• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gingrich's Evolving Position on Libya

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,024
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya

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.​
Click to expand...

Is that clear enough?
 
Gingrich has the same relationship to reality as the average twoofer. It's what he needs it to be at the moment.
 
Puppycow said:
Is that clear enough?
Click to expand...

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-pres...estions-about-infidelity-faith-libya-gay-marr

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.
Click to expand...

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/26184891/vp/42227087#42227087 ) where that "I would not have intervened” quote came came from:

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.
Click to expand...

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

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpps/news/gingrich-i-didnt-flip-flop-on-libya-20110323-gc_12458062

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."
Click to expand...

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:

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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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).
Click to expand...

Please, please, please DON'T nominate Gingrich. Anyone but that man. Please! Anyone but Gingrich! I'm begging you!
 
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.
 
Gingrich? He's still around? I thought he expired with his "Contract With America" twenty years ago.
 
BeAChooser said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
BeAChooser said:
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?
Click to expand...

Gingrich for President ...

Wow! That sure is a great idea!

If Gingrich gets the Republican nomination, then I pledge $200.00 to his campaign.
 
Crossbow said:
Gingrich for President ...

Wow! That sure is a great idea!

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

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).
 
Upchurch said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.

;)
 
TragicMonkey said:
Gingrich? He's still around? I thought he expired with his "Contract With America" twenty years ago.
Click to expand...

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom