Newt Gingrich Acknowledges ‘Contradictions’ On His Libya Views, ‘I Was Trying To Follow Obama’

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.”

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.’”

The opposition? You mean the al-Qaeda fighters, right?

You have yet to demonstrate the involvement of Al Qaeda, in the rebellion.

"You know Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi is the rebel commander, how? "

Yes, please answer the question.

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.

It was Gaddafi who negotiated a "new code for Jihad" with the incarcerated, Al Qaeda associated, LIFG leaders, including Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi.

It was then Gaddafi who released al-Hasidi and the rest of LIFG.

It is Al-Hasidi who is now bragging that he back with Al Qaeda, commanding the rebels.

There are plenty of news stories that say, that others, former Gaddafi generals, are the ones who are leading the rebellion.

As you said, it is important to get the facts right, where ever they may lead.

So I've asked you to demonstrate, outside of al-Hasidi's own braggadocios words, how we know for a fact that al-Hasidi is the rebellion leader.

...and you haven't done that.

"You're telling me that it's been clear for over ten years, that Al Qaeda has been trying to topple Kaddafi?"

Um, yep. al-Qaeda wants to replace all leaders of Islamic countries with a singular, Sunni theocracy. That is their goal. And, it's not a secret to anyone who has just a remedial understanding of Middle Eastern politics.

Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi, Qatar and several others countries that have either monarchical or autocratic forms of government are on the al-Qaeda hit-parade.

And, to anyone with more than a passing understanding of 19th & 20th Century history, as it relates to North Africa, would understand that Libya, not unlike Iraq, is more tribal in nature, with the autocrat possessing consolidated power only in parts of his country. In other parts, areas that used to be known as Fezzan, Cyrenaica and Tripolitani before the Ottomon Empire and subsequent colonizations by Italy, they are much more aligned with the historical tribes. Libya, exactly like Iraq, is not an Arab (or Muslim) creation. It's a European creation; A consequence of European colonization. Hell, Libya isn't an Arab word, it's Greek word.

Al-Queda flourishes in these tribal areas in Libya, just as they did in Iraq and just as they did in the Hindu Kush.

"So I've asked you to demonstrate, outside of al-Hasidi's own braggadocios words, how we know for a fact that al-Hasidi is the rebellion leader."

Wow, you just don't get it. Maybe this is why you seem to be defending Palin's call for a no-fly zone, without actually defending Palin's call for a no-fly zone.

There is not A rebellion leader because there is not A rebellion. There are MANY rebel factions, most just taking advantage of the chaos - chaos that is the normal state in tribal dynamics, and the state that Gadaffi (like Hussein) quashed through force. Do you not understand the concept of tribes? There are Eastern tribes, Southern tribes and Western tribes.

Jihad has flourished in these tribal areas for more than a decade. Again, don't take my word for it, read what Mark Steyn has to say about it...

"Now suddenly he’s got to go — in favor of “freedom-loving” “democrats” from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya — which, according to West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq. Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them.

What do these Jihadists call themselves, al-Qaeda or something else? Who cares? They're still JIHADISTS. So, while you're stuck on a proper name, the JIHADISTS are receiving air support from American military aircraft while they work to overthrow a detestable guy. Unfortunately, in that part of the world those are the choices you have - bad, corrupt dictators or Islamic Jihadists (irrespective of what name they choose to call themselves).

...it's not a secret to anyone who has just a remedial understanding of Middle Eastern politics.

Reading the balance of your post, it's clear to me that you've got a lot more than a "remedial" understanding of Middle Eastern politics. In fact, you appear to be quite well educated in that subject.

What may be ever so clear to you, isn't all that well understood by the general public. I've read at FR daily for years and years, yet had my head spun around by what's happening in Libya.

The truth of what's really going on with all of these uprisings seems to be coming into sharper focus by the day. I contend that the information the public's been getting up to this point has been next to worthless, for the purposes of making a correct analysis of events.

That said, I'm not surprised that anyone who hasn't studied Middle East politics in depth, has made errors in judgment about what's going on there, or what the US ought to do about it. Obviously, any US politician who wants to speak up on the subject had better consult with some real Middle East experts before doing so again.

"I contend that the information the public's been getting up to this point has been next to worthless, for the purposes of making a correct analysis of events."

That's true. American media outlets are horrible - not just the slant they offer, but the content as well. The (collectively) try to distill very complicated issues to a digestible level for what they perceive to be the "average" reader, and in the process they've distilled the accuracy of anything they report.

European newspapers, while maintaining a bias (a bias that's not hidden, they're quite open about it) do a MUCH better job of reporting a complete picture.

"Obviously, any US politician who wants to speak up on the subject had better consult with some real Middle East experts before doing so again."

That would be sage advice. There used to be a time in American politics when political rhetoric ended at the country's shores. Politicians would be much more reticent to speak out about unfolding, exigent events in defference to the sitting President. That started to end about three decades ago with Reagan's first term, and it's been getting progressively worse ever since.

Obama, probably not by intention, was doing the right thing in Libya - nothing. But, then people like Hilary, and Palin and a host of other (new)-conservative and hard-left interest groups started to raise the rhetoric for intervention. Obama, the weakling he is, caved. He should have waited.

However, this underscores an uncomfortable truth about leading the free world - there is no user's manual. Sometimes it's wise to wait, and sometimes it's fatal to wait and it takes a great deal of information and expertise to know when to do what. In this regard, it's seems that (most) everyone who aspires to be president or actually is president, got it wrong.

Now suddenly he’s got to go — in favor of “freedom-loving” “democrats” from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya — which, according to West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq. Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them.

"Freedom loving democrats" aren't my words. Perhaps you can find somebody who thinks that and you can lecture them on the subject.

BTW, the West Point study only had records of 700 foreign fighters. There were thousands of foreign fighter in Iraq. There were other studies about the foreign fighters in Iraq. When all the studies are taken together, they show that the number of foreign fighters from Libya are not in a greater proportion than the other Arab countries.

"You're the one who said they were working with Al Qaeda."

No champ, I did document that. I provided a link to a (very) credible publication that reports on a interview with a known Libyan Jihadist.

You're the one who refuses to believe it. That's fine, believe what you wish. But, you're statement that "I didn't document it" is fallacious.

There are Jihadists in Libya, and there have been for decades. Just because you don't believe it (for some indiscernible reason), really isn't my problem.

Yes, I agree, you're unbelievable.

"When all the studies are taken together, they show that the number of foreign fighters from Libya are not in a greater proportion than the other Arab countries."

You're argument , as best I can tell, is that there are Jihadists in Libya but they're not a lot of Jihadists in Libya because the American military could only document 700 (only 700? - that's a battalion-size force, BTW) in Iraq. Is that about the sum of it? ""Freedom loving democrats" aren't my words. Perhaps you can find somebody who thinks that and you can lecture them on the subject."

Yeah, they're not mine either - They're Mark Steyn's. Did you miss that part?

how? why because of the part you left out on purpose:

But nothing on the slaughter in Libya? The protests in many places in the Middle East affect regimes that have cooperated with the U.S. on issues from peace with Israel, fighting al Qaeda, hosting our military forces, or cooperating against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gaddafi’s Libya is different. For four decades, this tyrant has held power. Gaddafi was Osama before Osama hit the scene. He ordered the bombing of a disco in Germany to kill Americans. When he paid the price for that – after President Reagan rightly ordered retaliation – he directed his agents to blow up Pan Am Flight 103. They did, and more than 250 innocent people died. Gaddafi tried to come in from the cold in 2003 – scared by the demonstration effect of Iraq. But we should have no illusions. Gaddafi is a brutal killer and Libya – not to mention the world – would be better off if he were out of power. Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror.

Like I said. Palin position was crystal clear she saw the issue as a chance to destroy the murdering dictator. Obama never did. the two policies are completed different.

If the end result of either Palin's or Obama's position puts Al Qaeda in charge, what difference will it make why they held the position?

Seems like Obama's position is to leave Gaddafi in charge. He waited until the rebels were pushed back by Gaddafi forces, and he refuses to strike Gaddafi's compound.

As far as Palin goes, if you can document Al Qaeda's involvement then you may have a point, although even in that case, I don't think she would leave them "in charge".

"Palin position was crystal clear she saw the issue as a chance to destroy the murdering dictator. "

How, and then what. Saddam Hussein survived a no-fly zone for almost 13-years. The only thing that removed Hussein from power were American boots on the ground.

And, after Gadaffi leaves, who's going to take over?

Don't you think these are things one should think through before (allegedly) calling for regime change?

Then again, maybe you don't given the person you (seem) to be defending.

BTW - How can I "leave something out" when I've linked to the ENTIRE press release?

there wasn't a rebel army on Saddam's doorstep when Bush issues the no fly zone. By the time Bush did it he was trying to save what was left of the uprising. Like Obama bush acted like a wimp while people died. which led to a 13 year NFZ. A true leader seizes the opportunities when presented not wait a month to make up their minds....

As far as who comes after? who cares. The murderer you know is not better than the murderer you don't. If the new leaders continue the American killing they too will be dealt with.

Palin was not calling for regime change she was calling for justice.

"You're the one who said they were working with Al Qaeda."

No champ, I did document that. I provided a link to a (very) credible publication that reports on a interview with a known Libyan Jihadist.

You're response is nonsense.

I didn't say that the publication wasn't credible.

I didn't say that guy isn't a Jihadist.

I did say that a boast by a known terrorist is not proof of that boast.

Simple comment really. Yet you seem to have a hard time understanding it.

You're the one who refuses to believe it. That's fine, believe what you wish. But, you're statement that "I didn't document it" is fallacious.

Okay, you think that terrorists don't boast and lie and I think that they do.

There are Jihadists in Libya, and there have been for decades.

Gee, no kidding? There are Jihadist in many countries including this country.

You're right - unfortunately there's no manual for leading the free world. Leaders are fallible, and won't always get it right. Especially when their country hasn't confronted the fact that they essentially have no concrete, coherent national policy on what to do about the growing radical Islamist threat to world peace, and our own national security.

In the decades since radical Islam first reared its ugly head, no one in our national leadership has ever confronted it head on, including those presidents who have ordered military actions in answer to the threat.

It's been one reactive adventure after another, none of them achieving any objective with resulted in a lessening of the threat, but all providing just enough enturbulation of the radicals to promote even more growth in their numbers and hostility towards us.

As a nation, we're obviously insane, as we keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. After 9/11 it should be apparent to everyone that we're not dealing with rational people. Taking the doves' approach will only get us all killed, and trying to take the middle road, as we appear to have done over the last couple of decades, will only lead us to the same fate more slowly.

I say we need to treat this Islamic threat the same way we treated Togo and Hitler in WWII, or we're dead.

"Palin was not calling for regime change she was calling for justice. "

Let's see, Palin was (your words) calling for Gadaffi's murder, but she wasn't calling for regime change?

You grasp the concept that he's a dictator, right. He is the regime.

It is fascinating to watch you try to explain how Palin's policy is different from Obama's. Fascinating. And entertaining.

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.