Mitt ‘Flip-Flopping’ Away

By 37 Comments 712 views

Ole’ Mitt is giving John Kerry a run for his money for the Flip-Flopper crown:

On an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” a few days ago, Mitt Romney was asked whether, given what we know today, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Romney wouldn’t say.

“Oh boy, that’s a big question,” Romney answered. “And going back and trying to say, given what we know now, what would we have done? Would we have invaded or not? At the time, we didn’t have the knowledge that we have now.” Romney mentioned intelligence before the war suggesting that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After the war, U.S. and international inspection teams did not find those weapons, which had been the basis for much of the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq. Still, Romney told Fox’s Chris Wallace that the invasion was “appropriate at the time” because the U.S. acted “in light of that belief” — that is, in intelligence that turned out to be faulty.

Three days later?

This time, his answer was not only different but definitive: No, the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq had officials known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.

“Well, if we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction — if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in,” Romney said.

“You don’t think we would have gone in?” asked MSNBC’s Chuck Todd.

“Well, of course not,” Romney answered. “The president went in based upon intelligence that they had weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action. The president would not have been pursuing that course.”

My beef isn’t just his flip-flopping, it’s his focus on WMD’s and whether or not the UN would of authorized force without them. WMD’s were NOT the only reason we went in.

We knew Saddam had ties to terror groups.

we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

A few great posts to read would be the debate between Scott, our Author, and a commenter. Both parts here and here.

Not only did he have the ties to terrorist groups but he had the means to get WMD’s into their hands. This would be unthinkable after 9/11, and after the previous 13 years in which he flipped the world off that was a chance no one could take.

Oh, but there were other reasons:

  • The Cease Fire Agreement, broken many times by Iraq
  • They thwarted inspections of their WMD facilities as mandated by the Cease Fire
  • Iraq persisted in violating other resolutions by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its people
  • The fact that Iraq had proven they were willing to use WMD from prior history.
  • The fact that Iraq demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces
  • The fact that after 9/11 the threat posed by any terrorist group acquiring WMD would be grave

And many more.

The man was evil and committed acts which ARE acts of war, ie firing on US fighter jets, attempted assassination of political leaders…you add that onto his history of aggression against its neighbors and his relationships with various terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, and you have a great reason to invade.

Not just WMD.

The fact that at the time everyone and their mother believed he had WMD is an added factor, but not THE factor.

Ok, off my soapbox.

Now onto some more Mitt news. It doesn’t just involve flip-floppery but full on stupidity. Here he is claiming that the individual mandate is “conservative”

Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.

The argument aims to improve Romney’s appeal to Republican voters concerned about the healthcare reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama’s healthcare law, which conservatives despise.

“Personal responsibility,” Romney said, “is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government.”

Oh please. Personal responsabilitity is definitely conservative…but forcing someone to pay for everyone’s health insurance is NOT.

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

37 Responses to “Mitt ‘Flip-Flopping’ Away”

  1. 1

    Mike Henkins

    Well said. There are several reasons not to like Mitt Romney the candidate. The main one is you cannot trust what he will do or say on almost any issue. The only thing you can trust Romney on is that, as you pointed out, he will say whatever you want to hear when he is talking to you. Hell, he may even believe it at the time he is saying it. Still, you can be sure that as soon as he turns and reaches for the next hand to shake he may take the opposite stance .

  2. 2


    Scares me that he could be our nominee! Of all those remaining, I still think Perry is the best choice. That being said, if Mitt, the plastic Rino gets the nod, I shall hold my nose and chant ABO and pull the lever for him!

  3. 3

    Gary G. Swenchonis

    Romney will not do away with Obamacare. he has already made remarks which point out which way he will go on numerous occasion. And this latest remark about the “conservative thing to do ” will be the new slogan for the masses to follow. Remember when being a compassionate conservative was the hot thing to be? That way no difficult decisions and or flak for Romney either. Most everything will be a “state issue”. He is sitting this up right now for after he wins when his supporters start to complain. And one can always find reasons to go to war. If not just make some up, and go for it. And no I am not saying Bush made up the weapons of mass destruction. I think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But as for countries that supported terrorism at that time, Bush had his pick from Yemen, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somali, Sudan, Libya, etc….Maybe he just spunned the bottle and went for it. I mean really where would you have started?

  4. 4

    Nan G

    @Gary G. Swenchonis:
    Where can you back that up with words from Romney?
    Here’s what I have:

    SANTORUM: [to Romney]: We need to repeal ObamaCare. We can do it, not by waivers. That’s the wrong idea. California going to waive that? No. NY going to waive it? No. All these states–many of them, liberal states–are going to continue on, and then states like NH that will waive it will end up subsidizing California. We need to repeal it by doing it through a reconciliation process .

    ROMNEY: Rick, you’re absolutely right. On day one, granting a waiver to all 50 states doesn’t stop in its tracks entirely ObamaCare. That’s why I also say we have to repeal ObamaCare, and I will do that on day two with a reconciliation bill, because, as you know, it was passed by reconciliation, 51 votes. We can get rid of it with 51 votes. We have to get rid of ObamaCare and return to the states the responsibility [for healthcare].
    PERRY: [to Romney]: In your hard copy book, you said RomneyCare was exactly what the American people needed, to have that RomneyCare given to them as you had in Massachusetts. Then in your paperback, you took that line out.

    ROMNEY: I actually wrote my book, and in my book I said no such thing. When I put my health care plan together, a Washington Post reporter asked, “Is this is a plan that if you were president you would put on the whole nation, have a whole nation adopt it?” I said, “Absolutely not. This is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan.
    Q: Do you stand by what you did with the health care mandate in Massachusetts?

    ROMNEY: Absolutely. I’m not running for governor. I’m running for president. And if I’m president, on day one I’ll direct the secretary of Health and Human Services to grant a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states. It’s a problem that’s bad law, it’s not constitutional. I’ll get rid of it.
    Q: [to Cain]: What is your health care plan?

    CAIN: First, repeal Obamacare in its entirety. Secondly, [market reforms]: deductibility of health insurance premiums; loser-pay laws; and association health plans.

    ROMNEY: Herman Cain is right, and let’s get back to getting the cost of health care down. The reason health care is so expensive is not just because of insurance, it’s because of the cost of providing care. And one reason for that is the person who receives care in America generally doesn’t care how much it costs, because once they’ve paid their deductible, it’s free. And the provider, the more they do, the more they get paid. And so what we have to do is make sure that individuals have a concern and care about how much something costs. And for that to happen, health savings accounts. Give people a stake in what the cost of insurance is going to be, what the cost of it is going to be. Co-insurance, where people pay a share of the bill, that makes a difference.

  5. 5


    Dropping in from digg here. But what he stated did not “flip-flop”. In the first answer he stated that based on the intelligence we had it was the right thing to do to go in. Which dodged the question. When confronted again on the issue he answered it “had we known there were no WMDs” we definitely would not have gone to war in Iraq.

    This is coming from someone who fully supported the war in Iraq before WMDs were brought up. But I’m fully aware of public sentiment at the time. Without a threat of WMDs there would have not been enough support for neo-conservatives to start a war in Iraq.

    Yes we also had intelligence at the time that linked Saddam to high members of Al Qaeda. This intelligence was proven wrong later when we learned that he was spending quite a bit of resources trying to track down the terrorists and throw them out of the country. At the time it appeared he was tolerating their presence after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

  6. 6



    @unknown: Yes we also had intelligence at the time that linked Saddam to high members of Al Qaeda. This intelligence was proven wrong later when we learned that he was spending quite a bit of resources trying to track down the terrorists and throw them out of the country.

    The Iraqi Perspectives Project, released in 2007, proves that statement of yours completely wrong. But then you wouldn’t be the first one not to read it, and proceed on other sources you choose not to provide.

    Saddam was still busy financing AQ terrorists even in the late 1990s, when he financed Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law in the Philippines.

    But no… no connections… /sarc

    This is coming from someone who fully supported the war in Iraq before WMDs were brought up. But I’m fully aware of public sentiment at the time. Without a threat of WMDs there would have not been enough support for neo-conservatives to start a war in Iraq.

    Regime change in Iraq has been US policy since Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Since all those 17 resolutions did not result in a strong enough opposition to support internally, and there was ample evidence that Saddam was actively utilizing global Islamic jihad movements (and providing a blind eye to their training camps in the country), Congress authorized the Iraq AUMF to use force.

    Of the 23 whereas, only 7-9 of them cited WMDs as the reason for the right to use force, and take another step in a US policy that Clinton, himself, advocated.

    The WMD issue became central only as a way to entice the int’l community to climb on board via the UNSC. That body would not be interested in the other “whereas” reasons in the AUMF. But because the left was adamant that it would not be a US unilateral intervention… and it wasn’t, even without the UN and NATO’s nod of approval… the WMD presentation was theprimary talking point at the UN. The media picked up on this and pretty much made it the only rallying cry for OIF, never bothering to reference the original AUMF, and tossing out the Iraq Liberation Act as unrelated.

    Plenty of data and links in the FA archives… suggest you check out the WMD archives, as well as the Iraq-AQ Connection archive. Both these links get you to the approximate era, and you can use the “older or newer posts” links at the bottom to move back and forth.

    Back then I wasn’t an author at FA, but was blogging on another site about this from circa 2004 on. You can find more links and data in those 2008 posts in my “WMD not the only reason” category.

    Facts are important. Many spend quite a bit of time trying to distort them… whether out of simply being misinformed, or because of a larger more nefarious agenda. I’m not sure which one may be your reasoning, but perhaps you’d like more reading material in case it’s the former.

  7. 7


    @MataHarley: If FA ever starts to give awards out akin to the Emmys or the Grammys, I would nominate you in a heartbeat, Mata.

    You wield the pen (keyboard) like a neurosurgeon wields a scalpel. 🙂

  8. 8

    Gary G. Swenchonis

    @Nan G: What i can tell you Nan is that he refuses to state for the record that his RomCare was wrong. In the debates he has been pressed, and insinuated that it could/would be a state thing, and then there are the people who don’t believe him at all on that issue. We watch the debates in a group when we can, which is most of the time. Some people are wanting Rom to take Rom Care back. i don’t care one way or the other. I don’t like him for several reasons. But some of our people are getting desperate. Also, he is making a good professional decision in not saying it was wrong, he can then play the middle and see which way the wind is blowing after he is in office, and adjust his beliefs and actions at that time. Thats why i don’t care for him in the first place. His past behaviors dictate his future behaviors. Especially when it comes to career politicians. I can see where state/fed health care could help, but where is the money going to come from? We cannot even afford medicare/SSN, and or the cost of treating illegal aliens just to name a few things. I just wish that they(politicans) would get the budget caught up first, and then start looking at how we can afford more free programs. Its as if that a good majority of people really believe that America cannot go broke. I know I have listened to them. And our leaders do nothing to help to break thru that denial, but instead they just keep promising more fre things if they vote for them.

  9. 10

    Gary G. Swenchonis

    @Nan G: I had deleleted your email with what you wrote by mistake and had to come back here to see all of it again. What i was trying to say is what some of the pundits(a few of them) are finally getting. That many conservatives don’t trust Rom. period. And they, like some of my own friends, and others in our circle are looking for anyone but him. Even today i heard a Rep Fund Raiser express her concern that enough people might vote for RPaul if he runs a third party ticket just because they are so angry at the GOP and company. I can’t blame them either. But i don’t think i could vote for RPaul. Not after what he said after the Cole attack, embassy attacks and 9/11. those people were my fellow Americans. That leaves a fouth party ticket? But i got to give RP credit for being the most consistent politician I have seen in decades.

  10. 11


    I wonder which of the CANDIDATES will look at the more important problem , before spending on those WHICH ENTER THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALY and are here since many years, BUT REMAIN ILLEGALS STILL, as it was mentioned in
    some plans from CANDIDATES, without looking at the biggest problem, even more of a priority,
    that is the now 300 billions FELONS, some which are still penalize by being shunned because of many years minor errors even having paid their punishment, and still being target today even as they change and shown good behaviors since, and what is of most importance is that they are AMERICANS with roots in deep grounds, UNABLE TO FIND WORK, BUT STILL are AMERICANS WHO VOTE

  11. 14


    @Richard Wheeler: I will hold my nose and vote for Romney if he gets the nomination, but he is not my first choice. Or second. Or even third…

    I suppose technically anyone could enter the race now, but logistically I don’t see how. I mean feet on the ground in each state, volunteers, grassroots organization takes time.

  12. 16


    I MUST CORRECT ON MY 11, my error of saying BILLIONS, INSTEAD OF 300 MILLIONS,
    I apologize for it,
    but IT still astronomical, especial if the trend forcast is
    1 million per year,
    it must be getting attention in an election year,

  13. 17


    THE COCKLE are situated in the right part of the heart where the soul is situated on the middle of it where the ANGEL REST HER WINGS after coming down from heaven sent by GOD, TO WARM UP THE SOUL OF THE GOOD ONES

  14. 18

    How many people here think that the Iraq invasion and occupation was worth it? Not was it justified at the time, but was it worth it, after all is said and done (and we won’t be done paying for it until the last Iraq veteran dies)?

    Was Saddam a bigger threat in 2003 than the Iranian mullahs are today? Did the Iraq War strengthen our position vis a vis Iran or did it weaken it?

    This is all just a thought exercise. We did invade. And now we are out. And what happened/happened. And what will happen/will happen.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  15. 19

    and what ever is, we thank the troops for their BRAVOUR and COURAGE TILL THE END,
    THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED ; NOW it’s for IRAK TO MAINTAIN IT and treasure it,
    because it was made with blood of the BRAVEST OF THIS NATION.

  16. 20

    Gary G. Swenchonis

    I think it was worth it if our only some of our leaders would have followed up with the occupation that followed the loss of life, and all those maimed in the war. But I still think it was worth it. And it will be worth it again when we return with-in the next two or three years. But by then we will have to start all over again. But we will have too. The middle east cannot be left alone to destroy itself. And maybe Israel with it, and the oil field too. Yeah that dirty word, oil. But people might as well get used to it. We can’t drill for oil here. And we are hardcore addicts when it comes to the black juice. The dealers always set the price, the addict does not. China is using more and more oil, Russia wants to be a power in the ME, and the ME is in the middle of a war to see whom will will rule, more countries like Iran? more groups like Al-Qaeda,? more people like old Gaddaffi, Saleh of Yemen, ?
    But yeah, the loss of life and what those men and women went there to do was worth it. Are the leaders who they gave their oath to worth it? Hell No!

  17. 22



    @Larry, sometimes the way you construct your “thought exercises” is baffling. What kind of question is “was it worth it”? Are you trying to determine whether we value our military lives, and what level of criteria we demand in a conflict that makes a war “worth it”, and we won’t mind sacrificing their lives?

    How odd. Is this some new type of “gotcha” attempt on your part, trying to frame those that supported OIF as uncaring humans who have so little value for lives and their families? That’s sure the way it sounds.

    I simply can’t think the way you do… in pure emotional bundles, sans logic. Or lets say that I can’t view national security thru the limited prism you offer. The question not only doesn’t make sense, it’s just plain offensive.

    Let’s put it this way… do I think we could afford NOT to have implemented the OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom), or OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom), in light of the global jihad movements stepped up aggressions?

    No. I think both were/are/and remain very necessary. In Iraq, we have a Muslim ally (as much as we can with Muslim nations) who we can nurture a relationship for intel, as well as a healthy presence via our embassies. This is especially good since Obama is busy destroying the other other allies we had in the region, and distancing the US from Israel simultaneously. Pakistan is racing into the arms of Russia and China, and the new and improved “free” Egypt has no compunction telling the US Sec’y of State to butt out when she criticizes viciously beating down women in the streets.

    Do I think wars with this bunch of yahoos are worth precious military lives and taxpayer money? On an emotional level, no. I don’t think wasting time with cockroach humans, such as these jihadi, is worth the price of a can of Raid, let alone the life of one of our warriors. I wish there were a very wonderful plague which could discern jihad scum from the rest of humanity, and wipe them out without affecting the rest of us.

    Alas… that doesn’t exist. So these things sometimes become regrettably necessary.

    That’s about all the answer I can give to your strangely phrased question.

  18. 24

    Hi Mata, It’s not a gotcha thing. My own Republican congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, whom I’ve voted for in 3 of the last 4 elections (including the last 2) was a strong Iraq War supporter, but now says that it frankly wasn’t worth it. I was simply curious as to whether this is an anomaly or is representative of something more than that. Of course, I was an opponent and it’s one of the reasons I supported Obama over Hillary. So that’s just history. I don’t question anyone’s motives; I know that people who supported (and continue to support) the invasion were sincere in their belief that it was unavoidable. And we yet don’t know how it will all play out — maybe, 20 years down the road, historians will view it as a positive turning point for the USA and the World.

    But I was really just curious if anyone here changed their mind, as Dana did.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  19. 25



    Must be a recent change… you might want to ask him about his H.CON.RES.51. vote against removing the US from Libya within 15 days from the Resolution.

    He’s one of those career politicians, you know. Probably disgruntled that the politics of the war tore the GOP from the majority.

    And while he doesn’t seem to mind the US being involved with Libya, he’s most definitely po’ed at Iraq since they didn’t lavish praise all over him this year when he visited. Then again, this was after he suggested they pay the US back for the costs of war. Then he was all up in arms when the Iraqis refused to let him into an Iranian camp there. Apparently he’s on a war crimes witch hunt path big time….

    He wants immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, opposed the surge, and wants to cut financial aid to Pakistan. Supported the Taliban in the 90s, was against the Yugoslavia wars, and sided with Russian when they invaded Georgia. Frankly, this guy sounds pretty much like a MA or CA “republican”…. like a sorta conservative in some rare issues.

    That you think he “changed his mind” begs the belief that he every really supported the war to begin with. His history when it comes to conflicts doesn’t support that notion at all. Maybe he should pay more attention to his bankrupt state instead of trying to play international criminal court, looking for Iraqi war criminals, eh? And why oh why do we waste the cash sending these people over there anyway?

    So if you know that we won’t have any cogent vision for Iraq’s future for decades, why are you asking if any of us “think it’s worth it”? As you, yourself, admit… ’tis a bit premature to declare it a wasted operation. Except for your questionable RINO, that is….

  20. 27

    bbartlog Well, oddly enough Larry, I changed my mind in a different way: I once thought the war was unjustified and a bad idea, whereas now I think it was morally and legally justified, but still a bad idea (i.e., not worth it). Not sure how that counts.

  21. 29


    Oh my goodness! Almost 9 years later and we are having the same debate. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. They existed only in the fantasies of the Iraqi war cheerleaders who didn’t care how many Americans and Iraqis would be killed to advance their deluded agenda. Don’t bother to respond to my charges unless you can cite location and type of WMD found. Even the corporate media couldn’t invent the discovery of repositories. All wmds were destroyed by 1996. Please refer to the findings of the IAEA and UNMVIC. For god’s sake, get a grip!

  22. 30


    Curt et al,

    You may diss Mitt for his flip-flopping today, but what will you blog in 2012 when he’s the republican pres candidate? Will you ignore him? I bet you’ll do the same you did with McCain.

    Frankly, if I were a conservative I’d do the same. From a conservative’s viewpoint, Romney would be preferable to Obama. You can’t hold out for your ideal. You have to support the person who most closely approximates your agenda. Curt, follow your practical sense. Mitt’s closer to you than Obama is. Who cares if he principally represents the interests of this nation’s wealthiest citizens.

  23. 31



    By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.Source

    The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

    “We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons,” Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

    Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: “Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.” – Source

    From the NY Post:

    US did find Iraq WMD

    There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

    The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

    The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons arsenal — most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

    In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

    Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.Source

    Also, evidently quite a few WMDs made it out of Iraq before US and Coalition forces invaded.

    Footage of WMD Stockpiles Uncovered in Libya, Defense Ministry Assures They‘re in the ’Safe Hands’ of Rebels – Source

    So after WMDs were found in Iraq and other ME countries, the MSM changed it’s tune and switched the narrative to no “massive” WMDs found.

    Go figure.

    From CBS News in 2010, emphasis mine:

    WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches – Source


  24. 37


    I won’t be home for CHRISTMAS, don’t count on me, no presents and misletoe,
    la laa la la la la, I won’t be home for CHRISTMAS, la la la
    BUT I will be at FA, with my friends

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *