Oh crud...
Someone who is always rethinking their views is not ready for a WH run ... that is my opinion
When you fight a war you destroy the enemy and his property until he no longer can fight.
You do not go into his country and try to convince him that your political ideas for his country are right.
I always thought there was something a bit simplistic about the neo-con interventionist schtick and remember being somewhat perplexed and irritated by the glib assurances and confidence of its supporters.
I also admit to being uneasy and unsure about the interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq, thinking that we were biting off way more than we could chew and not seeing any way we could “win” in the long term because those places are simply not manageable in the sense that Western nations are.
I kept quiet (for the most part) because I told myself that the President and his advisors had access to far more information than I did, and if they felt these were necessary steps, I should settle down and let them get on with the job.
Now, with the clarity that hindsight brings, I think I was pretty much spot on, that my doubts about the Neocon platform have pretty much proven true, and that an isolationist, or at least minimal interventionist foreign policy would have served our interests much better.
Cold comfort now, but better late then never, I guess.
This is a man who is always trying to gage the direction of the parade and then acts like he organized it.
I say stop sending $$$ to all Islamic countries, withdraw from Afghanistan and let all those bastards remain in medieval times and keep fighting amongst themselves......
“I can respect an arrogant politician who occassionally admits he’s wrong....”
*****************************************************************
I agree and I’ve rethought my views regarding intervention in the Muslim countries. Let them settle their own disagreements. If Shia wants to murder Sunni and Sunni wants to murder Shia, so be it. The US should not be sending its youth and treasure to stand between the sides or to even pick sides.
If they want to create a hell-on-earth in which THEY can live, let THEM have at it. Let’s not support or oppose such idiocy. Let’s not accept the resultant waves of “political” refugees as immigrants—any of them who are dissatisfied can struggle to reform or change their country/society from within THEIR own countries.
If their lives become hellish enough, who knows, they might actually move toward modernizing their thinking.
Newt rethinks anything that he presumes will give him another shot at running for President, including wives, religion, and anything else.
ANY conservative with half a brain knew that our ongoing follies abroad, lacking any real achievable mission or conditions for victory, were in need of “rethinking” but we did it anyway.
Newt is adept at running to the front of a parade and pretending he is leading it. I doubt he’ll rethink that.
As would I, but in this instance Newt is wearing politician plaid as he speaks. He says he's thinking about his position after twelve years, doesn't actually do a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Remember he's a skilled orator and historian that chooses his words carefully. This is putting his wet finger up to test the direction of the political winds
Newt, get back to us when you've made your final considered position. Right now you sound like and unemployed couch potato telling his mom that he's thinking about getting a job.
Since the definition of NEOconservative is one who was previously a liberal, or is still a liberal on domestic issues, isn’t Gingrich misusing the term?
Doesn’t he mean he’s reconsidering his aggressive interventionist international views?
How does Newt get to the point of such muddled thinking, or is he just playing to the MSM, for whom “neocon” is just a meaningless insult?
“But my willingness to reach a conclusion is new.”
Translation: The money I got from Romney ran out so I need a new shtick.
I'm very happy he's coming around to see it this way.
Enough of this intervention and attempts at nation building.
The Marxist's policies are complete failures.
Stand with Israel, period.
Mr. Gingrich forgets the initial reasons for the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For those in Rio Linde, the reasons were for Iraq was Gulf War cease fire violations and Afghanistan was to get Osama Bin Laden. These were valid reasons for war. Initially, neither was for “nation building”.
If Congress had declared war, there would have been a specific goal to attain, after which additional Congressional approval would have been required for further military action, such as “nation building”. But modern politicians in Congress have spinelessly chosen to bypass the wisdom of the Founding Fathers so as to avoid responsibility. They have passed military action authorizations rather than declarations of war that essentially surrender the power to use the military to the POTUS.
Perhaps military power wielded as a policy tool in the hands of liberal incompetent “leadership” like the Clintons (either or both) and obama (susan rice??? john kerry??ygbsm) is worse that isolationism
that is the real error
There is nothing wrong with the Speaker.
Why don’t Romney and Rove and their antiwoman,
BACKSTABBING team, rethink their hatred of conservatives
and women???
Why not? Because Romney and Rove work for Soros and Obama.
You saw it in 2008, and 2009, and 2010, and every year
thereafter.
Yes, I’ll give him props for changing his mind on this.
While I support alliances and swift retaliatory measures against those who do us harm, we cannot keep trying to bring democracy to countries where it is not in their interest or our own.
Who are we to export democracy anyway? Look at how corrupt our system has become. Fourth branch bureaucracy and fifth branch media. Robert Mugabe’s method isn’t the only way to hijack the democratic process.
In addition, this attitude enables cultural malcontents to become cultural imperialists and begin forcing sick agendas onto countries with a far firmer grasp on morality than us.
I agree. You ain't gonna make these Arabs like us. Bomb them, get out and if needed go back in. Too many of our boys have come home permanently disfigured or dead for this nation building crap.
Theoretically, the purpose of nation-building was to create a world that was safer for the US. Having stable, more human-rights friendly countries was seen as creating stability throughout the world and promoting US interests.
The problem is that we long ago dropped US interests from the list of important things and furthermore we didn’t go far enough even when we were in a position to change a country’s culture. Look at Iraq: we could have at least given them the ideal of a secular state but instead we let them enshrine Islam in their constitution, thereby paving the way for chaos as the different Islamic factions fought over who got to be in charge. The same is true of Afghanistan, where we achieved the same result by basically abandoning the people who supported things like free speech, freedom for women, etc. because they might be perceived as conflicting with Islam. The US military really wasn’t allowed to go ahead with the mission of imposing order and we ended by creating an even more dangerous situation.
Nation building is one of those things that you either have to do all the way - or not at all. And US interests have to be primary. In any case, our military is now so weakened that we don’t even have the capacity to do it anymore, so it’s a moot point.
The founding lawyers never rethought their philosophy since at least 1787 and have never had to look back; straight ahead big gubmint ever since w/few, if any bumps in the road!
;)
Semper Trvth !!!!!
Dick G
*****
He still doesn't get it. It doesn't matter how hard or easy it is to create democracy in the Middle East. When the entire culture is dedicated to destroying everything you hold dear, allowing them to vote is simply stupid in the first place.