Posted on 03/26/2011 10:45:31 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Newt Gingrich Acknowledges ‘Contradictions’ On His Libya Views, ‘I Was Trying To Follow Obama’
March 26, 2011 12:06 PM
ABC News’ Michael Falcone reports:
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Potential 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich defended his shifting positions on whether the U.S. military should have intervened in Libya on Saturday, saying that he was responding to President Obama’s changing views.
“The fact is that on each day I was on television I was responding to where the president was that day,” Gingrich told a gathering of conservative Iowans. “And so obviously there were contradictions.”
“It’s true,” he added, “I was trying to follow Obama.”
The former Republican House Speaker originally expressed support for the enforcement of a no-fly zone using American military force, but earlier this week he appeared to flip-flop, calling President Obama’s decision to get involved an act of “amateur opportunism.”
His explanation: “If you had asked, ‘should we jump in the lake?’ I would have said ‘no.’ Once we jumped in the lake I said, ‘swim as fast as you can.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
And what would those political objectives be, exactly?
The fact of the matter is it's becoming clear - and many people warned well beforehand - that the "rebels" were and are supported by al-Qaeda. Put another way, our "no-fly" zone is giving aid, comfort and cover to some of the same men who have been fighting US service member in Afghanistan & Iraq for the last 9-years.
There was never and is not now a "mission" in this Libyan civil war for the US military. And, to anyone with even a passing understanding of the history of Libya the last 50-years, this would have been self-evident. Gaddafi has claimed - correctly as it turns out - that the Cyrenaican tribes have been working with al-Qaeda for years. In fact, Gaddafi has been a partner with the us, providing intelligence.
Calling for and implementing a no-fly zone was a huge tactical blunder on our mistake - and it's a blunder shared by Obama, Gingrich and Palin.
Yes, Palin called for a NFZ long before the UN and Obama agreed to it and long before Gaddafi beat back the opposition.
Isn’t the default answer to “should the U.S. military attack or start a war or get involved in a war” ..... no ?
Then, would not a POTUS gather advisors and analyze the situation to come up with self-defense-related reasons why U.S. military involvement is necessary ?
I think politicians have gotten so used to hearing “gotta support the troops” and so used to having troops overseas now for 10 years, that they knee-jerk just start sputtering about winning, coalitions, missions, etc., even if aroused from a sound sleep and have NO idea what war is being talked about or even if they’re dreaming or not.
I think because of the success and effectiveness of our military, ten years of war, and the fact that we don’t see uniformed war on our shores, it’s easy to think of war as some sort of team sport instead of a life and death struggle that could involve them directly. That’s where our military families have experience others don’t since they wind up seeing the effects of war on themselves.
The POTUS is best that rises above politics, which they can, politically, because it’s the last step in a political career. The political reality of war for our Republic that the founders wisely set up was that the President can be nimble and take emergency response actions to attacks on us in undeclared wars as they are Commander-In-Chief. But ultimately they are held accountable by a Congress which ultimately must hash out the pros and cons based on the political situation in the U.S. Of course, the Constitution designs our government in this way to limit the possibility of entering into wars on a whim.
One roadblock to politics accurately reflecting the will of the people is the Democratic party; it has to expunge anti-American radicals and any ties to them from within itself. If it can’t, perhaps in the coming years we will see them marginalized, and the current Republican party become a replacement for them, and a new party become the part of the “right” made up of Tea Party and conservatives of various stripes. If all true conservatives left the Republican party and joined such a new party, the Republican party would be marginalized unless it won over a lot of Democrats. Just food for thought; certainly the Tea Party effect is just starting to work on Congress and the Republican party is still moving to the right in their talking points, at least.
IMHO, in terms of the Libya war, and islam in general, I think that the most concerning threat to the U.S. is actually still communism. I think islam is merely a big skunk thrown in our face but not the real attack. Mind you, since we can’t entirely defeat islam with muslims living within our borders, it’s one mighty big, smelly skunk.
He just gave his political opponents all the ammo they need:
A photo of Neut (spelling intentional), with the caption “I was following Obama.”
And then the couch photo of him & Pelosi.
You know Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi is the rebel commander, how?
Because he says so?
He had some “contradictions” about NY 23 also.
Newt, grow up and start making your own decisions.
We gave Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi to Gaddafi. Gaddafi released Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi.
Alright, but when did this fact become apparent to all concerned - especially those without access to the latest intelligence briefings?
I first began hearing talk that the 'rebels' were in actual fact, Al Qaeda, only days ago. Prior to that, and while the situation was developing, the so-called uprising in Libya looked for all the world like a real citizen rebellion.
Of course, these revelations are embarrassing to every national level figure who's put their reputation on the line by making public comment about the Libya situation, but the administration has been in a better position to know the real facts on the ground, than anyone else. If anyone is to be excoriated for choosing the wrong response, it's them.
The opposition? You mean the al-Qaeda fighters, right?
"You know Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi is the rebel commander, how? "
This man is not unknown to European journalist, or to western intelligence agency. He heads a group called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which goes back to the mid-90s. Their ties to al-Qaeda, even before this latest adventure, are well documented. Of course, all this was in the article - and several others from the last several weeks - that you must not have bothered to read.
Incidentally, you might notice that the interview was done with an Italian newspapers. Libya, as I'm sure you are aware, was an Italian colony for much of the 20th Century. Many Libyans speak Italian, and there a cultural connection that continues to exist with parts of Libya and Italy.
Boneheads.
For more than a decade.
"I first began hearing talk that the 'rebels' were in actual fact, Al Qaeda, only days ago."
There were plenty of people - including former CIA Analyst Michael Schuerer(sp?) - who have said our involvement in this mess would be a huge benefit to al-Qaeda. People didn't listen.
The Middle East is a complicated place. Sometimes, the best thing to do is to wait, patiently.
May this sink his presidential aspirations once and for all.
she unlike Obama called for it for one reason and one reason only to kill the American murderer. the two policies could not be more different
"Newt Gingrich: A Follower, Not a Leader"
Well, it's more honest than most slogans.
Doesn’t seem to smart to help a large group of our enemies take control of Libya just to kill qdaffy.
The issue only came up because the europeans for some reason seem to want qdaffy out. I wonder, do the euros want qdaffy out because the revolutionary groups, i.e., muslim brotherhood, al-kada, etc., want to take over Libya (mb has large influence in u.k.), or did qdaffy say he would not sell euros oil ? At one point qdaffy did threaten to sell his oil to China and Russia.
Killing qdaffy should not trump all other American mideast policy.
She did? Uh. I'm not sure how you square that with her words - quoted from the Facebook entry just above...
"NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here’s to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya."And, from Barry's own statement...
"Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people, and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians."
Now, how are those two "policies" different, again?
You're telling me that it's been clear for over ten years, that Al Qaeda has been trying to topple Kaddafi?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.