• 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

Oh dear, the Republican primaries are going to be a lot of fun. Especially with the Huckabee/Romney hatefest. Throw in Ginrich and a little bit o' Palin and you have yourself a fantastic reality tv series. I know I'll be breaking out the popcorn.

Now to just get them all to live in a townhouse in Jersey for the whole thing...
 
spaaron22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

********! Newt was calling for a no fly-zone, that's a military op not a call to politely sit down and discuss our differences with the aid of a comfy chair and a nice spot of tea. Like the SecDef said, a no-fly zone starts by destroying Libyan anti-air defenses. How anyone could spin a call for a no fly-zone into non-interventionism is beyond me.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
********! Newt was calling for a no fly-zone, that's a military op not a call to politely sit down and discuss our differences with the aid of a comfy chair and a nice spot of tea. Like the SecDef said, a no-fly zone starts by destroying Libyan anti-air defenses. How anyone could spin a call for a no fly-zone into non-interventionism is beyond me.
Click to expand...

This is why I was asking for clarification. It seemed like Newt's call for a no-fly zone was when the non-militaristic deadline had passed. If this is true, then it isn't a flip flop.

Did he call for the no-fly zone before or after his deadline?

EDIT: Newt's deadline was defined as when Obama publically called for Gaddafi to go, which was March 3rd. Newt called for a no-fly zone on the 7th, suggesting that he was giving advice on the current situation (that is, military-action was the only remaining option at that time). His preference from the beginning would have been to use non-militaristic actions prior to calling for Gaddafi to go, as stated on March 8th.

So, technically, it wasn't a flip flop.
 
Last edited:
Part of the problem with this: "Gingrich's Evolving Position on Libya " is you left the R off of REvolving.
 
spaaron22 said:
EDIT: Newt's deadline was defined as when Obama publically called for Gaddafi to go, which was March 3rd. Newt called for a no-fly zone on the 7th, suggesting that he was giving advice on the current situation (that is, military-action was the only remaining option at that time). His preference from the beginning would have been to use non-militaristic actions prior to calling for Gaddafi to go, as stated on March 8th.

So, technically, it wasn't a flip flop.
Click to expand...

Sure, but only if you buy that Gingrich was giving practical advice and hypothetically stating what he'd like to do ideally, which I don't. The man's credibility is in question and I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he had simply "forgotten" to add the clarifying statement until after he started taking flak for it.

So, technically, it was a flip flop.

And by the way

BeAChooser said:
Sure. It's a good example of taking quotes out of context in an attempt to discredit Gingrich
Click to expand...

The man does a good job of discrediting himself. You should probably know, however, that criticizing two quotes and failing to believe a later statement of clarification doesn't constitute "takings quotes out of context".
 
Not just one flip-flop, but several!

Newt Gingrich's Libya Shift, Issue by Issue

. . .
On the effectiveness of air power:

"We don't have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes." -FOX News, March 7

"If they're serious about protecting civilians, you can't do that from the air. Qaddafi is going to use light infantry, he's going to use his secret police. He's going to be in the cities, he's going to be inside buildings. You're not going to be able to do that with air power. This is a fundamental mistake. And I think is a typical politician's over-reliance on air power." -FOX News, March 24
. . .
Click to expand...
 
Newt in no way is a flipflopper, he is sticking to his principle that no matter what Obama does it is the wrong thing to do. You are all just getting confused by thinking that this is at all about Libya.
 
Puppycow said:
"We don't have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes." -FOX News, March 7

"If they're serious about protecting civilians, you can't do that from the air. Qaddafi is going to use light infantry, he's going to use his secret police. He's going to be in the cities, he's going to be inside buildings. You're not going to be able to do that with air power. This is a fundamental mistake. And I think is a typical politician's over-reliance on air power." -FOX News, March 24
Click to expand...

Again, you taking quotes out of context. The context on March 7 was entirely different from that on March 24. On March 7, air power alone would have allowed the rebels to win. Ghaddafi's forces were in disarray and chaos. Rebels were advancing on every front. It was air power that stopped that, that gave Ghaddafi time to reorganize and reestablish control of his forces.

On March 24, the situation was entirely different. Now the rebels are demoralized and in chaos. Whereas Ghaddafis military has firmed up and appears to be the one advancing. Even the experts agree that air power is probably not going to stop Ghaddafi now, that this will now be a stalemate and that Ghaddafi may even be able to continue advancing ... unless we put boots on the ground.

Context.
 
first Newt wants an immediate no-fly zone, unilaterally declared and enforced by the USA.

but now, Newt wants the USA to respect Libya territorial sovereignty.

typical Republican.
 
BeAChooser said:
Again, you taking quotes out of context. The context on March 7 was entirely different from that on March 24.
Context.
Click to expand...

Yes, on Mrch 7th, Obama did not order military action. On March 24th, military action was underway. The situation was different, Newt only car es to oppose Obama, that is why Newt has to change his opinion on these issues.
 
BeAChooser said:
On March 24, the situation was entirely different. Now the rebels are demoralized and in chaos. Whereas Ghaddafis military has firmed up and appears to be the one advancing.
Click to expand...

And things are radically different since 25 March. Daffy doesn't have much for ADA now, and his tanks are vulnerable to air strikes.

The rebels know that we can come in and kick his ass any time we choose. The rebels know that they are not alone.

Daffy's mercs know that they are vulnerable. His regular army knows that they are not invincible because the air force no longer has their backs.

Read Clausewitz on "The Effects of Victory"before you make more inane comments on the balance of power now. The air strikes have to work some improvement on morale among the rebvels, and erode morale among the loyalist forces.

Even the experts agree that air power is probably not going to stop Ghaddafi now, that this will now be a stalemate and that Ghaddafi may even be able to continue advancing ... unless we put boots on the ground.
Click to expand...

What "experts" say that? Don't give me Newt, Rummy or Cheney the nosferatu, or I will give you

:dl:
 
BeAChooser said:
Again, you taking quotes out of context. The context on March 7 was entirely different from that on March 24. On March 7, air power alone would have allowed the rebels to win. Ghaddafi's forces were in disarray and chaos. Rebels were advancing on every front. It was air power that stopped that, that gave Ghaddafi time to reorganize and reestablish control of his forces.
Click to expand...

The context is very clear, on March 7th he was for a no-fly zone and on March 24th he was a against it.

BeAChooser said:
On March 24, the situation was entirely different. Now the rebels are demoralized and in chaos. Whereas Ghaddafis military has firmed up and appears to be the one advancing. Even the experts agree that air power is probably not going to stop Ghaddafi now, that this will now be a stalemate and that Ghaddafi may even be able to continue advancing ... unless we put boots on the ground.
Click to expand...

Really? Because that doesn't seem to be what Gingrich said. What Gingrich said was that he was opposed to intervention, not that Obama didn't act swiftly enough or that he would ideally like to not intervene.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...w-soon/2011/03/22/ABNC0lCB_story.html?hpid=z1

Four days of allied strikes have battered* Gaddafi’s air force and largely destroyed his long-range air defense systems, a top U.S. commander said Tuesday. But there was little evidence yet that the attacks had stopped regime forces from killing civilians or shifted the balance of power in favor of the rebels.

The Libyan military’s attacks and the mounting civilian deaths call into question whether the internationally imposed no-fly zone can achieve its goal of protecting civilians, let alone help loosen Gaddafi’s grip on power.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-power/2011/03/25/AFfTVUYB_story.html?hpid=z5

This script is playing out again in Libya. Western air power can easily annihilate Moammar Gaddafi’s modest air force and prevent him from using massed armor and artillery in the open. But once the dictator’s forces move into populated areas and resort to fighting among the civilian population, the utility of air power diminishes rapidly. Especially when the multilateral action is based on protecting civilians, rather than defeating one side, a dictator willing to mix ruthless fighters with innocent noncombatants poses serious challenges to limited applications of precision air power.

The result could easily be a drawn-out, grinding stalemate. Libyan geography makes this more likely than usual: Vast expanses of open desert separate its urban centers, making it difficult for either side to move force over a distance and use it to take and hold enemy territory far from one’s base. Gaddafi has the transport but cannot safely move logistical convoys over miles of exposed roadways with coalition aircraft overhead. The rebels are safe from air attack but lack the organization, equipment or logistical capacity to project such power themselves over such distances. This could produce a deadlock in which neither side can prevail — but where the West is committed to flying apparently endless, apparently fruitless sorties while Gaddafi crushes any remaining opposition in the cities he controls and the rebels cry out for assistance from their sanctuaries.

In this scenario, the West will ultimately confront the same dilemmas that arose before Sept. 11. How long can Western leaders continue an apparently indecisive air campaign in the face of pleas for escalation from allies on the ground? In Kosovo, NATO was on the verge of a divisive debate over escalating to a ground invasion when Slobodan Milosevic delivered the alliance from its crisis by folding unexpectedly. Will Gaddafi stand fast longer? If so, what then? Nothing in the ostensibly new Obama doctrine offers an escape from this underlying issue. Multilateral burden-sharing might make a stalemate look cheaper, but it cannot transform a stalemate into painless victory.
Click to expand...

http://www.kilil5.com/news/26752_analysis-recent-history-points-t

"Air power has its limitations," said Henry Wilkinson, lead analyst at security consultancy Janusian. "It will not inflict a decisive blow, nor prevent attacks on civilians in all cases. Only ground forces can take territory, provide local security and impose their political will upon an enemy."
Click to expand...

http://www.freedom1590.com/article.aspx?id=305516f7-0a27-41d2-b3c2-3c856f115bec&catid=0

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. military officer acknowledged on Sunday that a no-fly zone over Libya could create a stalemate with Muammar Gaddafi's forces even as Western warplanes halted an anti-rebel offensive at Benghazi.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the CBS program "Face the Nation" that the air mission in the North African country has a clear, limited scope.

But Mullen said the end-game of military action in Libya was "very uncertain." Asked if it could end in a stalemate with Gaddafi, Mullen replied: "I don't think that's for me to answer. Certainly, I recognize that's a possibility."
Click to expand...

How's that for an expert, lefty? :D
 
BeAChooser said:
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? ;)
Click to expand...


Your insults are losing their punch. Go back to sleep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom