Gingrich just thinks Obama won't go for the throat.

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not making excuses, unlike you, I actually watched the interview in question on the Libya situation, I'm not going to rely on what politi-scam tells me.

Here is an article:
GREENVILLE, S.C.—Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich slammed President Obama’s handling of the situation in Libya on Thursday, arguing that he president changed his position on the U.S. role only after the president did.

The one-time Georgia congressman and acknowledged presidential hopeful told an audience of GOP activists in this early presidential primary state that he had initially advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya as a "first step to defeating Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi." But he said he now questions the direction of the mission.

Gingrich charged that the White House has severely mishandled the situation by having "pitted our prestige against Qaddafi.” If Qaddafi survives, Gingrich added, “it is a significant defeat for the United States and it puts us in a very bad position.”

In an interview after the speech, Gingrich told National Journal that the media had taken his remarks out of context in alleging he was flip-flopping on Libya.

“I had one comment before March 3, which was we should favor freedom and we should help them indirectly using other forces and our own," he said, referring to Libyan rebels. "The president on March 3 said Qaddafi has to go and I said, 'If he uses the no-fly zone as the first step toward getting rid of him, then we should do it immediately.’ On the other hand, I am deeply opposed to having a no-fly zone as a humanitarian mission. It won’t work.... I think they’re in a total muddle," Gingrich said.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... s-20110324

He didn't flipflop, he is accusing Obama of being an incompetitent idiot.

That is a misinterpretation of Washington's farewell address. One should not pin their view of history on one word or phrase in a 30+ page document. The sum totality of the document doesn't tell the story of a nation that should mind it's own business. For those who want to read it for themselves: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/sena ... 106-21.pdf

America had a strong tradition of minding its own in what way?

1.) Attempting to steal Canada from Great Britain is not minding your own business.
2.) Stealing the SW away from Mexico out of slave-holder interest is not minding your own business.
3.) John Quincy Adams pushing the spanish to their breaking point over Florida and Calfifornia is not minding your own business.
4.) Declaring in the Monroe doctrine that the entire western hemisphere is our sphere of influence is not minding your own business.
5.) Making treaties with native americans only to end up supporting your citizens who wanted to expand westwards is not minding your own business
6.) Building up the largest Navy in the Americas after the Civil War to rule the western hemisphere and our commercial interests in Asia is not minding your own business.
7.) Ruling the Philippines after we were left with it from our battle with spain is not minding our own business.
8.) Going to war with the South is not minding our own business.
9.) Stealing Panama from Colombia to build a canal for commercial interests is not minding our own business.
10.) Annexing Hawaii is not minding our own business.

All of these Acts were before WWII.

Everyone sees the founders in their own image though, but the facts don't support isolationism, and nor does our Declaration of Independence which does not give a realpolitik approach to the world but rather an inherently internationalist one. The french was there with us with their rights of man but we took our concept to the world first and have been missionaries of its values since our arrival in this nation.




Every generation likes to create an idealized image of ourselves in the past that we are never living up to in the present. The same arguments - like the one above, that, essentially, we are deviating from an isolationist past, and our current actions have reduced american safety and international interest - hurled against Bush and his doctrine were the same arguments hurled against William McKinley and many presidents throughout our history.


Our impulse is determined by what our normative and average gut reaction throughout history, which has been: internationalist / interventionist. That is a progressive position.

and none of them are out of the western hemisphere.
you use so many action verbs it makes my head hurt.
you are obviously a sentimental anthropomorphizer.

maybe the argument that america should be isolationist has been "hurled" though out
the history of america because it reflects a valid and traditional view.
one that goes back to the founding. perhaps a minority view but I think the authentic and truly american one.
but rah rah go team I guess I don't got the spirit.

Come on jakob, that is a bit disingenuous. Just because not all of them were successfully kicked out of our hemisphere doesn't mean that it wasn't an intention of ours to do so. That is the point, and the underlying motivation. We did a pretty good job of kicking all of those monarchies and colonies out of our continent, and if Washington's Farewell's Address was taken seriously, we would have become an Empire ruling both the North and South American continents.

You certainly are right about isolationism being a constant alternative throughout American foreign policy history. Patrick Henry was very vocal about his resentment that our constitution was being used as a tool for becoming an Empire instead of worrying about liberty There were even those who objected to our Declaration of Independence being too hawkish because it didn't say just Americans had inalienable rights endowed by a creator... it said all of mankind had inalienable rights endowed by a creator, which makes us inherently internationalists by any definition of the word. This has come to define Americanism in that it is a word whose definition does not have any boarders with regards to who can use it. An example to contrast what I mean: a frenchmen is one because he lives in France, has French parents, and lived out French culture and values.

Your position is as American as the one I put forth, and it is a constant battle between our two positions throughout American history. Had your position won, we would be two separate countries, we wouldn't own California to Texas, we wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII even after pearl harbor, and so on. It's just that my position has won out every time because of our adherence to Liberalism and the Liberal way, our Declaration of Independence, and our evangelistic nature to 1.) look at the world and its problems as systemic to their lack of Democracy and 2.) go about recreating the world in our own image to ultimately end these problems.

Why am I a sentimental anthropomorphizer...

It's not about one interview. There were a series of interviews (thus the opportunity for the flip flop). The one you provided was a third case where he tried to reconcile the perception of a flip flop. You are not addressing his earlier comments.

I could look up and post his actual comments but there is no point. I don't think you would process anything I wrote and it would prolong this ridiculous interaction with you.

You mean snippets taken out of context from various interviews to make it look like he said something he didn't.

VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya?

GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.

GINGRICH: I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Think whatever you like sweetpea. Facts have never bothered you before.

http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_ne ... C2%A0time/



Two weeks later:



He went from saying "I would impose a no-fly zone this evening", to "I would not have intervened". The third interview he gave was his attempt to make those comments gell.

I see your friend is also getting dinged by the conservative Club for Growth for his previous support of health care mandates and subsidies for insurance. Maybe they are just taking his comments out of context too.

Yes, I believe you believe that.

I love the war he's started with the GOP over the Republican Medicare plan. Ryan said of Gingrich, ""with allies like that, who needs the left?" That is classic Newt. He's on 12 sides of every issue. His record on global warming is equally erratic.

His candidacy will be an epic disaster.

Obviously if both opinions are still current then one did not win.
and listen close this is the tricky part.
since your view is nearly identical to British imperialism and mine seems to be homegrown.
I am forced to say that mine is the uniquely American view even if most of our regimes have
been European style internationalists.

For the question of why you are sentimental beats me maybe you are more NT than me.
maybe you were raised wrong. Maybe you believe in a giant ghost that smiles on Americas murders.
I think there might be organic physiological reasons that Theism and Jingoism correlate so strongly.

Also, you can't impose a no-fly zone without the US knocking down the door. The Qatari air force would be shot out of the sky. Gingrich said impose it that evening. Something only the US and NATO could manage. And the Arabs are not under his command to impose anything. He would need to negotiate their involvement as Obama has done. That took weeks to get a few dozen jets. The only reasonable interpretation of "this evening" involves US/NATO forces.

If you believe that Gingrich meant he would "impose" a NFZ "this evening" with someone else's second or third rate air force, that would be even more embarrassing for him. That shows a lack of understanding of the military and diplomatic requirements of getting a NFZ together.

He's better off with the flip-flopper label.