Although Mitt Romney yesterday accused John McCain of Nixon-style politics for McCain's criticism of his positions on Iraq, the issue seemed to fade a bit from the discussion today. Before we move on, one final observation. At least twice before the muddled comments Romney made in April 2007 that led to McCain's recent accusations, Romney had directly ruled out precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The first time came in an interview on September 27, 2006, with Bill O'Reilly. Romney said: "We toppled the government ... walking away would mean a humanitarian disaster. We're there and we have a responsibility to finish the job." The second came in an e-interview with National Review Online. Romney responded to a question about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group by saying: "Inferring that our troops may be withdrawn from combat positions before Iraq is secure runs counter to my view and to the views I have heard from some of America's most accomplished military leaders." Both of those answers are pretty resolute and might have helped the Romney campaign fight back against McCain's charge that their candidate favored "secret timetables" for withdrawal. So why not use them? Because other parts of each answer buttress McCain's (stronger) claim that Romney's hesitancy to embrace the surge -- or take any position at all -- raises questions about his ability to lead on important issues. Here is how Romney answered a question about McCain and the surge in an interview on December 28, 2006, with Human Events.

I'm not going to weigh in. I'm still a governor. I'm not running for national office at this stage. I'm not going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That's something I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say.

In the O'Reilly interview, Romney embraces the (failing) White House strategy. "I wouldn't presume to present a plan different from that of the President." But it's the interview with National Review Online that causes him more trouble, in part because of its timing. Romney told Human Events on December 28, 2006, that he would not answer specific questions on Iraq because he was just a governor and was not yet running for national office. The answer was misleading on two levels. One, Romney was most certainly running for national office at the time, having done everything but formally announce his candidacy. And two, in the NRO interview two weeks earlier Romney answered several questions about issues of national importance, including abortion, human rights in China and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. And he was quite specific on Iraq.

The members of the Iraq Study Group deserve credit for their hard work. But their recommendations read like the product of a flawed process - one more focused on reaching consensus for the sake of reaching consensus. There were a few recommendations that I found especially striking: Suggesting that somehow the Israel-Palestine conflict is a root of sectarian and insurgent violence in Iraq is just wrong. Sunnis are killing Shia and vice versa. Pressuring Israel won't change that. Proposing that we negotiate with terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran - without a rigorous analysis of how our incentives could ever be aligned - is just counter-productive. I have no quarrel with talking, especially if it yields valuable intelligence and insight about an adversary. But that's a far cry from actually negotiating with Iran, which sponsors Hezbollah, has nuclear ambitions, and has been clear in its intention to wipe our ally Israel off the map. And Syria is systematically undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon and funding and arming terrorists. Any suggestion that we might trade something for their help or forbearance is out of the question. When considering a negotiation, one must ask what kind of leverage we have, and recognize that there are situations where we have more to lose than gain by negotiating. Finally, inferring that our troops may be withdrawn from combat positions before Iraq is secure runs counter to my view and to the views I have heard from some of America's most accomplished military leaders. I am not suggesting that there are simple solutions for Iraq. But it is clear to me that some of these recommendations will not meet our objectives in Iraq, or in the broader long war America is fighting today.

Can you discuss all of this -- and more -- and refuse to take a position on the surge because you're only a governor?