Curious to determine if Romney's meaning had been accidently flipped--if maybe he meant to say, "this is a non-sequitur: Null-set!"--I did me some googling and I found this from May 8, nearly one month ago.
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]
This is interesting for two reasons: It's evidence that--at the very least--Romney has been bandying about this malapropism for weeks and nobody on his staff either realizes he's wrong or dares correct him. It's also evidence that he didn't just screw up his Iraq history at the debates on Tuesday, but rather that he's in a constant state of either denial, ignorance, or deception.
I simply understood this to mean that the question, "in question", wouldn't exist "{}" if the previous criteria were met.
Posted by: Federalist | June 07, 2007 at 05:29 PM