Mark Levin gets too dizzy spinning for Romney (Part I)

It really hurts for me to write this.  I’ve liked Mark Levin from the moment he went on the air, for he is just about the only talk radio host who notices the danger from Communist China.  However, I have to respond to the erroneous (and I’m being generous) attack Levin launched against John McCain in his spin-laden endorsement of Mitt Romney in National Review.

I’ll start with the worst one – Levin’s insistence that McCain “lied” about what Romney said on Iraq back in April.  Here’s Levin’s paragraph on the subject:

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

Out of the eight sentences written there, seven are incorrect.  Let’s take them one at a time.

Levin: “Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq.”  Me: How so, Mark?  McCain claims that Mitt Romney once supported a date for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.  What did Romney say?  Well, for what will now be the fifth time, I give you Romney’s answer below (ABC, emphasis added):

When asked by ABC News’ Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”

Now, what do timetables include?  Dates.  So when McCain insists Romney supported a pull-out date for American troops in Iraq, he was right.  That Romney would rather the date be leaked to the New York Times by an scheming bureaucrat instead of broadcast from the White House is a distinction without a difference.

Levin: “As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq.”  Me: See above.

Levin: “The evidence is irrefutable.”  Me: The evidence, in fact, refutes your assertion.

Levin: “And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury.”  Me: Let’s see, McCain referred to a timetable for withdrawal as – wait for it! - a timetable for withdrawal.  Then again, McCain just took Romney at his word – which as we all know is not the best way to figure out what Mitt’s thinking.

Levin:  “The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth.”  Me: Putting aside Mark’s sudden admiration for the Times, Mark seems to ignore that not everyone is in lockstep with him on this.  His own NR colleague Byron York had this to say:

I think it’s fair to conclude that Romney was saying he was in favor of Bush and Maliki setting a secret timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal . . . Certainly people who were listening took it that way; 

Perhaps Mark wasn’t listening back then, but that’s not my problem.

Levin: “So, last night, he lied about it again.” Me: Again?  He hasn’t even lied once.

Levin: “This isn’t open to interpretation.” Me: Perhaps I’m missing what Mark means by “isn’t.”

Levin: “But it does give us a window into who he is.” Me: Indeed, it does, but not in the way Mark thinks.  If McCain were really all about pleasing MSM, he would have run away from this last night.  Instead, he alienate his only supposed constituency, and stuck to his guns. That tells me he takes the WBK War very seriously – and will not let wafflers slide.

I guess I should leave the spin part to another post, lest this one run too long.  The fact is this: Romney supported a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq – meaning he supported a withdrawal date.  The only thing he can say is that he wouldn’t want it to be public, which in the sieve that is Washington, DC, is meaningless.

McCain was right.  Romney is fudging, and Levin lost his balance spinning for him.