House and Not-Actually-Governor-of-MA-But-Somehow-Is-Anyway.

Then after I left, Tommy retired so Mitt could actually do stuff.

I still maintain that the two best things about that election were Jane Swift crying and Warren Tolman's ads.

 

[corplinx]

At the fear of "dragging the clintons into this", I thought Hillary looked good for saying "it was a sincere vote" in response to her vote for the war during the dem debate. I think appearing to run from her vote early in her campaign just looked too political.

These existence of the Iraq conflict presents an opportunity for candidates to answer in an unpopular way and not take damage. In fact, taking the easy road Edwards/Romney just makes them weaker.

 

[IXP]

They didn't appeal the decision.

I too was shocked that the people of my state elected him, until I remembered Tommy Finneran, Speaker of the House and Not-Actually-Governor-of-MA-But-Somehow-Is-Anyway.

Then after I left, Tommy retired so Mitt could actually do stuff.

I still maintain that the two best things about that election were Jane Swift crying and Warren Tolman's ads.

Sorry I misread your post!

Anyway, things are much better since we got Cadillac man, right?

IXP

 

[LostAngeles]

Sorry I misread your post!

Anyway, things are much better since we got Cadillac man, right?

IXP

It's ok.

I'm actually under The Governator, as my username might suggest. I do, however, check with my mom to see if God has unleashed his wrath on y'all for the whole gay marriage bit. Considering that Healey lost (was she really that much of a bitch with her campaign ads?) and the Commonwealth is doing well, I guess God's not that angry, now is He?

ETA:

In the early months of Patrick's administration a series of decisions the governor later conceded as missteps have brought substantial unfavorable press. These include spending almost $11,000 on drapery for the governor's state house suite, changing the state's customary car lease from a Crown Victoria to a Cadillac, and hiring a staff assistant for the Commonwealth's first lady at an annual salary of almost $75,000. Emerging from a weekend of working on the state's budget and calling for cuts in services to taxpayers, Patrick responded in a February 20, 2007 press conference that "I realize I cannot in good conscience ask the agencies to make those choices without being willing to make them myself,"[30] Patrick subsequently reimbursed the Commonwealth for the cost of the drapery and furniture purchased for the state house, and the additional monthly difference in his car lease.[30] First Lady Diane Patrick's staff assistant, Amy Gorin, resigned. [31] Later in the same month Patrick again came under fire, this time for contacting Citigroup Executive Committee chair, and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin on behalf of the financially beleaguered mortgage company Ameriquest, a subsidiary of ACC Capital Holdings of which Patrick is a former board member. Both Citigroup and ACC Capital Holdings have substantial holdings in Massachusetts.[32] Patrick attempted to deflect criticism claiming he was calling not as governor but as a private citizen. Later Patrick backed down, stating "I appreciate that I should not have made the call. I regret the mistake."[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patrick

DAMN.

He screws up and then admits it and he... reimbursed the state for that stuff he bought?

Has he screwed up since? Cause, if he's improved and learned, color me impressed.

 

[jimtron]

But the point stands that just because a decision turned out poorly does not mean it was wrong.

If Romney didn't think it was wrong to invade Iraq, then he should have answered, "no, it was not a mistake."

 

[corplinx]

Adding to my thoughts, lets have a moderator ask a hard question for Obama.

We thought Saddam Hussein had 5-15 percent of WMD stockpiles left (Scott Ritter Estimate) was waiting for sanctions to drop to being re-producing WMD in earnest (confirmed by intelligence gathered post invasion).

How then could you justify not going to war when it seemed he was just eluding weapons inspectors Mr. Obama?

If the bodycount was lower, the reconstruction had gone better, and WMD had been found would you be just as defiant that the decision to oppose a dictator in the mideast with WMDs was a mistake?



Lately I've seen this meme pop up where there were two mythical camps where Saddam either had WMDs or he didn't. If you go back and look, the arguments were around the potency of these stockpiles and if they constituted a threat versus their existence. The existence of new WMD capabilities was debated however.

Saddam surprised everyone, even Barack Obama (who believed he had the leftover capabilities at a minimum).

Hillary should really take junior mint to task during one of these debates over it and pop his bubble.

 

[IXP]

It's ok.

I'm actually under The Governator, as my username might suggest. I do, however, check with my mom to see if God has unleashed his wrath on y'all for the whole gay marriage bit. Considering that Healey lost (was she really that much of a bitch with her campaign ads?) and the Commonwealth is doing well, I guess God's not that angry, now is He?

ETA:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patrick

DAMN.

He screws up and then admits it and he... reimbursed the state for that stuff he bought?

Has he screwed up since? Cause, if he's improved and learned, color me impressed.

I think he has learned his lesson. I chalk it up to inexperience, he had not yet learned how to take advantage of his position without being blatant enough to arouse the press.

IXP

 

[Art Vandelay]

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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml

To show that Romney made an error, you would have to show that at no time Saddam refused entry to IAEA inspectors. To support SezMe's characterization of the alleged error, you would have to show, at the very least, that Saddam did not ever seriously impede the inspectors' access. If Romney claimed that at the time of the invasion, Saddam was not refusing access, then that would technically be false (although their lack of access was ultimately due to Saddam's actions). But no one has produced a quote to that effect.

 

[jimtron]

Adding to my thoughts, lets have a moderator ask a hard question for Obama.

We thought Saddam Hussein had 5-15 percent of WMD stockpiles left (Scott Ritter Estimate) was waiting for sanctions to drop to being re-producing WMD in earnest (confirmed by intelligence gathered post invasion).

How then could you justify not going to war when it seemed he was just eluding weapons inspectors Mr. Obama?

If the bodycount was lower, the reconstruction had gone better, and WMD had been found would you be just as defiant that the decision to oppose a dictator in the mideast with WMDs was a mistake?



Lately I've seen this meme pop up where there were two mythical camps where Saddam either had WMDs or he didn't. If you go back and look, the arguments were around the potency of these stockpiles and if they constituted a threat versus their existence. The existence of new WMD capabilities was debated however.

Saddam surprised everyone, even Barack Obama (who believed he had the leftover capabilities at a minimum).

Hillary should really take junior mint to task during one of these debates over it and pop his bubble.

I would answer, let the inspectors spend some time looking. I don't buy that there was an urgent need to send troops in. If the Admin. took more time to make post-invasion plans, and try to get more countries on board, we would have been much better off. Even if Saddam did have WMD, rushing into a nearly unilateral war without sufficient planning would be a mistake. I don't buy that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S., which is what was sold to us by the Admin., IIRC.

 

[This Guy]

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.[/quote]

To show that Romney made an error, you would have to show that at no time Saddam refused entry to IAEA inspectors. To support SezMe's characterization of the alleged error, you would have to show, at the very least, that Saddam did not ever seriously impede the inspectors' access. If Romney claimed that at the time of the invasion, Saddam was not refusing access, then that would technically be false (although their lack of access was ultimately due to Saddam's actions). But no one has produced a quote to that effect.

In my bolded part, are you saying that because Saddam refused to step down, as demanded by Bush, to prevent the invasion, the inspectors were sent away, and thus not allowed access?

Or am I misreading you?

OK, the quotes seem to have gotten messed up a bit. Tried but giving up fixing them

 

[SezMe]

Art, I agree with This Guy. Could you clean up your post so we can make sure we understand your point and respond to exactly what you are saying. Thanks.