Gingrich's Evolving Position on Libya

Puppycow · 24th March 2011, 06:12 PM

Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya

Quote:

Earlier this month, former Speaker of the House and current presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was hammering President Obama for not intervening in Libya. Asked, “what would you do about Libya?” Gingrich responded:

Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.

. . .
Now that Obama has initiated a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich has completely reversed his position with no apparent explanation. He told Politico over the weekend — less than 24 hours after Obama took action — that “it is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity.” This morning on the Today Show, he said plainly, “I would not have intervened”:

GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. … The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Is that clear enough?

Puppycow · 24th March 2011, 06:13 PM

There's a video too:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

leftysergeant · 24th March 2011, 06:52 PM

Gingrich has the same relationship to reality as the average twoofer. It's what he needs it to be at the moment.

KoihimeNakamura · 24th March 2011, 07:43 PM

To be fair, you CAN change your mind overnight.

DavidJames · 24th March 2011, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

To be fair, you CAN change your mind overnight.

True, it's especially common when you realize your opponent has done what you wanted.

leftysergeant · 24th March 2011, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

True, it's especially common when you realize your opponent has done what you wanted.

Especially when you are overwhelmed with a need to destroy your opponent at any costs, collateral damage be damned.

BeAChooser · 24th March 2011, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is that clear enough?

Sure. It's a good example of taking quotes out of context in an attempt to discredit Gingrich, who I suspect you liberals fear may actually run for President (because he'd very likely beat Obama and anyone you put up as a candidate, if he does).

Here was the context on Fox News back on March 8th:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presi...libya-gay-marr

Quote:

VAN SUSTEREN: But first let me ask you about Libya. It's in the news. The president has said that military options with NATO are not off the table. What would you do about Libya?

GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Qaddafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. I mean, the idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept this administration is. They were very quick to jump on Mubarak, who was their ally for 30 years, and they were confused about getting rid of Qaddafi. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.

VAN SUSTEREN: And why do you think -- you say you think it's ineptitude is why the pause or there's different political...

GINGRICH: Look...

VAN SUSTEREN: ... or different diplomacy?

GINGRICH: I think the most generous comment would be ineptitude. It's also an ideological problem. The United States doesn't need anybody's permission. We don't need to have NATO, who frankly, won't bring much to the fight. We don't need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening. And we don't have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes. And then we have to say publicly that he is gone, that the military should switch sides now, and we should help the rebels. And if that means getting them weapons or whatever it means, the fact that there's no more Libyan air power and the fact that the United States has publicly come out for decisively replacing him, I suspect the military will dump him.

Later that same day he told another interviewer: "This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with."

In that context, what he said was entirely reasonable. Spot on. If we'd done what he said then … if the President has exercised real leadership and acted promptly and decisively, instead of being a deer in the headlights, then in all likelihood, Ghaddafi would now be gone. The rebels would be in control with the US viewed as their savior. But instead of following that advice, Obama continued to dither … because that's what Obama does anytime he's faced with a tough foreign policy decision. He dithered because he wants to pass the responsibility off on someone else's shoulders in case anything goes wrong, but still take the credit for any success. And so yet another week went by with the situation for the rebels steadily deteriorating before Obama or NATO or anyone, other than Gaddafi, finally doing anything. And so now we have a mess, a stalemate, where Gaddafi may end up remaining in control of much of the country and oil, and where US forces may be permanently involved in defending a rag tag group of rebels with little chance of winning without us putting "boots on the ground", which has now been categorically ruled out by Obama.

Now in THAT context, look at Gingrich's Today Show statement. Look at ALL of what he said, not just one sentence taken out of a long interview. Here's is the portion of the exchange (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/261848...27087#42227087 ) where that "I would not have intervened” quote came came from:

Quote:

Host: Do you think Mohammar Ghaddafi has to go as a result of this military intervention?

Gingrich: I think that now … uh … let me draw a distinction. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Ghaddafi. I think there were a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Now, grant you, that certainly seems to be flip flop. However, Gingrich has explained it thus:

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpps/new...23-gc_12458062

Quote:

The two statements are not a contradiction, Gingrich wrote on his Facebook page Wednesday afternoon, after political bloggers began to accuse him of flip-flopping.

The former lawmaker used the occasion to suggest the problem lies with President Barack Obama.

The US had a variety of non-military tools to weaken Col. Moamar Ghadafi prior to Obama's March 3 declaration that the Libyan leader should step down, Gingrich said. That is why, Gingrich wrote, he told NBC this week that he would not have intervened with military force in Libya.

But once Obama said Ghadafi had to go, the non-military option was no longer available, because the president had "put the prestige and authority of the United States on the line," Gingrich wrote.

And that is why he had said on March 7, just after Obama's statement, that the US needed to get involved immediately.

Gingrich said his bottom line was this: He wishes the US military had not gotten involved militarily in Libya. But now that it has, "any result less than the removal of Gadaffi from power will be considered a defeat. For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through."

And that seems credible in context, so I believe him.

And in your hunt to damage Gingrich, you missed the important part of what he said on the Today Show:

Quote:

Gingrich: Having decided to go there, if Ghaddafi does not leave power, it will be a defeat for the United States. It will lengthen our engagement. It will increase our costs and notice, by the way, at least according to this morning's papers, the White House refuses to even tell Congress whether they are going to ask for a supplemental to pay for the war. So, I'm just suggesting to you that they currently are in an argument with our allies over who runs the war. They currently are not willing to tell the Congress how much it's going to cost and whose going to pay for it. They can't agree internally on what their goals are. Uh, this is about as badly run as any foreign operation we've seen in our lifetime.

And I think he is entirely correct. Obama has stepped in it big time. Because whatever label they try to put on it, we are at war. We have attacked a foreign power. And it could be a long war, if some of the military experts are correct. We are at war with a power that that once was developing WMD and which engaged in terrorism. So the question now becomes when will Ghaddafi try to take it to our shores? And what form will his attack on us take. Is Obama concerned about that? Hmmmm?

Puppycow · 24th March 2011, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Sure. It's a good example of taking quotes out of context in an attempt to discredit Gingrich, who I suspect you liberals fear may actually run for President (because he'd very likely beat Obama and anyone you put up as a candidate, if he does).

Please, please, please DON'T nominate Gingrich. Anyone but that man. Please! Anyone but Gingrich! I'm begging you!

KoihimeNakamura · 24th March 2011, 09:06 PM

Oh, that's lovely. Apparently with notifications I can see ignored people.

Anyway, moving right on. I do note Gingrich's backpedaling was a bit inspired, but that's to be expected.

leftysergeant · 24th March 2011, 10:17 PM

The blithering idiot was criticising Obama for trying to get NATO on board before doing anything, then he criticises him for not trying to get some other coalition to help.

But fat boy can't be too specific about that part, can he? What othere assets should Obama have tried to bring into the fray with us.

It all comes down to the fact that Obama shsowed some initiative to actally strengthen our military alliances and not act like the big scarey bully on the school grounds.

He still sounds like he is dumping on Obama just to dump on him.

He is of no more use to the country now than he was when he was trying to get rid of Bill Clinton.

TragicMonkey · 25th March 2011, 05:04 AM

Gingrich? He's still around? I thought he expired with his "Contract With America" twenty years ago.

Upchurch · 25th March 2011, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Sure. It's a good example of taking quotes out of context in an attempt to discredit Gingrich, who I suspect you liberals fear may actually run for President (because he'd very likely beat Obama and anyone you put up as a candidate, if he does).

Wow, that's almost sig material there. The sad part is that you are probably just enough over the edge to believe that is true.

eeyore1954 · 25th March 2011, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Please, please, please DON'T nominate Gingrich. Anyone but that man. Please! Anyone but Gingrich! I'm begging you!

That same feeling goes for many of the republican hopefuls.

Crossbow · 25th March 2011, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Sure. It's a good example of taking quotes out of context in an attempt to discredit Gingrich, who I suspect you liberals fear may actually run for President (because he'd very likely beat Obama and anyone you put up as a candidate, if he does).

... snipped for brevity ...

And I think he is entirely correct. Obama has stepped in it big time. Because whatever label they try to put on it, we are at war. We have attacked a foreign power. And it could be a long war, if some of the military experts are correct. We are at war with a power that that once was developing WMD and which engaged in terrorism. So the question now becomes when will Ghaddafi try to take it to our shores? And what form will his attack on us take. Is Obama concerned about that? Hmmmm?

Gingrich for President ...

Wow! That sure is a great idea!

If Gingrich gets the Republican nomination, then I pledge $200.00 to his campaign.

TragicMonkey · 25th March 2011, 07:02 AM

I feel a Gingrich/Palin ticket would be a powerhouse dynamo of excellence in leadership.

Pythonic · 25th March 2011, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

To be fair, you CAN change your mind overnight.

True. But it's clear he's going to criticize Obama regardless of Obama's decision. It's political positioning not a true opinion on his foreign policy.

Upchurch · 25th March 2011, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Gingrich for President ...

Wow! That sure is a great idea!

If Gingrich gets the Republican nomination, then I pledge $200.00 to his campaign.

No, no! You need to contribute to his nomination campaign. If he were to get the nomination, the general election is pretty much a foregone conclusion (barring, you know, a meteor strike or something).

Crossbow · 25th March 2011, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

No, no! You need to contribute to his nomination campaign. If he were to get the nomination, the general election is pretty much a foregone conclusion (barring, you know, a meteor strike or something).

Oh come on now!

The entertainment value of two quitters like Gingrich (a serious womanizer) and Palin (a "Mama Grizzly") trying to explain why they are really, really, really serious this time is well worth the pledge that I would make.

Chaos · 25th March 2011, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya

Is that clear enough?

Strange, that... Democrats have been accused of "flip-flopping" for less.

Biscuit · 25th March 2011, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Gingrich? He's still around? I thought he expired with his "Contract With America" twenty years ago.

Oh gingrich would clearly trounce Obama! With Obama hovering around 50% job approval and a whooping 28% favorability rating for the newtster.

poll

I think the majority of people can see through the smoke screen of right wing criticism. Looks like I may need to start printing the old "no newt is good newt" bumper stickers!

I Am The Scum · 25th March 2011, 10:30 AM

Politifact has awarded Gingrich a full flop.

It's fairly indicative of modern right-wing politics in America. Just do whatever Obama is not doing.

My God... The Republicans are political hipsters.

dudalb · 25th March 2011, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Oh gingrich would clearly trounce Obama! With Obama hovering around 50% job approval and a whooping 28% favorability rating for the newtster.

poll

I think the majority of people can see through the smoke screen of right wing criticism. Looks like I may need to start printing the old "no newt is good newt" bumper stickers!

50% job approvel is normally considered a death sentence for a sitting President, but the way things are going it looks as though 2012 will be an exception.

TragicMonkey · 25th March 2011, 10:45 AM

I think it's worth noting that 100% of all U.S. presidents pursued a policy of not being Newt Gingrich. Perhaps Gingrich ought to take heed of that and try it himself.

BeAChooser · 25th March 2011, 10:51 AM

As you can tell from this thread, leftists sure dislike Gingrich, don't they folks?

Perhaps what leftists are so vocal about not liking is what we need?

MysterOnyx · 25th March 2011, 10:57 AM

BeAChooser,

So, you're saying that Gingrich was opposed to military involvement until Obama left us with no other option?

Biscuit · 25th March 2011, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

As you can tell from this thread, leftists sure dislike Gingrich, don't they folks?

Perhaps what leftists are so vocal about not liking is what we need?

That would actually be 72% of americans dislike newt.

Biscuit · 25th March 2011, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

50% job approvel is normally considered a death sentence for a sitting President, but the way things are going it looks as though 2012 will be an exception.

The claim the Newt could beat Obama was what I was addressing. If 50% is a death sentence what is 28%?

leftysergeant · 25th March 2011, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Perhaps what leftists are so vocal about not liking is what we need?

Well over 90% of us don't like Chinese toys with lead paint. So, by your reasoning, it is okay to expose your chidren to the risk of plumbism.

Upchurch · 25th March 2011, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

As you can tell from this thread, leftists sure dislike Gingrich, don't they folks?

Who are you talking to? Imaginary audience?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Perhaps what leftists are so vocal about not liking is what we need?

I bet leftists would be very vocal about not liking poo in their food. Do you think perhaps we need poo in our food?

johnny karate · 25th March 2011, 11:32 AM

As a tribute to BAC, I will now address all my posts to an imaginary person named Gary.

So how about this Newt Gingrich character? He's a real piece of work, isn't he, Gary?

Upchurch · 25th March 2011, 11:37 AM

Y'see, Gary, BAC is desperate to validate his world view by trivializing anything that challenges it as, say, jealousy or envy. The fact is, Gingrich is a sleaze bag of a human being, don't you think, Gary?

sarge · 25th March 2011, 12:22 PM

Let me get this straight.

In a different thread, you argue that Obama was premature in sending forces to Libya,
then in this thread you argue that Newt was correct to say that Obama was too slow to send forces to Libya and that Newt was also correct when he later said that Obama was too quick to send forces to Libya.

I think your cognitive dissonance alert system is broken.

MysterOnyx · 25th March 2011, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by sarge

Let me get this straight.

In a different thread, you argue that Obama was premature in sending forces to Libya,
then in this thread you argue that Newt was correct to say that Obama was too slow to send forces to Libya and that Newt was also correct when he later said that Obama was too quick to send forces to Libya.

I think your cognitive dissonance alert system is broken.

From what BeAChooser posted, it seems that Newt wasn't criticizing Obama's decision to use militaristic action. Rather, he was criticizing Obama's delay in taking a non-militaristic action. Once Obama had waited too long (according to when Newt thinks non-militaristic action was no longer an option), Newt was in favor of doing whatever necessary.

Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem like an actual flip flop. When it was still an option, Newt favored non-militaristic action. When it got to the point when militaristic action was the only option, he favored that. In hindsight, Newt wouldn't have waited as long as Obama and would have used non-militaristic methods to out Ghadaffi.

Do I have that right?

Thunder · 25th March 2011, 02:34 PM

Gingrich's Evolving Position on Libya
Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya

dude...he IS a Republican, after all.

folks, this action did not take place in a political vacuum. its after Iraq and Afghanistan, which are not going well.

The USA is NOT the most popular nation in the Middle East, and Obama wanted to make sure this was not an America-only or even a Britain/USA only operation.

I think for the most part, Obama was right to make sure we had a wide-coalition including Arab states, supporting the action. The no-fly zone came no sooner than it could have come.

I know Republicans and Conservatives like to just go it all alone and damn/screw the world, because America is always right and Jesus is on our side, but that hasn't worked out soo good for us lately.

MysterOnyx · 25th March 2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya

If my analysis of this is correct, then the above headline is misleading. It should read, "Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening Quickly in Libya, And Now Criticizes Him for Intervening Militarily In Libya"

BeAChooser · 25th March 2011, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by spaaron22

Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem like an actual flip flop. When it was still an option, Newt favored non-militaristic action. When it got to the point when militaristic action was the only option, he favored that. In hindsight, Newt wouldn't have waited as long as Obama and would have used non-militaristic methods to out Ghadaffi.

Do I have that right?

Essentially, yes.

leftysergeant · 25th March 2011, 04:33 PM

So, basicly the squeeky-voiced toad is saying that Obama should have done something sooner that did not involve lethal force but appparently, being the militarily uselss putz that he is, has not said what that non-lethal measure should have been.

So Republicon of him.

MysterOnyx · 25th March 2011, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

So, basicly the squeeky-voiced toad is saying that Obama should have done something sooner that did not involve lethal force but appparently, being the militarily uselss putz that he is, has not said what that non-lethal measure should have been.

If there's something to criticize Gingrich for in this instance, this would be it. He somehow not only knew how to take out Gaddaffi without military action, but he also knew when the time for such actions had expired. And yet, he hasn't really explained any of that.

leftysergeant · 25th March 2011, 04:55 PM

That Newt is a "professor" of some sort may explain something about the state of education in this country.

Drysdale · 25th March 2011, 05:26 PM

Is Newt still the speaker?

What year is this?

24th March 2011, 06:12 PM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,775	Gingrich's Evolving Position on Libya Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya Quote: Earlier this month, former Speaker of the House and current presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was hammering President Obama for not intervening in Libya. Asked, “what would you do about Libya?” Gingrich responded: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. . . . Now that Obama has initiated a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich has completely reversed his position with no apparent explanation. He told Politico over the weekend — less than 24 hours after Obama took action — that “it is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity.” This morning on the Today Show, he said plainly, “I would not have intervened”: GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. … The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces. Is that clear enough?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

24th March 2011, 06:52 PM	#3
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Gingrich has the same relationship to reality as the average twoofer. It's what he needs it to be at the moment.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

24th March 2011, 07:59 PM	#5
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,088	Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura To be fair, you CAN change your mind overnight. True, it's especially common when you realize your opponent has done what you wanted.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

24th March 2011, 08:10 PM	#6
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by DavidJames True, it's especially common when you realize your opponent has done what you wanted. Especially when you are overwhelmed with a need to destroy your opponent at any costs, collateral damage be damned.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

24th March 2011, 08:52 PM	#7
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Puppycow Is that clear enough? Sure. It's a good example of taking quotes out of context in an attempt to discredit Gingrich, who I suspect you liberals fear may actually run for President (because he'd very likely beat Obama and anyone you put up as a candidate, if he does). Here was the context on Fox News back on March 8th: http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presi...libya-gay-marr Quote: VAN SUSTEREN: But first let me ask you about Libya. It's in the news. The president has said that military options with NATO are not off the table. What would you do about Libya? GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Qaddafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. I mean, the idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept this administration is. They were very quick to jump on Mubarak, who was their ally for 30 years, and they were confused about getting rid of Qaddafi. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with. VAN SUSTEREN: And why do you think -- you say you think it's ineptitude is why the pause or there's different political... GINGRICH: Look... VAN SUSTEREN: ... or different diplomacy? GINGRICH: I think the most generous comment would be ineptitude. It's also an ideological problem. The United States doesn't need anybody's permission. We don't need to have NATO, who frankly, won't bring much to the fight. We don't need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening. And we don't have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes. And then we have to say publicly that he is gone, that the military should switch sides now, and we should help the rebels. And if that means getting them weapons or whatever it means, the fact that there's no more Libyan air power and the fact that the United States has publicly come out for decisively replacing him, I suspect the military will dump him. Later that same day he told another interviewer: "This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with." In that context, what he said was entirely reasonable. Spot on. If we'd done what he said then … if the President has exercised real leadership and acted promptly and decisively, instead of being a deer in the headlights, then in all likelihood, Ghaddafi would now be gone. The rebels would be in control with the US viewed as their savior. But instead of following that advice, Obama continued to dither … because that's what Obama does anytime he's faced with a tough foreign policy decision. He dithered because he wants to pass the responsibility off on someone else's shoulders in case anything goes wrong, but still take the credit for any success. And so yet another week went by with the situation for the rebels steadily deteriorating before Obama or NATO or anyone, other than Gaddafi, finally doing anything. And so now we have a mess, a stalemate, where Gaddafi may end up remaining in control of much of the country and oil, and where US forces may be permanently involved in defending a rag tag group of rebels with little chance of winning without us putting "boots on the ground", which has now been categorically ruled out by Obama. Now in THAT context, look at Gingrich's Today Show statement. Look at ALL of what he said, not just one sentence taken out of a long interview. Here's is the portion of the exchange (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/261848...27087#42227087 ) where that "I would not have intervened” quote came came from: Quote: Host: Do you think Mohammar Ghaddafi has to go as a result of this military intervention? Gingrich: I think that now … uh … let me draw a distinction. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Ghaddafi. I think there were a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces. Now, grant you, that certainly seems to be flip flop. However, Gingrich has explained it thus: http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpps/new...23-gc_12458062 Quote: The two statements are not a contradiction, Gingrich wrote on his Facebook page Wednesday afternoon, after political bloggers began to accuse him of flip-flopping. The former lawmaker used the occasion to suggest the problem lies with President Barack Obama. The US had a variety of non-military tools to weaken Col. Moamar Ghadafi prior to Obama's March 3 declaration that the Libyan leader should step down, Gingrich said. That is why, Gingrich wrote, he told NBC this week that he would not have intervened with military force in Libya. But once Obama said Ghadafi had to go, the non-military option was no longer available, because the president had "put the prestige and authority of the United States on the line," Gingrich wrote. And that is why he had said on March 7, just after Obama's statement, that the US needed to get involved immediately. Gingrich said his bottom line was this: He wishes the US military had not gotten involved militarily in Libya. But now that it has, "any result less than the removal of Gadaffi from power will be considered a defeat. For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through." And that seems credible in context, so I believe him. And in your hunt to damage Gingrich, you missed the important part of what he said on the Today Show: Quote: Gingrich: Having decided to go there, if Ghaddafi does not leave power, it will be a defeat for the United States. It will lengthen our engagement. It will increase our costs and notice, by the way, at least according to this morning's papers, the White House refuses to even tell Congress whether they are going to ask for a supplemental to pay for the war. So, I'm just suggesting to you that they currently are in an argument with our allies over who runs the war. They currently are not willing to tell the Congress how much it's going to cost and whose going to pay for it. They can't agree internally on what their goals are. Uh, this is about as badly run as any foreign operation we've seen in our lifetime. And I think he is entirely correct. Obama has stepped in it big time. Because whatever label they try to put on it, we are at war. We have attacked a foreign power. And it could be a long war, if some of the military experts are correct. We are at war with a power that that once was developing WMD and which engaged in terrorism. So the question now becomes when will Ghaddafi try to take it to our shores? And what form will his attack on us take. Is Obama concerned about that? Hmmmm?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

24th March 2011, 07:43 PM	#4
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,858	To be fair, you CAN change your mind overnight.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

24th March 2011, 09:02 PM	#8
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,775	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Sure. It's a good example of taking quotes out of context in an attempt to discredit Gingrich, who I suspect you liberals fear may actually run for President (because he'd very likely beat Obama and anyone you put up as a candidate, if he does). Please, please, please DON'T nominate Gingrich. Anyone but that man. Please! Anyone but Gingrich! I'm begging you!
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

24th March 2011, 09:06 PM	#9
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,858	Oh, that's lovely. Apparently with notifications I can see ignored people. Anyway, moving right on. I do note Gingrich's backpedaling was a bit inspired, but that's to be expected.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

24th March 2011, 10:17 PM	#10
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	The blithering idiot was criticising Obama for trying to get NATO on board before doing anything, then he criticises him for not trying to get some other coalition to help. But fat boy can't be too specific about that part, can he? What othere assets should Obama have tried to bring into the fray with us. It all comes down to the fact that Obama shsowed some initiative to actally strengthen our military alliances and not act like the big scarey bully on the school grounds. He still sounds like he is dumping on Obama just to dump on him. He is of no more use to the country now than he was when he was trying to get rid of Bill Clinton.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

25th March 2011, 05:04 AM	#11
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,092	Gingrich? He's still around? I thought he expired with his "Contract With America" twenty years ago.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

25th March 2011, 05:21 AM	#12
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Sure. It's a good example of taking quotes out of context in an attempt to discredit Gingrich, who I suspect you liberals fear may actually run for President (because he'd very likely beat Obama and anyone you put up as a candidate, if he does). Wow, that's almost sig material there. The sad part is that you are probably just enough over the edge to believe that is true.

25th March 2011, 06:46 AM	#13
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,121	Originally Posted by Puppycow Please, please, please DON'T nominate Gingrich. Anyone but that man. Please! Anyone but Gingrich! I'm begging you! That same feeling goes for many of the republican hopefuls.
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,121

25th March 2011, 07:02 AM	#14
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,294	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Sure. It's a good example of taking quotes out of context in an attempt to discredit Gingrich, who I suspect you liberals fear may actually run for President (because he'd very likely beat Obama and anyone you put up as a candidate, if he does). ... snipped for brevity ... And I think he is entirely correct. Obama has stepped in it big time. Because whatever label they try to put on it, we are at war. We have attacked a foreign power. And it could be a long war, if some of the military experts are correct. We are at war with a power that that once was developing WMD and which engaged in terrorism. So the question now becomes when will Ghaddafi try to take it to our shores? And what form will his attack on us take. Is Obama concerned about that? Hmmmm? Gingrich for President ... Wow! That sure is a great idea! If Gingrich gets the Republican nomination, then I pledge $200.00 to his campaign.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

25th March 2011, 08:26 AM	#16
Pythonic Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 188	Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura To be fair, you CAN change your mind overnight. True. But it's clear he's going to criticize Obama regardless of Obama's decision. It's political positioning not a true opinion on his foreign policy.

25th March 2011, 08:46 AM	#17
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Originally Posted by Crossbow Gingrich for President ... Wow! That sure is a great idea! If Gingrich gets the Republican nomination, then I pledge $200.00 to his campaign. No, no! You need to contribute to his nomination campaign. If he were to get the nomination, the general election is pretty much a foregone conclusion (barring, you know, a meteor strike or something).

25th March 2011, 08:55 AM	#18
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,294	Originally Posted by Upchurch No, no! You need to contribute to his nomination campaign. If he were to get the nomination, the general election is pretty much a foregone conclusion (barring, you know, a meteor strike or something). Oh come on now! The entertainment value of two quitters like Gingrich (a serious womanizer) and Palin (a "Mama Grizzly") trying to explain why they are really, really, really serious this time is well worth the pledge that I would make.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

25th March 2011, 09:19 AM	#19
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,778	Originally Posted by Puppycow Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya Is that clear enough? Strange, that... Democrats have been accused of "flip-flopping" for less.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

25th March 2011, 09:25 AM	#20
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Gingrich? He's still around? I thought he expired with his "Contract With America" twenty years ago. Oh gingrich would clearly trounce Obama! With Obama hovering around 50% job approval and a whooping 28% favorability rating for the newtster. poll I think the majority of people can see through the smoke screen of right wing criticism. Looks like I may need to start printing the old "no newt is good newt" bumper stickers!
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

25th March 2011, 10:30 AM	#21
I Am The Scum Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,549	Politifact has awarded Gingrich a full flop. It's fairly indicative of modern right-wing politics in America. Just do whatever Obama is not doing. My God... The Republicans are political hipsters.

25th March 2011, 10:37 AM	#22
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,843	Originally Posted by Biscuit Oh gingrich would clearly trounce Obama! With Obama hovering around 50% job approval and a whooping 28% favorability rating for the newtster. poll I think the majority of people can see through the smoke screen of right wing criticism. Looks like I may need to start printing the old "no newt is good newt" bumper stickers! 50% job approvel is normally considered a death sentence for a sitting President, but the way things are going it looks as though 2012 will be an exception.

25th March 2011, 10:45 AM	#23
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,092	I think it's worth noting that 100% of all U.S. presidents pursued a policy of not being Newt Gingrich. Perhaps Gingrich ought to take heed of that and try it himself.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

25th March 2011, 10:51 AM	#24
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	As you can tell from this thread, leftists sure dislike Gingrich, don't they folks? Perhaps what leftists are so vocal about not liking is what we need?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

25th March 2011, 10:57 AM	#25
MysterOnyx Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 320	BeAChooser, So, you're saying that Gingrich was opposed to military involvement until Obama left us with no other option?

25th March 2011, 11:20 AM	#26
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	Originally Posted by BeAChooser As you can tell from this thread, leftists sure dislike Gingrich, don't they folks? Perhaps what leftists are so vocal about not liking is what we need? That would actually be 72% of americans dislike newt.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

25th March 2011, 11:22 AM	#27
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	Originally Posted by dudalb 50% job approvel is normally considered a death sentence for a sitting President, but the way things are going it looks as though 2012 will be an exception. The claim the Newt could beat Obama was what I was addressing. If 50% is a death sentence what is 28%?
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

25th March 2011, 11:27 AM	#28
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Perhaps what leftists are so vocal about not liking is what we need? Well over 90% of us don't like Chinese toys with lead paint. So, by your reasoning, it is okay to expose your chidren to the risk of plumbism.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

25th March 2011, 11:32 AM	#30
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,827	As a tribute to BAC, I will now address all my posts to an imaginary person named Gary. So how about this Newt Gingrich character? He's a real piece of work, isn't he, Gary?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here. Last edited by johnny karate; 25th March 2011 at 11:34 AM.

25th March 2011, 11:37 AM	#31
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Y'see, Gary, BAC is desperate to validate his world view by trivializing anything that challenges it as, say, jealousy or envy. The fact is, Gingrich is a sleaze bag of a human being, don't you think, Gary?

25th March 2011, 12:22 PM	#32
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,341	Let me get this straight. In a different thread, you argue that Obama was premature in sending forces to Libya, then in this thread you argue that Newt was correct to say that Obama was too slow to send forces to Libya and that Newt was also correct when he later said that Obama was too quick to send forces to Libya. I think your cognitive dissonance alert system is broken.
	__________________ I'm a not-so-strict constructionist, fiscally conservative, social liberal. Exactly which party represents me?

25th March 2011, 12:59 PM	#33
MysterOnyx Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 320	Originally Posted by sarge Let me get this straight. In a different thread, you argue that Obama was premature in sending forces to Libya, then in this thread you argue that Newt was correct to say that Obama was too slow to send forces to Libya and that Newt was also correct when he later said that Obama was too quick to send forces to Libya. I think your cognitive dissonance alert system is broken. From what BeAChooser posted, it seems that Newt wasn't criticizing Obama's decision to use militaristic action. Rather, he was criticizing Obama's delay in taking a non-militaristic action. Once Obama had waited too long (according to when Newt thinks non-militaristic action was no longer an option), Newt was in favor of doing whatever necessary. Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem like an actual flip flop. When it was still an option, Newt favored non-militaristic action. When it got to the point when militaristic action was the only option, he favored that. In hindsight, Newt wouldn't have waited as long as Obama and would have used non-militaristic methods to out Ghadaffi. Do I have that right?

25th March 2011, 02:34 PM	#34
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Gingrich's Evolving Position on Libya Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya dude...he IS a Republican, after all. folks, this action did not take place in a political vacuum. its after Iraq and Afghanistan, which are not going well. The USA is NOT the most popular nation in the Middle East, and Obama wanted to make sure this was not an America-only or even a Britain/USA only operation. I think for the most part, Obama was right to make sure we had a wide-coalition including Arab states, supporting the action. The no-fly zone came no sooner than it could have come. I know Republicans and Conservatives like to just go it all alone and damn/screw the world, because America is always right and Jesus is on our side, but that hasn't worked out soo good for us lately.
	Last edited by Thunder; 25th March 2011 at 02:38 PM.

25th March 2011, 03:33 PM	#35
MysterOnyx Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 320	Quote: Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya If my analysis of this is correct, then the above headline is misleading. It should read, "Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening Quickly in Libya, And Now Criticizes Him for Intervening Militarily In Libya"

25th March 2011, 03:43 PM	#36
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by spaaron22 Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem like an actual flip flop. When it was still an option, Newt favored non-militaristic action. When it got to the point when militaristic action was the only option, he favored that. In hindsight, Newt wouldn't have waited as long as Obama and would have used non-militaristic methods to out Ghadaffi. Do I have that right? Essentially, yes.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

25th March 2011, 04:33 PM	#37
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	So, basicly the squeeky-voiced toad is saying that Obama should have done something sooner that did not involve lethal force but appparently, being the militarily uselss putz that he is, has not said what that non-lethal measure should have been. So Republicon of him.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

25th March 2011, 04:42 PM	#38
MysterOnyx Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 320	Originally Posted by leftysergeant So, basicly the squeeky-voiced toad is saying that Obama should have done something sooner that did not involve lethal force but appparently, being the militarily uselss putz that he is, has not said what that non-lethal measure should have been. If there's something to criticize Gingrich for in this instance, this would be it. He somehow not only knew how to take out Gaddaffi without military action, but he also knew when the time for such actions had expired. And yet, he hasn't really explained any of that.