Mitt Romney’s Null Set State of Mind

After the last Republican debate there’s been plenty of talk both about Romney’s misuse of the term “null set” and of his ignorance of the facts on Iraq. Sometimes the pressure of coming up with an answer during a debate might lead to a candidate saying something they might not otherwise say. Brian Buetler did some research and found this quote from May 8 showing that this was not the first time for either mistake:

HANNITY: It’s interesting. Because you talk about — very frankly and openly — some of the differences you have with the president about the war and maybe some of the specificity in terms of what he would do….

If you had to make the decision, based on what we know now, if you were the president there, do you think you would have done the same thing?

M. ROMNEY: Well, it’s a setting that’s almost a null set. Which is, if we knew that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and if he had complied with the United Nations resolutions to allow IAEA inspectors into his country, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. [Bold italics mine]

Someone on Romney’s staff needs to keep a closer watch on what this guy says. It’s bad enough when he says something this absurd on Hannity, but at there the bulk of people watching will vote Republican, and have no idea as to what really happened in the run up to the war. Allowing Romney to make the same mistake during a debate has led to many more people seeing Romney make such a statement.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Comments

  1. 1
    bjalder26 says:

    I can’t believe how desperate people get when it comes to criticizing Mitt Romney. As far as him using the term null set, it is simple minded to criticize him for using a math term in this manner. We use math terms such as “plus, add, equals” everyday in our speech, not referring to mathematical operations.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Use of other math terms makes more sense than the manner in which Romney used null set, but if that was all he did nobody would really care. The real point is that he used this first to avoid answering, and then gave an extremely inaccurate assessment of the run up to the Iraq War.

    Romney supporters must be desperate to try to paint the criticism of him as being over his missue of null set as opposed to his off the wall comments on the war.

  3. 3
    bjalder26 says:

    Ron, null set criticisms abound in liberal blogs, PLUS Scott Ritter, chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, admitted that Iraq obstructed their efforts.
    See Wikipedia: Scott Ritter

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Bjalder26,

    The real criticism is over Romney’s misinformation regarding the inspectors and on his use of this term to initially try to avoid answering the question.
    Nobody disputes that Iraq had obstructed their efforts in the past. That has nothing to do with what Romney said. At the time the war began, the inspectors were back in, contrary to Romeny’ s claims.

    Your “source” Scott Ritter has frequently spoken out against Bush for going to war after the inspectors were back in. Fact Check wouldn’t have issued a statement that Romney was incorrect on this in the debate if he wasn’t incorrect here.

2 Trackbacks

Leave a comment