Newt: The war on terror is a “phony war”
posted at 5:06 pm on August 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
“Phony” not in the Olbermann sense of being a contrived distraction from the “real issues” like the minimum wage but in the sense of having been fought clumsily and shortsightedly. His basic point is sound — Bush’s failure to leverage his political capital after 9/11 to push harder for energy independence is one of his biggest failures — but Newt’s also a greenie who understands that conservatives will consider any policy proposal so long as it’s presented in the context of defeating terrorism. Want renewable energy sources? Then show us how they make Osama cry.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a “phony war” on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
“None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war,” the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives…
Gingrich was interrupted with applause once, when he called for an end to the biting partisanship critics say has polarized national politics and paralyzed the workings of government.
“We have got to get past this partisan baloney, where I’m not allowed to say anything good about Hillary Clinton because ‘I’m not a loyal Republican,’ and she’s not allowed to say anything good about me, or she’s not a ‘loyal’ Democrat. What a stupid way to run a country.”
He reserved his most pointed criticism for the administration’s handling of the global campaign against terrorist groups.
“We’ve been engaged in a phony war,” said Gingrich. “The only people who have been taking this seriously are the combat military.”
Gotta say, if I thought he had any chance of winning, he’d probably be the pick.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Again, there is no war on terror. Terror is a tactic.
The war is against terrorists and the states that sponsor them.
Bush has failed to drive this home and has fought a PC war to date.
Valiant on August 3, 2007 at 5:10 PM
He would be my choice if I thought he was electable. That is why I am a Fred head.
Rustyw on August 3, 2007 at 5:14 PM
You say bologna, and I say baloney,
You fight the T war, and I say it’s phony
Bologna, baloney, the T war is phony,
Let’s clean the whole darn House.
Hening on August 3, 2007 at 5:16 PM
If only Bush were half as smart as Gingrich.
“War on terror or War on terrorism”: Like having, during WWII, a “War on Blitzkrieging” or a “War on Dive Bomberism”.
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Certainly it’s phony to the extent that “terror” is used as a wishy-washy, politically-correct surrogate for “Islamism.”
Blacklake on August 3, 2007 at 5:18 PM
That’s my man Newt, capable of stating even the most obvious truth in the most provocative words. He’s right of course, but more importantly the choice of words make people think. Not me of course, other people.
TunaTalon on August 3, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Stop with the pre-pooing of Newt as “unelectable”, especially at this early point. Go with the guy/gal that you think will be the best. If Newt got in, he’d be a lock for my vote. Newt/Huckabee… you have to believe.
I’m with Otter.
MT on August 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM
The “war on terror” turned into “let’s build democracies.”
We all see how well that’s been working.
I liked it better when Bush was against nation building. You can’t make out the terrorists, when you’re stuck in the forest of nation building.
moonsbreath on August 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Who do you think would get more grief Newt for saying something nice about Hillary or Hillary for saying something nice about Newt?
KelliD on August 3, 2007 at 5:23 PM
A true “war on terror” would’ve begun with the destruction al qaida in Tora Bora. It, also, would’ve coincided with the protection of our own borders.
I’m afraid that it’s just another meaningless term, like the “War on Drugs” and “We the People.” Heavy sigh.
:O|
OhEssYouCowboys on August 3, 2007 at 5:24 PM
One smart puppy. Is he still advising Fred?
Zach on August 3, 2007 at 5:25 PM
I have to say, I agree with him. Bush sqaundered the wealth in political capital he had after 9/11
conservnut on August 3, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Bush says macaroni
and I say bologna
Bush says fight for Iraqi
and I say that’s a phony
Bush says Islam is ROP
and I say Bush dead to me
Bush says he’ll build a legacy
and I say he’ll be the death of me
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Second that.
Newt has the best ideas for America.
Zach on August 3, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Nice to see that Newt is continuing on his quest to be the smartest guy in the room. He’s nothing but a blowhard. Always was and always will be.
Frank Nitti on August 3, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I dislike Newt at times…
He is wrong about renewable energy. China will just take up the slack.
We need to make those people cry for mercy from the God of the JDAM and US MARINE.
Tim Burton on August 3, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Second that
Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I don’t care what we are at war against,
just as long as we are at war. There is always somebody that needs killin’ and right now the bastages that knocked those buildings down and their cohorts are “IT”!
TheSitRep on August 3, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I am a strong Newt backer don’t really get the “he could never win” but hear it so much I gotta give some credence to it. However I don’t think Newt is really positioning for a Presidential run anymore. My take on Newts actions of late is that he is positioning himself for a Rove like position. Master planner architect.
Newt has the right ideas and can explain and back them up to both the gen pop and any opposition that wants to attempt a debate. Ideas is what put the Republicans into power in the early 90′s and going against not living up to those ideas is what took the power away in 06′.
C-Low on August 3, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I dislike the man, but love the politician. He clearly has a great mind.
RW Wacko on August 3, 2007 at 5:38 PM
You can not convince the American people you are at war if you do not defend your borders, you do not defend your way of life and you do not ask the American people to sacrifice. The USA population is crying out for a true leader. One that points to a victory condition. Newt is not it. We could be off the oil import bandwagon now if we had an American in the WH instead of a globalist. Bush says in the State of the Union we will wean ourselves off of oil imports and the Saudis throw a fit. What does our “leader” do. He placates the Saudis and says he didn’t really mean it. It was all just a stunt.
We should be building nuclear power plants, coal burning power plants, researching batteries, other energy storage devices. We should be giving GM and Ford 100′s of millions to build electric cars and give incentives to consumers to buy these cars. We should be drilling in Alaska, the rockies, off our coasts. We should be in Venuzuala trying to bring down the dictator. We should be in Nigeria securing the oil fields. We should tell Russia where to stick their flag and send an entire fleet to the North pole.
We should be forging allies and offering them incentives to be on our side. we should be forcing tarrifs on China to cool their economy, build up ours and reduce the worldwide demand for oil.
The pollyanna wish of the “new world order” globalists for one culture should be fought at every level. The WTO and UN should be abolished, income taxes should be decreased and tarrifs increased. Company profits should be taxed on a progressive scale depending on where those profits are produced. Mexico should be required to pay the US in damages for every illegal alien arrested, treated in our hospitals, etc. All religions that advocate mass murder should be banned. All hate crimes should be declared null and void. All people sucking at the government tit should be required to help rebuild our bridges and roads.
That would be a good start to make America understand we are at war.
unseen on August 3, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Newt aims at the stars
maybe only hits the moon
Bush aims at Mars
ends up looking like a loon
MB4 on August 3, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Amen!!!
MT on August 3, 2007 at 5:44 PM
That China and India would happily burn the fuel we wouldn’t is true, and is a problem for those who advocate reduction in oil consumption purely for (dubious) Environmentalist reasons.
However, it would have the positive of benefit of making places like China and India increasingly strategically invested in Middle Eastern stability, while the US could become less so. While I suppose this could also lead to new tensions over the fate of Israel, it would at least make America less politically dependent on hives of scum and villainy like Saudi Arabia.
Blacklake on August 3, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Blacklake on August 3, 2007 at 5:45 PM
If we build the technology to wean us off of oil we could sell it to China and India. We could form an explosion of exports from this country akin to the green revolution in the 1960′s. Our workers and our companies could be exporting to China and India high quaility expensive items instead of them exporting junk and posion to ours.
unseen on August 3, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Thank you for your post. I agree.
moonsbreath on August 3, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I love newt; but he is unelectable. don’t deny it. he wouldn’t have a prayer. the media would tear him apart.
remember how poorly the media treated him for the “wither on the vine” statement that was taken completely out of context? that’s a glimpse into how they’d deal with him now. he won’t win.
lorien1973 on August 3, 2007 at 5:54 PM
We paid for Shock and Awe.
And got Shuck ‘n Jive.
A “War On Terror” makes sense if you also explain that Terror is standing for Jihad.
And that Jihad is Nazi-ism with a stolen God.
Is Islamofascism.
In need of crushing before it gets any more power.
Such militant, theocratic lunacy only causes Trouble …so its leaders and fomenters must be squelched as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Why the leadership in the West is wandering aimlessly among fatuously wishful thinking about Islam, when there’s a deadly self-declared Islamic enemy to fight, is unsettling.
How are they remaining so insulated from reality?
Or sidestepping their instinct for survival?
Ask Nick Berg who the enemy is.
Or Theo Van Gogh.
profitsbeard on August 3, 2007 at 5:56 PM
No reasonable person can consider Newt Gingrich anything other than an idiot for claiming that ‘climate change’ is an urgent problem. What a f**king moron! Hopefully, this guy, who is an avowed statist, will fade away shortly.
Henry Bowman on August 3, 2007 at 5:59 PM
You know someone is truly speaking a powerful kind of truth when you even agree with his criticisms of you. Some of us here (me) are quite guilty of the partisanship jab. I remember wanting to puke when Newt was making appearances with The Pantsuit.
Jaibones on August 3, 2007 at 6:01 PM
At this point, I almost wish he’d just get in the race. I’ve gone sour on Fred, and Rudy’s the only other guy I think can stop Clinton.
BadgerHawk on August 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Newt fans check out his new website
http://americansolutions.com/
RushBaby on August 3, 2007 at 6:34 PM
On this one, my e-friend, we disagree. He is very, very smart, knows history like hardly any other, is a visionary without being a dreamer, can communicate well, can identify the key issues of any time, with historical perspective and reality, is a great tactition and politician.
He’s not disciplined in his personal life, and most are not forgiving. It’s in the nature of humans to wish to sweap in front of others’ houses, forgetting the not-so-spic-n-span of our own.
Realizing all this, and being very concerned about his country and the world, he’ll be a major force in the Fred camp.
Entelechy on August 3, 2007 at 6:37 PM
I like Newt, I think he’s the most qualified guy for the job. It’s too bad that people can’t see around the trash the MSM prints, which I think is superficial. It doesn’t surprise me about the left, but it does about the people who would normally be supporting him, it’s like the biased MSM has infected them too.
4shoes on August 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Profitsbeard and Unseen . ..thoroughly enjoy reading your comments. :D
heroyalwhyness on August 3, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Hening wins the thread, hands down.
TBinSTL on August 3, 2007 at 6:51 PM
this is true but the fact is if we did actually call it what it is “war against radical islamic terrorists” the left and a majority of the world would have a much more pronounced objection and backlash against us. They would say we are trying to change a religion, which we are, but it seems to me that this is one area that we do have to consider being a little more causious with our statements and declarations.
CaptainObvious on August 3, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Hey, as a former history prof, Newt might have been referring to what is called the “Phoney War” in the beginning of WWII.. roughly the period between the Nazi invasion of Poland in Sept 39 and their invasion of Russia in June 41, when there was not a lot of protracted ground fighting in theater, and when there was technically a “war”, but not much fighting really going on (apart from the air war called the Battle of Britain involving the RAF and the Luftwaffe)…
so he might mean that the Terror War is sporadic, episodic, and tends to recede in the mind as opposed to Iraq where we see body counts every day
Always Right on August 3, 2007 at 6:58 PM
And that’s not the half of it.
There are other issues, the baggage I could care less about it’s the fact that to get my vote he has to divest himself of his big time Corporate strings.
Speakup on August 3, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Correction: The Phoney War in WWII is generally held to have ended in May 1940 with the German invasion of France and the “Low Countries” and the defeat of allied forces and occupation of France (remember Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca…)
So it lasted for about 9 months from Sept 39 to May 40 with just limited fighting against the Nazis… hence the “Phoney War”
Always Right on August 3, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Speaker Gingrich is a gifted observer, participant, and analyst of American politics. He has talked and walked a coherent and practical conservative agenda of ideas.
This agenda, inspired by the Reagan phenomenon, won the day in 1994 and advanced the “Contract With America”. But the disaster of the 1995 government shutdown strategery provided liberals with cover to ignore conservative progress, or attribute it to Sunny Bill.
After 1996 a lot of political energy was spent on the personal foibles of President Wm.J.C., while Gingrich was caught in a “tu quoque” and fell from grace, and power.
He is not rehabilitated (yet?) as a politician and may never be. I think he knows this, and as a result he is liberated to speak his mind.
His loss is our gain
Randy
williars on August 3, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Jesus wept.
Professor Blather on August 3, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Bi-partisan politics is what we all want…..The problem is that Hillary’s (and the rest) down side are so revolting, any person with a shred of common sense has an extraordinarily difficult time giving her kudos for anything.
I’m waiting to see who is the leader in Bill O’s poll of who would we pick as our preferred dem candidate. I’ve looked at the poll, and I cannot pull the trigger and select either Clinton, Obama, nor Edwards.
csdeven on August 3, 2007 at 8:01 PM
There ya go. I’m sick of newtie. All he does is go around criticizing Republicans. He looks and sounds more and more like McCain every day, an egotistical a**hole desperate for attention and he knows the best way to get that attention from the media is to criticize Republicans.
forged rite on August 3, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Newt is my pick! The rest of the pack are a bunch of business as usuals…
sabbott on August 3, 2007 at 8:37 PM
If we had any balls like we did in the late 1800s, we would have taken the oil fields and let the Middle East (excluding Israel) go back to their poverty stricken hell hole.
Tim Burton on August 3, 2007 at 8:53 PM
As long as Newt was writing and speaking about solutions to America’s problems, he held my interest.
But, he appears to have done a major shift where he’s beginning to eat his own and has thrown Reagan’s eleventh commandment into the porcelain receptacle.
This can mean only one thing – he has decided to run – there is no other explanation for what he is doing.
Because of this new tactic, my interest in him is beginning to wane.
pocomoco on August 3, 2007 at 8:54 PM
How does Newt get so much praise for copying John Edwards? This basically the same thing that Edwards was saying a couple of months ago, but then Republicans and conservatives ripped him. What’s the deal here? Is it that one has a (D) and the other has an (R)?
sandman on August 3, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Ditto, Rusty.
petefrt on August 3, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Well I think most of us would agree… but as we know, polls asking the “would you definitely NOT”/”would you definitely – vote for” numbers for Newt are even worse than Hillary’s. Hillary’s “definitely NOT” remain at about 50% which is why I have a lot of hope the GOP nominee will win, but if I recall Newts are something like 65 or 75% “definitely NOT” vote for.
RightWinged on August 3, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Newt has always been like the hired gunslinger in a Western movie. The good folks of the town hire him to come in and clean out the baddies which he does. Unfortunately, instead of taking his money and riding off into the sunset, he decides to stick around and run the town himself. He then runs things into the ground. That’s what happened in 1995 with the government shutdown. Plus, he leads with his chin which makes an awful big target for the eggsucking liberal media. Not to mention his personal foibles. I don’t know what he’s trying to accomplish with his above remarks other than be the smartest guy in the room. Or, perhaps as a previous poster stated, he’s simply doing his John Edwards impersonation. If Edwards had said those words you’d all be raising hell. Gingrich says them and he’s a genius. As someone once said on some campy sci-fi TV show, “That does not compute.”
Frank Nitti on August 3, 2007 at 10:28 PM
I’ve come to the conclusion that Newt, as much as I love and admire his intellect, is an educated idiot.
For someone who rose to his power during the Reagan years, he has forgotten Reagan’s 11th Commandment.
Texas Gal on August 3, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Unseen ’08!
You have what sounds like a perfect plan for America, IMHO.
You payin’ attention, Fred!, and the rest?
techno_barbarian on August 3, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Reagan’s 11th is flawed. The 11th causes folks to keep saying the emperor is wearing clothes, when you and others darn well know he isn’t.
AZ_Redneck on August 3, 2007 at 10:55 PM
HOW DISINGENUOUS OF HOTAIR to make it seem like Newt was saying a war on terror is phoney!!!
He did no such thing. He said Bush is fighting the enemy in the wrong way, he did NOT say there is no such thing as a war on terror! You make it sound with your headline as if Newt thinks there is no enemy or that there is no actions we should be taking against al Qaeda.
I am ashamed of HotAir for this assistance to anti-American, anti-Security types the country over.
Warner Todd Huston on August 3, 2007 at 10:56 PM
I respectfully disagree. The sooner the beekeeper suit (thanks Billy Ed) is pulled off islamic ideology the better.
The problem is that too many people acquiesce to islam’s insistant, foot stamping claim that it is the superior ideology. I do not believe islam is at all superior in any way. I don’t have to, and I won’t pretend to. Evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary on every level.
Weakness is provocative, and right now I can’t help but think the world fervently believes America is at an historically weak period.
Where islam is concerned, this is a time for confrontation. We can be patient and wait for the much-hoped-for reformation, and islam will use that foolish weakness to continue their conquest unabated.
I am appalled at the lack of testicular fortitude I’m seeing virtually planet-wide. The jihadis have got to go.
techno_barbarian on August 3, 2007 at 11:04 PM
But this “war” is phony. We’re not allowed to hate the enemy that killed 3,000 people on 9/11, only their actions. Terror is a tactic and so the “war on terror” is like swatting gnats with a sledge hammer. Hell, Bush got caught saying Islamofascist once and CAIR straightened him out so fast his head spun around and he never uttered the phrase again. Folks, if you want to go to war you have to hate. You have to hate enough to bomb a country to rubble, killing hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions including non combatants. You have to hate enough to send your troops into the bloody cauldron of combat and hate enough to sustain the casualties in an effort to destroy your enemies and win. We are not at war.
Buzzy on August 3, 2007 at 11:34 PM
I’m sick of newtie. All he does is go around criticizing Republicans.
Republicans need criticism, and “eleventh commandment” be damned. It is absolutely true that the Republicans were in charge from 2001 to 2006, and they simply didn’t do a good job. The #1 Republican, Bush himself, has not done a good job at the #1 think we hired him to do – fight the war on terror – and he hasn’t done a very good job at anything else, either.
Quite simply, the Republicans need new leadership. McCain, Giuliani and Romney just ain’t gonna cut it.
If you not only can’t diagnose your own problems but aren’t even allowed to talk about them, you will never fix them.
Lehuster on August 3, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Lehuster I agree with you. To many republicans will not criticize bush or other republicans. It ends up sounding like an echo chamber where new ideas are not permitted. If Gingrich can stand up and say what needs to be said then more power to him. Perhaps if we can take a critical look at our selves we can attract more swing voters. Working with dems is not selling out conservative values.
elBarto on August 4, 2007 at 12:47 AM
It is nice to make calls for grand collective projects like energy independence. The trouble is that science, politics and, economics keep getting in the way.
I think the right should borrow a page from the left’s playbook. The reason we are in Iraq is because of the irrational fearmongering of nuclear energy.
Bill C on August 4, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Hm, Newt a greenie? I had alsmost forgotten. I hope no one on from that thread on Shep Smith and Global Warming had their “only liberals and science people (read: liberals) can believe in the tooth fairy and anthropogenic global warming” meme/talking point/logical fallacy shattered.
starflyer on August 4, 2007 at 1:46 AM
Number of successful al-Qaeda attacks on US soil since Sept.11 2001: 0.
That’s maybe not “winning”, but it sure ain’t losing.
Halley on August 4, 2007 at 5:01 AM
Newt is a superb historian, a decent general economist and his ability to apply the things he knows from those fields of study to politics is great.
But his grasp of science, personal honor and his willingness to fight the big battles is …. less than we need in someone to lead the greatest nation ever.
I’d love to see him in the next President’s Cabinet, like to see him as a daily pundit on Fox News or on Talk Radio for an hour or two. But he is WAY down on the list of people I’d pick to actually make any tough decisions.
LegendHasIt on August 4, 2007 at 5:02 AM
Loud Eggheads need not apply.
taterblade on August 4, 2007 at 8:30 AM
In the nine-2 hour sit downs Newt is suggesting it would be a landslide for him about halfway through the third debate. Hilary would probably find a reason to drop out of them around the fifth and the remainder of the campaign she would spend her time filing out paperwork to get her money back from the FEC. Except that’s not going to happen because conservatives won’t stand up to the liberals and change the whole campaign process(ie the youtube clown show). As a matter of fact, a forum where any of the republican cndidates could honestly and openly debate any of the democrats would end in a landlside republican victory. Except, aint gonna happen.
peacenprosperity on August 4, 2007 at 8:41 AM
That’s because the democrat party identified him as someone to fear and went out and systematically demonized him and destroyed his reputation. Running for president right now on the dem side is a plagiarist, an unidentified cocospirator, a nutjob from Cincy, a trial lawyer with one term of elected service, a social worker from Chicago who has never had a real job. And one of these guys is likely to be the next president because the msm, who we claim not to trust, keeps telling us which conservatives are electable and which are not.
peacenprosperity on August 4, 2007 at 8:46 AM
peacenprosperity on August 4, 2007 at 8:46 AM
The problem is that there are no conservatives running. Neither the Reps or Dems currently in power want a conservative to run because they would see their power decrease. It is time for the country to understand that most problems can not be fixed by government and in fact government makes the problems worse.
unseen on August 4, 2007 at 9:09 AM
It is not that we are unhappy with the choices we have, it is that all the choices both Reps and Dems are globalists/power grabbing politicians that look down their nose at Americans. All want the job for the things they can do with the power of the office. None want to limit that power nor return any of that power to the people where it belongs. All believe in the “new world order”, no one is talking about American vaules and ideas. No one looks at the founding documents as anything but a roadblock they must get around to gain more power.
unseen on August 4, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Unfortunately, Georgey is an oil guy and friends with the Wahabis(Saudis). He also thinks islam is an actual religion, a ‘religion of peace’ no less, instead of what it actually is – a cult of death and hatred. Lets get an actual consrervative in there. I thought Fred, now I’m hoping Newt.
countywolf on August 4, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Yeah but no more oil boycotts, no more “Our friends the Saudis”. Lots of advantages to be had.
aengus on August 4, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Maybe Newt isn’t as “unelectable” as people think. As far as his personal life is concerned, Americans are very forgiving (don’t forget Clinton’s endearing daliances) Very few candidates are articulating fresh ideas on the campaign trail (with the possible exception of Obama’s invade Pakistan plan) so it IS rather refreshing to listen to Newt. Maybe America would find Newt refreshing in 2008.
My problem with Fred is that though he looks and sounds presidential in the movies, I’m not yet convinced that he’s electable in reality….or is, in fact, RUNNING for the office….and that bothers me.
Ernest on August 4, 2007 at 12:06 PM
AZ_Redneck
Perhaps you misunderstand the point and intent of Reagan’s 11th Commandment. Republicans criticizing other Republicans in PUBLIC only undermines the Republican Party. As I’m sure you’ve noticed the Ds just love it when the Republicans fight with each other, which this group of Congress members since ’04 have done very effectively with each other. You don’t see the Ds criticizing each other in public do you? They have adopted Reagan’s Commandment and it served them well in ’06. My 2 Texas Senators understand that as well. They have very effectively stood their ground on issues when not in agreement with the Administration without being critical of the President in public.
Newt is a connoisseur of language and knows very well how to use words which causes me to look more to his motivation of why he says it instead of what he says. In this instance Newt criticizes the Bush Administration for fighting a ‘phony war’ and offers the evidence that 1) Islamic radicalism is on the rise. Well, this is a generational war against an ideology that we all know is spread around the globe and shared by a large group of the Muslim population. I would expect that radicalism would rise to a peak before it began to decline. 2) a national energy strategy would be a more effect means to fight the war. Now who here really believes that if we just stopped buying Saudi oil the Islamic radicals would go away and leave us alone? BTW, Newt’s position on this issue is no different from the Administration’s but we all know the D controlled congress isn’t going to do the things necessary to achieve that goal. The Rs had the opportunity to do something before ’06 and couldn’t stick together and get it done! 3) He reserved his most pointed criticism for the administration’s handling of the global campaign against terrorist groups … the only people serious about this war is the combat military. Well, we all know that’s not true. The combat is only one aspect of the fight and Newt knows that! I think the Administration has done very well in handling the global aspects of this fight. Everything from freezing assets to renditions to wiretappings .. and a heck of a lot of stuff we’re not privy to only because someone hasn’t leaked it yet, the building of a global network of intelligent agencies, the number of plots that have been uncovered locally that we do know about, etc.
But the motivation for why he’s saying this is in his criticizing the partisan snipping that is preventing the government from acting. And that is not Bush’s fault. He didn’t create the polarization. That is clearly the Ds fault. And it’s been that way since the 2000 election and we all know it. I think we all realize that if a Republican takes the WH in ’08, the Ds are going to come unglued. But Newt is trying to portray himself as a uniter but even a President Gingrich won’t prevent that.
You can’t unite the Republican voters behind you by criticizing fellow Republicans in public, especially the President. And I know that a whole lot of those here despise Bush for a number of reasons but the majority of Republican voters do not. Yes, they have war fatigue and yes they are majority against the Z visa in the immigration bill, but not the rest of it and they are still Republicans. That’s why I say his strategy .. to build the Republican base for ’08 .. is idiotic. You can’t build it by destroying it. So this is really just a ‘phony speech’.
Isn’t it surprising that Giuliani is leading the Republican polls? He clearly doesn’t represent the far right and he’s more of the fiscal conservative, social moderate in the bunch. But if you listen to him when he takes a position opposite the Administration, he doesn’t do it critically. That’s one reason why the Republican voters have rallied around him. BTW, Fred! follows Reagan’s 11th Commandment too.
Texas Gal on August 4, 2007 at 12:24 PM
It seems like a lot of people misunderstood what Newt meant by phony war. I think he went on to talk about the great efforts the military is being asked to give, while the civilians are off at the mall and the country club, and that we need to get off of oil and stop funding the enemy.
Wait, isn’t that one of the left’s faux arguments?
Jaibones on August 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM
NEWT Open mouth insert foot.
I you have to explain what he ment it bad communication not bad message.
KBird on August 4, 2007 at 7:12 PM
I don’t know if this thread is still active and I don’t mean to be contrary, but. I’ve heard Newt make this argument before and what nobody seems to want to ask is what sacrifice are the civilians supposed to be asked to make? Military draft? Ration Cards? Victory Gardens? Please explain that to me. Heck, Americans can’t even take $3/gal gasoline! If they only understood that most of Europe pays about $8/gal now and they have a much less expendable income due to the high taxes they pay for their welfare state.
I understand why Bush told us to go ‘to the mall and shop’. Yeah, he might have explained it a little better for those who don’t understand that the terrorists, ala AQ, have our economy in their headlights. They want to bring it down because they understand that is the way to defeat us. The best way for Americans to fight is to make the US economy strong.
And surely Newt understands this, Reaganomics and all. He would be better served as a potential ’08 candidate if he took that road.
I think that Bush has stated numerous times that we need to wean ourselves off of oil for the sake of our national security. But that doesn’t mean that if we stop buying Saudi oil those that want to kill or convert us will go away.
Texas Gal on August 4, 2007 at 11:49 PM