You've have one guess who used both terms to refer to the withdrawal from Iraq.
Yes, Mitt Romney. No points awarded as it's too easy.
Think Progress
In October Mitt said
President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women.
Yesterday Mitt said
With regards to Iraq, of course we’re following the Bush timeline with one exception and that is the [blank space] President Bush and I believe others anticipated that we would have an ongoing force, somewhere between 10 and 20 and 30,000 there to help with the transition. President Obama’s own Secretary of Defense suggested that would be the case and they were unable to negotiate a status of forces agreement to allow the 10 to 20 to 30,000 troops to remain which I think was a failure on the part of the administration. But is the wind down in Iraq appropriate? Yes.
I'm sure Mitt will say that the failure to negotiate permission for 10 to 30 thousand troops to remain behind is what he meant by "failure secure an orderly transition". But the real question is whether or not we want to acknowledge Iraq has a sovereign government. If they do, and they decide we aren't helping to secure much of anything that they want secure, what does Mitt suggest we do? Re-invade? If the Iraqis don't think those troops are needed, exactly what does Mitt know that they don't?
I think I know where the "naked political opportunism" is here, Mitt, and it's not on the part of the President.