Gingrich says war on terror "phony"

[TVoffBrainOn]

I do.

We get hit early in the Clinton administration, but arent hit again for the next 7 years.

We get hit early in Bush administration, but arent hit again for years.

So im assuming after WTC 93' you were giving Clinton credit for protecting us for those 7 years? after all we werent hit again after that.

He's right. You won't find me championing the cause of the modern Republican party. They have failed to shrink the size of government, they have failed to eliminate many of our great economic liabilities, they haven't reorganized our bureacracies, they've failed to secure our border, they've mismanaged the war, they've spent out of control... I can go on and on. The Republican Congress most certainly wasn't a great success, but I believe that this problem stems from our broken political system that doesn't allow for real change.

Take for example, the Republican and Democratic "debates". I think it was Newt who said that they are a mixture of American Idol and Survivor. It's like a gameshow -- you're almost waiting for who's going to be voted off stage.

The debates are dominated by a TV personality who is often rude and disrespectful to the candidates, cuts them off, etc. And then you have these candidates who are trying to force in their 30 second memorized bit which is what their paid political consultants said works well in the focus groups. There isn't a 30 second answer to Iraq or social security or healthcare or illegal immigration.

Getting back on track here, how can any real change or any big ideas possibly come from such a political system

i agree with 4 straight paragraphs of your thoughts

unbelievable

The problem is relative to your first paragraph, the modern republicans have failed you, yet you will continue to vote straight red regardless. Do you think the Republican Party will ever return to its conservative roots, when their base blindly continues to support them.

The same goes for the Democrats. They aren't going to end the war, and universal healthcare is never coming to corporate america. But the left will continue to support them.

it's a failed system, that only works for those in power in government, the corporate world and banking.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would first suggest reading his article (written 7/10):

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21462

That was one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time. Not so much because of the human interest aspects of the tragic story but because of what it says about our media.

Here Newt is calling the WOT on terror a phony war and after reading that article there is no doubt that he meant to compare the WOT to the time when the citizens of the world refused to believe that Hitler was a threat when in reality he was a grave and evil danger. The phoneyness was in thinking that there was no danger.

The comparison is clearly that the Muslim extremists represent a real danger and we are not responding adequately.

The enlightening part was that several reporters wrote whole articles on what Newt said and they all spun it as if he was criticising the President for being a phony.

Thank you USMC.

 

[Dr.Who]

We get hit early in the Clinton administration, but arent hit again for the next 7 years.

We get hit early in Bush administration, but arent hit again for years.

So im assuming after WTC 93' you were giving Clinton credit for protecting us for those 7 years? after all we werent hit again after that.






i agree with 4 straight paragraphs of your thoughts

unbelievable

The problem is relative to your first paragraph, the modern republicans have failed you, yet you will continue to vote straight red regardless. Do you think the Republican Party will ever return to its conservative roots, when their base blindly continues to support them.

The same goes for the Democrats. They aren't going to end the war, and universal healthcare is never coming to corporate america. But the left will continue to support them.

it's a failed system, that only works for those in power in government, the corporate world and banking.

Given the choice of voting a Communist ticket or a Socialist ticket I would vote Socialist. Given the choice of voting a Socialist ticket or a Democratic ticket I would vote Democratic. Given the choice of voting a Democratic ticket or a Republican ticket I will vote Republican. If there were a realistic option to vote Libertatian I would vote that - but a vote for a libertarian would just increase the chances that a Democrat will win.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

We get hit early in the Clinton administration, but arent hit again for the next 7 years.

Somalia (I know it wasn't a Islamic terrorists but OBL still used it as a recuiting tool) Khobar Towers, 2 embassies in Africa, USS Cole...

The problem is relative to your first paragraph, the modern republicans have failed you, yet you will continue to vote straight red regardless. Do you think the Republican Party will ever return to its conservative roots, when their base blindly continues to support them.

Well, you're right. But I believe the Republicans are closer to reality in their core doctrines of lower taxes, entrepreneurship, private sector job creation and strong national security.

As for your second question, I think that the Republicans will have to return to its conservative roots or get used to not being in office as evidenced by the 2006 midterm elections. Conservatives sent a strong message to the Republicans: out-of-control spending and porous borders would not be tolerated.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

That was one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time. Not so much because of the human interest aspects of the tragic story but because of what it says about our media.

Here Newt is calling the WOT on terror a phony war and after reading that article there is no doubt that he meant to compare the WOT to the time when the citizens of the world refused to believe that Hitler was a threat when in reality he was a grave and evil danger. The phoneyness was in thinking that there was no danger.

The comparison is clearly that the Muslim extremists represent a real danger and we are not responding adequately.

The enlightening part was that several reporters wrote whole articles on what Newt said and they all spun it as if he was criticising the President for being a phony.

Thank you USMC.

You're very welcome, Dr. Who and for those who don't have the attention span to read an entire article, here's the relevant part:

"And as I thought about the new British prime minister's unwillingness to tell the truth about the terrorists who are seeking to destroy Western civilization, I realized this:

For the past six years, we have been engaged in a "phoney war".

The period during World War II from 1939-1941 became known as the "phoney war." After Hitler had attacked and occupied Poland, the Nazis had made their intentions clear, but the Allies did little to respond to Hitler's aggression. In this period of "phoney war," the British people eventually came to believe that they could avoid war. Children who had been evacuated from the cities began to return to their families.

And then, in May 1940, Hitler attacked France. The "phoney war" was over. The real war had begun."

As for your analysis of the media, Newt said it best in one of his later articles: Never underestimate the media's ability to distort a relevant historical reference.

 

[jb_1430]

If there were a realistic option to vote Libertatian I would vote that - but a vote for a libertarian would just increase the chances that a Democrat will win.

Most self identified liberterians I've encountered vote Democrat when no liberterian choice is available.

 

[heyjude]

I am a libertarian who will vote Dem. The Reps. are rarely an option. I think that Gingrich was refering to winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. They still don't like us and can't wait until we leave. They don't want our brand of democracy. They want their own. They want the majority religious party to control the country. Like they do in most of the ME. That's majority rule. Why should we complain? The Christians in this country want exactly the same thing. And they defend it on the grounds that they are the majority.

Their problem is they aren't. The majority of the American people are not religious, born again, evangalicans. They mostly pay lip service to their religion. And they don't want the Christians pushing their agenda down their throats any more than the non-Christians do.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I am a libertarian who will vote Dem.

You do realize that the Democratic party's core philosophy is deeply at odds with the libertarian one, don't you?

I think that Gingrich was refering to winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

No he wasn't. Read his article. Watch his speech. Your interpretation of a 5 second sound byte is completely off base.

 

[Hard Driver]

Regarding the Newt article.... I see wisdom there. However, the wisdom I see is that when Hitler attacked Poland, the correct response would be to attack Hitler, not to attack Iraq, claiming we were fighting Hitler.

I know that I strongly agree with fighting terrorists.. The problem is that is certainly not what we are doing now. I am against this administration because they have let the terrorists regroup in Afghanistan and Pakistand. They are diverting the majority of our resources to fighting an civil war in Iraq, while the terrorist organizations get stronger.

 

[Hard Driver]

True

As for your second question, I think that the Republicans will have to return to its conservative roots or get used to not being in office as evidenced by the 2006 midterm elections. Conservatives sent a strong message to the Republicans: out-of-control spending and porous borders would not be tolerated.

This administration is the worst my lifetime, and I was around when we landed on the moon. Believe it or not, I am a registered republican. I registered republican when I though they stood for small government, states rights, lower taxes to accompany lower spending, and individual responsibility.

Instead, this administration has spend wildly, worse than the democrats that are usually pretty bad. They want to revoke the states rights with things like the gay marriage admendments. They want to spy on me, regardless of the constitution. An they want to pass the buck on responsibility by forcing huge debts upon my children by spending like druken sailors and borrowing from my kids to do it. And they never accept responsibility for their mistakes always trying to blame someone else for their own screw ups, particularly Iraq.

After this... the democrats are actually more conservative than the republicans.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

If the Admin was TRULY so worried about terrorism and the War on Terrorthey sure have a funny way of showing us citizens this? If Terrorism was TRULY something the US was worried about................then why is the us mexican border as porus as a sea sponge

Agreed, Roker. (Did I say that? )

Okay, agreed in part. I really do think the Admin is worried about terrorism. I think they recognize it as a massive threat.

The Mexican border situation is a cumulative result of decades of failed and/or unenforced laws and policies. The long and tumultuous history of the southwest U.S. and Mexican border is a study in revisionism. Not the history itself, but the facts as the border is revised and modified.

I've seen that this is another aspect of the whole terrorism issue that Newt has a total understanding of.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Most self identified liberterians I've encountered vote Democrat when no liberterian choice is available.

And exactly what definition of Libertarian and Democrat are you using for that statement?

 

[TruthAboveAll]

The blame can't be laid solely on Bush's shoulders. We have a failed political system that goes way beyond one administration. Sure, Bush hasn't done anything to change these problems can be traced back to LBJ's "Great Society".

Actually, despite the pop-sound-bite mentality the nation suffers from, the blame can only slightly be laid on Bush's shoulders. I've been both a supporter and a critic of Bush.

The difficulty Bush has faced in making changes to fix the problems is that the Fed itself has grown to such gargantuan proportions. Has everyone seen the movie The Blob? That is what our government has become. A huge, amorphous entity feeding on everything it can and continuing to spread it's vile slime everywhere it goes.

He's right. You won't find me championing the cause of the modern Republican party. They have failed to shrink the size of government, they have failed to eliminate many of our great economic liabilities, they haven't reorganized our bureacracies, they've failed to secure our border, they've mismanaged the war, they've spent out of control... I can go on and on. The Republican Congress most certainly wasn't a great success, but I believe that this problem stems from our broken political system that doesn't allow for real change.

Right-o!! And this is almost identical to a portion of the piece of my mind I've had the opportunity to share with Mike Duncan, my U.S. Rep, and several organizations' fund-raising callers, along with any other opportunity I find. It was also why I worked to help my U.S. rep beat the incumbent Republican in the primary last year. Yep, a Republican who lost his seat in the house, but losing in a big way in the primary. And that man going on and whipping his opponent in the general election.

Take for example, the Republican and Democratic "debates". I think it was Newt who said that they are a mixture of American Idol and Survivor. It's like a gameshow -- you're almost waiting for who's going to be voted off stage.

LOL! I missed the American Idol/Survivor comparison. But it would be totally Newt. But I must disagree with him - It's more like a mixture of Big Brother and The Biggest Loser.

The debates are dominated by a TV personality who is often rude and disrespectful to the candidates, cuts them off, etc. And then you have these candidates who are trying to force in their 30 second memorized bit which is what their paid political consultants said works well in the focus groups. There isn't a 30 second answer to Iraq or social security or healthcare or illegal immigration.

The so-called "debates" are a joke. It's a cryin' shame that the campaign for the President of the United States has devolved into a sham version of Jeopardy. Whoever is responsible for this - he, she, them, whatever - should be charged with treason. Okay, that's a bit extreme, but you get the point.

Getting back on track here, how can any real change or any big ideas possibly come from such a political system?

The only way that is going to happen is if and when the general population gets fed up. Totally fed up. An abysmal percentage of eligibles in this country even bother to register, much less vote. By best estimates, of registered voters only a fraction write, call or contact in any way their elected representatives. From the local commissioner to the President.

Congress in total whether Republicans, Democrats or Independents have coalesced into a self-serving monstrosity. We've got some fresh faces in there now, and there is nothing I'd like to see more than is a wholesale change over from these bloated power brokers. I don't want term limits - I'd just like to see the American public get aware, get informed and get active.

Guaranteed, Newt Gingrich is going to be a powerful force in the 2008 elections. I know that he'd be met with the full out attacks of the left, but I can't help hoping he'd actually run. He crafted the greatest plan existing to reform our government in the past 40 years. Too bad the other Republicans chose to throw him under the bus.

Regardless, his presence will be made known. After all, Karl Rove won't be around to be the Bogey Man, now will he? And Newt's been there, done that, and it won't bother him a bit.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

LOL! I missed the American Idol/Survivor comparison. But it would be totally Newt. But I must disagree with him - It's more like a mixture of Big Brother and The Biggest Loser.

Or perhaps "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?"

The so-called "debates" are a joke. It's a cryin' shame that the campaign for the President of the United States has devolved into a sham version of Jeopardy. Whoever is responsible for this - he, she, them, whatever - should be charged with treason. Okay, that's a bit extreme, but you get the point.

Very true. What happened to the days of Lincoln and his Cooper Union speech? Lincoln understood then what our own politcians fail to realize today. That people have two parts to their brain -- the relaxed side that looks for entertainment and the serious side. Today, politicians feel like they need to go on Leno and Letterman to announce their candidacy.

Lincoln could have gone to vaudeville and announced there, but instead he chose to write a 7000 word speech at Cooper Union that completely outlined his ideas. He delivered it 4 times and then went home. If someone had a question about his stance, he simply said "read the speech". This capacity for big ideas is exactly was it absent today.

The political system is being driven by consultants who insist that politicians need to start campaigning 3 and a half years before the election.

Guaranteed, Newt Gingrich is going to be a powerful force in the 2008 elections. I know that he'd be met with the full out attacks of the left, but I can't help hoping he'd actually run. He crafted the greatest plan existing to reform our government in the past 40 years. Too bad the other Republicans chose to throw him under the bus.

I'm with you here. For those who aren't familar with Newt's 1994 'Contract with America" I strongly suggest that you take a look: http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=59

It's extremely succinct and straightforward for Washington and I honestly don't see how even the most bleeding heart of liberals could be opposed to it. This is exactly the kind of big ideas that Washington needs.

Regardless, his presence will be made known. After all, Karl Rove won't be around to be the Bogey Man, now will he? And Newt's been there, done that, and it won't bother him a bit.

Truth, I do my best to read everything Newt writes and watch every speech he makes and I don't think he really wants to be president. Honestly, he appears to enjoy what he's doing today -- making speeches and running workshops with his American Solutions organization. He is extremely smart and extremely solution-oriented and he doesn't see the kind of space for big ideas in the current political process that he needs.

What's unique about American Solutions is that he is vigorously extending to all 513,000 elected officials in this country because he believes that this is how you can have real change. The President is just one person (albeit an important one) in the entire political system.

And it's funny that you mention Karl Rove, as I remembering reading something of his where he called Rove "manically dumb" for making the last two elections about the lesser evil -- "who you hate less". He said, and I agree, that getting elected on this basis does not set you up for a successful post-election governance.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Or perhaps "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?"

Now THAT'S good! LOL!

Very true. What happened to the days of Lincoln and his Cooper Union speech? Lincoln understood then what our own politcians fail to realize today. That people have two parts to their brain -- the relaxed side that looks for entertainment and the serious side. Today, politicians feel like they need to go on Leno and Letterman to announce their candidacy.

Instead of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, it's more like Pop Culture Takes Over Washington. Our politicians today fail in so many ways...

Lincoln could have gone to vaudeville and announced there, but instead he chose to write a 7000 word speech at Cooper Union that completely outlined his ideas. He delivered it 4 times and then went home. If someone had a question about his stance, he simply said "read the speech". This capacity for big ideas is exactly was it absent today.

What a concept! It's like with the Justice Dept. firings - why didn't Gonzales, Bush, et al just come right out and say, "Yep, we fired 'em. It's our right to do so, and we don't have to explain any of it to you" when Congressional Dems started raising their pitch forks? And tell them to go look it up themselves. Jerk! Trying to get off track here... sorry...

The political system is being driven by consultants who insist that politicians need to start campaigning 3 and a half years before the election.

Agreed. The election cycle is becoming non-existent. It's just blending one into the next. I'd share some of the enthusiasm about 'if they're so busy campaigning they won't get much done - and that's not a bad thing.' Except that the monstrosity the Fed has become is an entity unto itself. If Congress isn't acting, the wastefulness and corruption continues undeterred. Which is exactly the same as when they ARE there, with the difference that then they're planning on how to do the same next week/month/year.

I'm with you here. For those who aren't familar with Newt's 1994 'Contract with America" I strongly suggest that you take a look: http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=59

It's extremely succinct and straightforward for Washington and I honestly don't see how even the most bleeding heart of liberals could be opposed to it. This is exactly the kind of big ideas that Washington needs.

Thank you. For both the agreement, the link, and the summary. A concept for Washington - BIG IDEAS, SMALL GOVERNMENT. GREAT AMERICAN POPULATION, HUMBLE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS.

Truth, I do my best to read everything Newt writes and watch every speech he makes and I don't think he really wants to be president. Honestly, he appears to enjoy what he's doing today -- making speeches and running workshops with his American Solutions organization. He is extremely smart and extremely solution-oriented and he doesn't see the kind of space for big ideas in the current political process that he needs.

What's unique about American Solutions is that he is vigorously extending to all 513,000 elected officials in this country because he believes that this is how you can have real change. The President is just one person (albeit an important one) in the entire political system.

I think so to. Like I said, if he DID choose to run he'd make the venom against Bush look like honey. American Solutions is phenomenal. That's what I meant about him having presence. I think there is a part in Newt where he would love to be President. But the larger part knows that his strength is what he can continue to do from the other side. Political clout with a grand purpose, totally American in the best sense.

And it's funny that you mention Karl Rove, as I remembering reading something of his where he called Rove "manically dumb" for making the last two elections about the lesser evil -- "who you hate less". He said, and I agree, that getting elected on this basis does not set you up for a successful post-election governance.

Wow! I'd forgotten how much conflict was just under the surface, yet visible, in 2004 before the election. So much from the Dems and Reps, I'd forgotten about what is really nothing less than confrontational between Newt and the Admin, Rove in particular.

A quote from one article:

Karl Rove’s political strategy for President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign was "maniacally dumb,” declares Newt Gingrich – who says the right can’t retain power if it alienates the center.

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg for The New Yorker magazine, the former House Speaker said Rove left Bush with "no political capital.”

... and the link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/31/105529.shtml