Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich Acknowledges ‘Contradictions’ On His Libya Views, ‘I Was Trying To Follow Obama’
Posted on 03/26/2011 10:45:31 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
click here to read article
Let me be clear, Newt: no nomination for you!
so I supposed you would worry about who to replace Toto with or hitler?
Can you document that this man is lying? Please, provide a link. See, two can play that childish game.
My point is that I wouldn't use the boast of a terrorist to determine the extent of Al Qaeda's involvement in the rebellion. Lot's more information needs to be gathered. And there is other information.
The guy could be lying or he could be telling the truth.
My over arching point on the subject regardless of what Obama, Newt or Palin think is the following.
We need to remove Gaddafi the terrorist who has American blood on his hands.
We also need to remove anybody else associated with Al Qaeda.
Anything short of that and we are returning to our old pre 9/11 ways.
If there was someone(s) worse than Toto or Hitler waiting in the wings? Yeah, you betcha.
Whether it's El Abidine Ben Ali, Saleh, al-Assad, al-Assad or Gaddafi, Iraq has clearly demonstrated that there are people, many people, much, much worse than the dictator de jour.
The fact that you'd ask the question speaks volumes about how little you understanding our current problems. And, the fact that Palin would say that "We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America", speaks to how little she understands about the region and its political dynamics.
ok you will leave hitler in power. that’s good to know. says it all right there.
Even assuming that the rebels in Libya aren't joined to Al Qaeda, it's naive in the extreme to think that if the rebels can't win on their own they'll be able to retain power without lots of money, equipment and blood from and of Americans.
So, let's say we're wrong and getting rid of Gadaffi won't immediately leave Al Qaeda in charge.
Unless we install someone and back them up with overwhelming firepower, i.e., American lives, someone or something will quickly step in to fill the power void.
I don't think she would leave them "in charge".
Unless she'd commit ground troops, how would she leave anyone in charge?
I have a serious problem with Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or anyone who says we need to "do something", but who don't then explain what their endgame is.
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.