Who exactly is making this a Gingrich vs. Powell? Other than those that demonized him for saying it, it was Newt's defenders, if you could have called them that, who were trying to focus his comments on the lack of roads being paved in Afganistan under State's authority. Your buddy Powell wouldn't even address the content of Newt's comments, only beat a strawman that because he mentioned going to Syria was wrong, that Newt obviously was bashing Bush. No data about the roads, no repudiation, no championing State Dept sucesses, just the plain old politics of person destruction. No one at that time wanted to criticisize Bush, and Powell knew it and hid behind his legs. It was a cheap shot and I have lost all respect for Powell after that and no longer give him the bennefit of the doubt in these diplomatic failures.
akin to laying down the law. How, exactly, is traveling to the foreign capital laying down anything other than moral authority and the threat of immenent force? You may not see it as a sign of weakness, but I promise you the Arab world did. If they came to meet him in Washington, maybe-but this was a dumb move and nothing since then has proven Newt wrong about this point of contention that the Powell Amen Choir repeated.
Newt had the underlying problems right, but he could have brought them to light much better. How exactly? Could he have possibly distanced the topic from Powell personally any more than he did in his comments, before and after the infamous speech? Not without changing the content of his remarks, which everyone agrees were dead on.This story has been pure spin, brought forth by State's powerful friends in the liberal media shifting the gravity of the discussion. An amazing feat to quote this speech yet never address the meat of the discussion. Now that is spin!
They used your allegiance to Bush against you. No offense, but you've been played.