Newt Gingrich calls war on terror "phony", admits we're losing

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...8/gingrich-calls-.html

At least someone else in the GOP is willing to admit this. Our military is stretched too thin to deal with terrorism. The global war on terror is not a 'war' in the conventional sense. You can't fight nations to defeat terrorism, terrorists hide everywhere. Defeating terrorism will require police work and surgical military action, not full blown warfare.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Oh my God, don't tell PJ his hero disagrees with his signature line, the surge is phony, and that there is no joy in Mudville.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Wish I could find a transcript of his entire remarks instead of little bits and pieces.

Here is more on what he said:
As for President Bush's global war on terror, "none of you should believe we are winning this war," said Gingrich. "There is no evidence that we're winning. ... This is a phony war."

Further, the failure to swiftly detect and deal with the terrorist cell members involved in the planned attack on Fort Dix, and the lawsuit of the "flying imams" against US Airways revealed that "our system is broken," said Gingrich, and that "something is fundamentally wrong."

To defeat the threat of radical Islamists, America must devote more resources to its intelligence, defense and foreign relations services, he said, adding that Web sites and religious services that incite Muslims to commit jihad should be shut down.

"For us to be serious about winning this campaign is going to require a dramatically more serious strategy and a dramatic overhaul of our bureaucracies, and a significant increase in resources," said Gingrich.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Since you guys seem to like Newt so much how about some more Newt quotes.
I figure if I post enough you guys will ask a MOD to delete this thread before everyone else gets a chance to see it.
Link
GINGRICH: The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat.

In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies.

What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.

How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we've seen, for example, in Afghanistan, where the Taliban recently was machine-gunning girls as they walked to school because the Taliban is determined to stop women from getting educated?

We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Since you guys seem to like Newt so much how about some more Newt quotes.
I figure if I post enough you guys will ask a MOD to delete this thread before everyone else gets a chance to see it.
Link
GINGRICH: The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat.

In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies.

What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.

How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we've seen, for example, in Afghanistan, where the Taliban recently was machine-gunning girls as they walked to school because the Taliban is determined to stop women from getting educated?

We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP :confused:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Another Newt quote about the 'war'
Link
Mr. GINGRICH: Look, we--I want to say something which is very politically unpopular. We are caught up in a worldwide war against an irreconcilable enemy who seeks to destroy us and will use nuclear or biological weapons if they can get them. And they mean literally destroy us. We had a 12-year-old boy on videotape two weeks ago in Pakistan beheading a man. We had a couple in Britain in July who were prepared to use their eight-month-old baby to get a bomb on an airplane disguised as baby food. We're up against a savagery and a ferocity worldwide that we don't understand. And all I am suggesting is, whether it's Afghanistan, it's Iraq, it's Iran, it is the problems in Syria, it's the 300 people who were killed in Algeria a week ago, the 200 people killed in India a month ago, we had better have a national debate as we did over the Cold War. We didn't debate over the Cold War about Berlin--the Berlin blockade. We debated the larger question: What's the nature of the world? What would it be take for the United States to survive and its allies to survive? And I see no evidence this commit--I want to make a--one specific proposal.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Finally? some clarity as to what Newt meant.
Newt was a history professor after all?
Link
Newt Churchill? Newt de Gaulle? Is there a 21st-century parallel between those 20th-century leaders and the former speaker of the House?

Newt Gingrich's legion of critics and rivals would beg to disagree, but the analogy is tantalizing.

Winston Churchill was 65 years old when he became prime minister of Great Britain in 1940. He had been in and out of high office for three decades, not always having enjoyed success in power. But on big issues, Churchill was stone-cold correct. Before and during World War I, for example, he was an early champion of airplanes and armored tanks as alternatives to futile infantry charges against barbed wire and machine guns. And of course, in the '30s, Churchill was prescient about the threat of Nazi Germany.

So when Gingrich, 64, speaking yesterday at a breakfast hosted by The American Spectator, declared that America is fighting a "phony war" against Islamic terrorism, he knew that listeners would recall that the same phrase - "phony war" - was used to describe the six-month period in 1939-40 when Churchill's predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, sat passively as the Wehrmacht gathered its strength for the coming blitzkrieg.

Gingrich's obvious point was that President George W. Bush has not been an effective war leader for Americans. And as a subpoint for Republicans, Gingrich was blunt: If in 2008 the GOP is still in the "Bush era" psychologically, it will be clobbered politically. By this reckoning, the Republican Gingrich is urging the same intra-party "clean break" with the Republican Bush that Churchill made with Chamberlain, a fellow Conservative, seven decades ago.

Another steady champion of military preparedness was Charles de Gaulle, who watched helplessly as his beloved France stood equally inert against the threat from Hitler. De Gaulle kept the faith from exile in London and, after the Allies liberated France in 1944, came briefly to political power.

But the French leader soon stepped down in frustration. Still in his 50s, he headed home to his chateau at Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, into seeming retirement. Over the next decade he worked on his memoirs, watching and waiting; if the French people wanted his leadership, they knew where to find him. And in 1958, after France had lost a war in Indochina and was losing a war in Algeria, de Gaulle returned to Paris.

Back in power, he extricated France from a hopeless situation in Algeria, even as he sought to re-establish French grandeur. His biggest achievement was developing France's independent nuclear arsenal. Not everyone likes atomic weapons, of course, but few deny that a basic division in world power is between the nuclear "haves" and "have-nots."

Gingrich, too, had a moment of glory in his 50s, when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. As the speaker of the House, Gingrich was successful in forcing a balanced budget and welfare reform, but his own mistakes undercut him, and he resigned from office in 1998. During the past decade, he related yesterday, he has been at his own equivalent of Colombey-les-Deux-Églises - in his case, suburban Atlanta.

Of course, Gingrich has kept busy, even in "retirement," writing and speaking. Never afraid to let 'er rip rhetorically, he labeled Michael ("Sicko") Moore "despicable" for his praising of Cuba's health care system without noting Fidel Castro's many political prisoners. Yet, Gingrich, usually more positive than negative, has the capacity, unique among American politicians, to synthesize history and technology into a vision of the future, in which hulking bureaucracies - having failed at education, health care and border security - are transformed.

So what does the future hold for Gingrich? Dismissing the current Republican nomination process as an "American Idol"-like "audition," he would rather talk about his "solutions-oriented workshop," found at Americansolutions.com, scheduled for Sept. 27.

Of course, political parties tend to nominate actual declared candidates, not problem-solvers waiting in the wings. So it's entirely possible that the GOP will skip past Gingrich. In 2008.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Prof, other than offering what others have said about Newt's comments, what is your take on this.........
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I never said I believed a word Gingrich said---I only said it would give PJ some cognitive dissonance. But now I am reassured that PJ figures that if he can just manage to post enough self contradictory Newt Gingrich quotes, the credibility of Newt Gingrich and non Prof John will somehow be restored.

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,405
8,455
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wish I could find a transcript of his entire remarks instead of little bits and pieces.

Here is more on what he said:
As for President Bush's global war on terror, "none of you should believe we are winning this war," said Gingrich. "There is no evidence that we're winning. ... This is a phony war."

Further, the failure to swiftly detect and deal with the terrorist cell members involved in the planned attack on Fort Dix, and the lawsuit of the "flying imams" against US Airways revealed that "our system is broken," said Gingrich, and that "something is fundamentally wrong."

To defeat the threat of radical Islamists, America must devote more resources to its intelligence, defense and foreign relations services, he said, adding that Web sites and religious services that incite Muslims to commit jihad should be shut down.

"For us to be serious about winning this campaign is going to require a dramatically more serious strategy and a dramatic overhaul of our bureaucracies, and a significant increase in resources," said Gingrich.

Newt needs to be President.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
As I said I would like to read the whole transcript to get the context of his remarks.

Newt is very strong in his defense of the ?war? I can post dozens of comments, speeches and articles where he talks about it.

He did not wake up on day and think the war is ?phony? as in we don?t need it, or it does not exist.

More than likely his description of it as ?phony? matches my last quote where it is compared to the ?phony? war against the Germans between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of France.

Also note that Gingrich says ?"We?re about to enter the seventh year of this phony war?and we?re losing." Clearly he is not speaking about Iraq, despite the effort of Phokus and Lemon to portray it in such a manner. He is speaking about the broader war on terror or Islamic fundamentalism, what ever you wish to call it.

If you want a better idea of where Newt stands on the issue I suggest you try his web page where he clearly states his view on this war.
Link
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I never said I believed a word Gingrich said---I only said it would give PJ some cognitive dissonance. But now I am reassured that PJ figures that if he can just manage to post enough self contradictory Newt Gingrich quotes, the credibility of Newt Gingrich and non Prof John will somehow be restored.
Or perhaps I?ll take the time to try and figure out what Newt actually meant instead of buying into what you and phokus think he means.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I would LOVE to see Newt and Hillary debate.

Newt has an incredible grasp of the issues of the day. I would like to see how Hillary stands up to that.
My guess is that she would totally ignore what he says and attempt to focus on her ?message? and nothing else.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I never said I believed a word Gingrich said---I only said it would give PJ some cognitive dissonance. But now I am reassured that PJ figures that if he can just manage to post enough self contradictory Newt Gingrich quotes, the credibility of Newt Gingrich and non Prof John will somehow be restored.
Or perhaps I?ll take the time to try and figure out what Newt actually meant instead of buying into what you and phokus think he means.

Nah, just keep posting things that Newt said 30 years ago. Trust me, once you get past the tipping point we'll all forget about how he criticized your idiot in charge.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I would LOVE to see Newt and Hillary debate.

Newt has an incredible grasp of the issues of the day. I would like to see how Hillary stands up to that.
My guess is that she would totally ignore what he says and attempt to focus on her ?message? and nothing else.

How would Newt come off against Ron Paul.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I never said I believed a word Gingrich said---I only said it would give PJ some cognitive dissonance. But now I am reassured that PJ figures that if he can just manage to post enough self contradictory Newt Gingrich quotes, the credibility of Newt Gingrich and non Prof John will somehow be restored.
Or perhaps I?ll take the time to try and figure out what Newt actually meant instead of buying into what you and phokus think he means.
Nah, just keep posting things that Newt said 30 years ago. Trust me, once you get past the tipping point we'll all forget about how he criticized your idiot in charge.
Those quotes are from the past year, nice try.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I would LOVE to see Newt and Hillary debate.

Newt has an incredible grasp of the issues of the day. I would like to see how Hillary stands up to that.
My guess is that she would totally ignore what he says and attempt to focus on her ?message? and nothing else.
How would Newt come off against Ron Paul.
He would make Ron Paul look like the fool that he is.

Ron Paul seems like the kind of guy who would have stood up in 1940 and said we should not go to war with Germany because they are not at war with us.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I would LOVE to see Newt and Hillary debate.

Newt has an incredible grasp of the issues of the day. I would like to see how Hillary stands up to that.
My guess is that she would totally ignore what he says and attempt to focus on her ?message? and nothing else.
How would Newt come off against Ron Paul.
He would make Ron Paul look like the fool that he is.

Ron Paul seems like the kind of guy who would have stood up in 1940 and said we should not go to war with Germany because they are not at war with us.

Better than your heroes who stood up and said we should not go to war with Germany because they have too much money invested in German concentration camps.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I would LOVE to see Newt and Hillary debate.

Newt has an incredible grasp of the issues of the day. I would like to see how Hillary stands up to that.
My guess is that she would totally ignore what he says and attempt to focus on her ?message? and nothing else.
How would Newt come off against Ron Paul.
He would make Ron Paul look like the fool that he is.

Ron Paul seems like the kind of guy who would have stood up in 1940 and said we should not go to war with Germany because they are not at war with us.

In your opinion, he "seems" like that....
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,493
1,051
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I would LOVE to see Newt and Hillary debate.

Newt has an incredible grasp of the issues of the day. I would like to see how Hillary stands up to that.
My guess is that she would totally ignore what he says and attempt to focus on her ?message? and nothing else.
How would Newt come off against Ron Paul.
He would make Ron Paul look like the fool that he is.

Ron Paul seems like the kind of guy who would have stood up in 1940 and said we should not go to war with Germany because they are not at war with us.

OMG I hope you didnt just compare the war on terror to WWII. They arent even on the same scale...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,739
6,500
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I never said I believed a word Gingrich said---I only said it would give PJ some cognitive dissonance. But now I am reassured that PJ figures that if he can just manage to post enough self contradictory Newt Gingrich quotes, the credibility of Newt Gingrich and non Prof John will somehow be restored.
Or perhaps I?ll take the time to try and figure out what Newt actually meant instead of buying into what you and phokus think he means.
Nah, just keep posting things that Newt said 30 years ago. Trust me, once you get past the tipping point we'll all forget about how he criticized your idiot in charge.
Those quotes are from the past year, nice try.

Good to see that in less than a year Newt has come around to thinking like a Democrat.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I would LOVE to see Newt and Hillary debate.

Newt has an incredible grasp of the issues of the day. I would like to see how Hillary stands up to that.
My guess is that she would totally ignore what he says and attempt to focus on her ?message? and nothing else.

I would love to see Moonbeam and Newt debate.

Or maybe Newt and Romney---as each race each other to demonstrate they have taken every conceivable position on both sides of every single issue---thus alienating everyone by managing to always be on the wrong side of the issue part of the time. But timing is everything. Plastic candidates for plastic people.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,405
8,455
136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good to see that in less than a year Newt has come around to thinking like a Democrat.

So I am ?thinking like a Democrat??

You fail to understand motivation Moonbeam. We oppose our current action because we are tired of poor performance, not because we think the USA is evil. Not because we deny the terrorist threat as you do. We oppose our current actions because they have hurt this nation and we should do better. We can and should re-focus our attention to the Islamists here in our nation.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good to see that in less than a year Newt has come around to thinking like a Democrat.

So I am ?thinking like a Democrat??

You fail to understand motivation Moonbeam. We oppose our current action because we are tired of poor performance, not because we think the USA is evil. Not because we deny the terrorist threat as you do. We oppose our current actions because they have hurt this nation and we should do better. We can and should re-focus our attention to the Islamists here in our nation.

Yep just round 'em all up like cattle. They are less human, you know? Says so in the Bible.

The only problem I see with people like you is that you're so hell-bent in denying that you were ever wrong in supporting the war so you pick someone, usually on the opposite political spectrum, and blame them. I see it with all the Republicans who have changed their mind about this war. It's ridiculous.