Much To The Chagrin of Some, I Side With Newt...
Saw a little article this afternoon that I though was worthy of my commentary. My thoughts in red:
Gingrich says it's World War III
Posted by David Postman at 12:54 PM
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.
"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.
ME: The only real place that I disagree with Gingrich on this is that we can afford to wait for the first week of September. I’m sure that Newt’s thoughts are from a political standpoint…wait until we’re closer to elections to take a hard-line on this issue, but an awful lot can happen over 6-8 weeks. Personally, I think a special session should be called immediately…the week of 7/24 would be groovy. As one who has yet to take a vacation in the past 5 years without being tied to a cell phone or laptop, I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for our Congress and an interruption in their vacations. I’m a friggin’ Profits Analyst and I can’t catch a break. If you’re one of the elite who is responsible for the state of the free world, sorry about your Martha’s Vineyard trip being cut short.
Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republican's facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.
ME: Amen. This election should NOT be a referendum on George’s performance as President which, on many issues, is disappointing at best. Do we REALLY want to elect a bunch of Feingolds, Boxers and Pelosis into Congress when we are perilously close to a MAJOR world conflict???
Gingrich says that as of now Republicans "are sailing into the wind" in congressional campaigns. He said that's in part because of the Iraq war, adding, "Iraq is hard and painful and we do not explain it very well."
ME: AMEN. Conventional wisdom has made this war strictly about WMDs (it wasn’t) and for every woeful editorial about the quagmire we’re in, there is a TERRIBLY insufficient reponse from the White House, the RNC, etc.
But some of it is due to Republicans' congressional agenda. He said House and Senate Republicans "forgot the core principle" of the party and embraced Congressional pork. "Some of the guys," he said, have come down with a case of "incumbentitis."
ME: If you want to know my true feeling on this, go through the entire blog. Fiscal Conservitism is lost. We should be paying INFINITELY more attention to this than to who broadcast the word “fuck” by a disgruntled fan at a live sporting event or who showed their aged titty on TV.
Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly, and to the Administration, about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.
He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, this week's bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III. He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans.
ME: Start now and keep hammering at it.
He said the reluctance to put those pieces together and see one global conflict is hurting America's interests. He said people, including some in the Bush Administration, who urge a restrained response from Israel are wrong "because they haven't crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war."
ME: I just said that a lot can happen over 6-8 weeks. As proof of this, about 24 hours ago, I was guilty of calling the Israeli response “disproportionate”. Whether that was the case or not, based on articles I’ve read today, it is escalating at a RAPID pace. The initial response may have been disproportionate, but the current actions of the Israelis isn’t…as evidenced by the fact that 8 folks in Haifa were just dispatched by Hezbollah rockets. I’m fully aware that many Lebanese have suffered similar fates…probably more than those in Haifa. Bottom line, the attempt to force the return of 2 Israeli soldiers has resulted in the death of quite a few Lebanese and Israeli citizens.
"This is World War III," Gingrich said. And once that's accepted, he said calls for restraint would fall away:
"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."
ME: His declaration may be a tad premature, but we are certainly on the brink and it should be acknowledged as such.
As far as the comment about us talking it out while the others figure out how best to eliminate as many as possible is spot-on. Going back to the “liberal agenda” Newt spoke about earlier, he’s absolutely right. It seems that many of our Congressional Liberals have yet to figure out that talking just isn’t always good enough. ESPECIALLY when you’re dealing with an enemy who is incapable of being reasoned with.
(In the interest of political correctness, I am NOT saying that you can’t reason with all Muslims. There’s over a billion of them…some of them have to be reasonable. I AM saying that you can’t reason with Muslim extremists. Despite the fact that the extremists are the minority, I have yet to see an adequate response from the majority. Accordingly, I don’t have any real regrets about blanket comments.)
( In the interest of brevity, I’m leaving out the less relevant portions of the article. Wanna read it? Here it is.)
"The line I think every Republican should use is, 'X knows their record, they just hope you don't,' which is actually the line I used in my winning race in '78. I'm a historian. I don't do anything new. I just imitate. I guarantee you there are 60 or 70 Democrats, if their districts thoroughly understood their record, they'd lose this year even though people aren't happy with Bush. Because people aren't suicidal. ..."
"While people understand that while they may be irritated with Republicans, we at least broadly share their values and visions and the left is just out of touch with reality. I think then you have a totally different debate by October, if we have the nerve to do it. ... There's going to be a national conversation in October. The only question is whether it's the Republicans defining it or whether we have some nutty idea that we can run local races, and so the entire definition is on the left."
ME: Most appropriate quotes of the article.
UPDATE: I tried to get a comment today from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee but no one ever got back to me. This evening, Kelly Steele, spokesman for the state party, did respond and sent this e-mail:
This is classic - that Gingrich's solution to Bush's failed leadership is a different "marketing strategy" shows the true extent to which Republicans cannot be trusted to win the war on terror. Democrats believe we need a "tough and smart" strategy that makes 2006 a year of transition in Iraq and aggressively takes the fight to the terrorists, while Gingrich and Bush seek to elect a new crop of loyal rubberstamps - McGavick, Reichert, and Roulstone included - to blindly support and extend their monopoly on their "tough and dumb" conduct of the war in Iraq and the larger battle against global terrorism.
ME: A little campaign advice for the Democrats: If you truly believe that you have a “tough and smart” strategy to succeed in Iraq AND to deal with the issues we, as a GLOBAL COMMUNITY, face, you can show that you place a higher priority on the future of the world than on your election chances by actually telling us what it is. So far, the only two strategies I’ve heard from the Democrats is “Stay the course” (and we know how well that’s working for Lieberman right now) or “Cut and run”.
This harkens back to John Kerry in 2004:
Kerry: “I have a wonderful strategy to make the world an altogether better place.”
Moderator: “Well, tell us about your ideas.”
Kerry: “Oh no, no, no. I can’t let you know that until I’m elected President”.
…to which 63,264,221 voters sighed a “screw you” and RE-ELECTED one of the most polarizing Presidents we’ve ever had.
Seriously…if a Democrat ever hopes to get a vote from me (and the other 60+ million voters out there who tend to vote Republican), PLEASE give me a reason that you deserve my vote other than “George Bush blows donkeys, nobody likes him, everybody hates him, he should eat worms and I’m not George Bush.”
Gingrich says it's World War III
Posted by David Postman at 12:54 PM
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.
"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.
ME: The only real place that I disagree with Gingrich on this is that we can afford to wait for the first week of September. I’m sure that Newt’s thoughts are from a political standpoint…wait until we’re closer to elections to take a hard-line on this issue, but an awful lot can happen over 6-8 weeks. Personally, I think a special session should be called immediately…the week of 7/24 would be groovy. As one who has yet to take a vacation in the past 5 years without being tied to a cell phone or laptop, I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for our Congress and an interruption in their vacations. I’m a friggin’ Profits Analyst and I can’t catch a break. If you’re one of the elite who is responsible for the state of the free world, sorry about your Martha’s Vineyard trip being cut short.
Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republican's facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.
ME: Amen. This election should NOT be a referendum on George’s performance as President which, on many issues, is disappointing at best. Do we REALLY want to elect a bunch of Feingolds, Boxers and Pelosis into Congress when we are perilously close to a MAJOR world conflict???
Gingrich says that as of now Republicans "are sailing into the wind" in congressional campaigns. He said that's in part because of the Iraq war, adding, "Iraq is hard and painful and we do not explain it very well."
ME: AMEN. Conventional wisdom has made this war strictly about WMDs (it wasn’t) and for every woeful editorial about the quagmire we’re in, there is a TERRIBLY insufficient reponse from the White House, the RNC, etc.
But some of it is due to Republicans' congressional agenda. He said House and Senate Republicans "forgot the core principle" of the party and embraced Congressional pork. "Some of the guys," he said, have come down with a case of "incumbentitis."
ME: If you want to know my true feeling on this, go through the entire blog. Fiscal Conservitism is lost. We should be paying INFINITELY more attention to this than to who broadcast the word “fuck” by a disgruntled fan at a live sporting event or who showed their aged titty on TV.
Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly, and to the Administration, about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.
He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, this week's bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III. He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans.
ME: Start now and keep hammering at it.
He said the reluctance to put those pieces together and see one global conflict is hurting America's interests. He said people, including some in the Bush Administration, who urge a restrained response from Israel are wrong "because they haven't crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war."
ME: I just said that a lot can happen over 6-8 weeks. As proof of this, about 24 hours ago, I was guilty of calling the Israeli response “disproportionate”. Whether that was the case or not, based on articles I’ve read today, it is escalating at a RAPID pace. The initial response may have been disproportionate, but the current actions of the Israelis isn’t…as evidenced by the fact that 8 folks in Haifa were just dispatched by Hezbollah rockets. I’m fully aware that many Lebanese have suffered similar fates…probably more than those in Haifa. Bottom line, the attempt to force the return of 2 Israeli soldiers has resulted in the death of quite a few Lebanese and Israeli citizens.
"This is World War III," Gingrich said. And once that's accepted, he said calls for restraint would fall away:
"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."
ME: His declaration may be a tad premature, but we are certainly on the brink and it should be acknowledged as such.
As far as the comment about us talking it out while the others figure out how best to eliminate as many as possible is spot-on. Going back to the “liberal agenda” Newt spoke about earlier, he’s absolutely right. It seems that many of our Congressional Liberals have yet to figure out that talking just isn’t always good enough. ESPECIALLY when you’re dealing with an enemy who is incapable of being reasoned with.
(In the interest of political correctness, I am NOT saying that you can’t reason with all Muslims. There’s over a billion of them…some of them have to be reasonable. I AM saying that you can’t reason with Muslim extremists. Despite the fact that the extremists are the minority, I have yet to see an adequate response from the majority. Accordingly, I don’t have any real regrets about blanket comments.)
( In the interest of brevity, I’m leaving out the less relevant portions of the article. Wanna read it? Here it is.)
"The line I think every Republican should use is, 'X knows their record, they just hope you don't,' which is actually the line I used in my winning race in '78. I'm a historian. I don't do anything new. I just imitate. I guarantee you there are 60 or 70 Democrats, if their districts thoroughly understood their record, they'd lose this year even though people aren't happy with Bush. Because people aren't suicidal. ..."
"While people understand that while they may be irritated with Republicans, we at least broadly share their values and visions and the left is just out of touch with reality. I think then you have a totally different debate by October, if we have the nerve to do it. ... There's going to be a national conversation in October. The only question is whether it's the Republicans defining it or whether we have some nutty idea that we can run local races, and so the entire definition is on the left."
ME: Most appropriate quotes of the article.
UPDATE: I tried to get a comment today from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee but no one ever got back to me. This evening, Kelly Steele, spokesman for the state party, did respond and sent this e-mail:
This is classic - that Gingrich's solution to Bush's failed leadership is a different "marketing strategy" shows the true extent to which Republicans cannot be trusted to win the war on terror. Democrats believe we need a "tough and smart" strategy that makes 2006 a year of transition in Iraq and aggressively takes the fight to the terrorists, while Gingrich and Bush seek to elect a new crop of loyal rubberstamps - McGavick, Reichert, and Roulstone included - to blindly support and extend their monopoly on their "tough and dumb" conduct of the war in Iraq and the larger battle against global terrorism.
ME: A little campaign advice for the Democrats: If you truly believe that you have a “tough and smart” strategy to succeed in Iraq AND to deal with the issues we, as a GLOBAL COMMUNITY, face, you can show that you place a higher priority on the future of the world than on your election chances by actually telling us what it is. So far, the only two strategies I’ve heard from the Democrats is “Stay the course” (and we know how well that’s working for Lieberman right now) or “Cut and run”.
This harkens back to John Kerry in 2004:
Kerry: “I have a wonderful strategy to make the world an altogether better place.”
Moderator: “Well, tell us about your ideas.”
Kerry: “Oh no, no, no. I can’t let you know that until I’m elected President”.
…to which 63,264,221 voters sighed a “screw you” and RE-ELECTED one of the most polarizing Presidents we’ve ever had.
Seriously…if a Democrat ever hopes to get a vote from me (and the other 60+ million voters out there who tend to vote Republican), PLEASE give me a reason that you deserve my vote other than “George Bush blows donkeys, nobody likes him, everybody hates him, he should eat worms and I’m not George Bush.”
posted by Big Bad Dad at 4:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home