Posted on 12/07/2011 11:57:04 AM PST by AnAmericanAbroad
Taking a hard line on a U.S. foe in the Middle East, Republican presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich indicated Wednesday that he would unilaterally "replace" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because he is running a "bad dictatorship."
The former House speaker was asked on a morning radio show in Chicago to offer a "30-second" answer to what he would do about Syria, where anti-government protests have led to a violent crackdown. Gingrich said, "I can give you a three-second answer. Replace Assad. I mean Assad is our enemy. He is an ally of Iran. It is a bad dictatorship. It is to our interest to get rid of dictators of this kind."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
So, whaddaya think? Newt suggests if he were POTUS/CIC, he'd do something about Assad in Syria. While it is true that he's in cahoots with the Iranians, would a military intervention be the wisest course of action? And, how would it be done? Covert or overt action?
Discuss away!
At least when Newt targets somebody, they’re actually enemies of the US.
And here’s the rest of the story.
_________________________________________________________
Gingrich did not say how he would remove Assad, and acknowledged there would be “consequences” to such an overt U.S. action. He said that as president, it would be his job to manage them. “Now that means you have consequences and have to be much better at managing the consequences than this administration has been,” he said on the Don Wade & Roma radio show. “But I think none the less getting rid of Assad will lead to a better future than keeping him there.”
Assad is under mounting international pressure over a military crackdown on anti-government protesters. While the United Nations estimates some 4,000 people have been killed, Assad denied ordering his troops to attack, telling ABC News this week only a “crazy” leader kills his own people.
True enough.....the Assad family has certainly been a thorn in the side of quite a few US Administrations. And they certainly are in cahoots with Hiz’bullah, Islamic Jihad, and some other unsavory characters in that neck of that woods.
Disingenuous title. Not reflective of what Newt said.
oh boy ... as if America should involve ourselves further. May America’s Military take a break for the sake of having a little R&R?
Why is Newt saying this? I would not risk a single U.S. soldier to “take out Assad”. who cares if he kills 500 civilians, or 5,000? How is this in our national interest? Syria is already isolated by the West AND Arab League. Israel already took out their fledgling nuclear program. His time will soon be up anyway.
I’m no fan of Assad, but before we piss away another trillion dollars to create another Islamic Republic in the Middle East, I think we need to get our financial house in order first.
Flashback:
In the Iraq War, Gingrich was with Obama, Clinton and Reid
Gingrich Criticizes President On Iraq War and Wiretapping
Assad is a PoS, but its not our job, not Newt’s job. Frankly, I don’t care if he’s killing his people, as long he’s not killing Americans.
Pakistan and Iran, on the other hand, ARE.
This is (another) strike against Newt.
Here’s the quote. “I can give you a three-second answer. Replace Assad.”
I’d say that’s pretty reflective of the title.
And he goes on to say, “Now that means you have consequences and have to be much better at managing the consequences than this administration has been” and “But I think none the less getting rid of Assad will lead to a better future than keeping him there.”
Of course, to be fair, he doesn’t propose how he would “get rid of Assad.”
Personally, I wish he’d elaborate further. I like to hear what candidates have to say about their vision of foreign policy.
But if Assad is to be replaced, who is to be the one to fill that job?
No doubt the successor to Assad will be some fundamentalist who may or may not have differences with either Saudi Arabia or Iran, but it will come down on one side or the other. With an unstable situation in the Middle East already, only one course of action will be available that would even temporarily unit the various Muslim factions: Exterminate the Jewish state of Israel altogether.
That measly few 4,000 or so deaths so far will look like the first sneeze in an oncoming catastrophic fever to overtake the entire region. Very soon, the Middle East will be not be exporting ANY petroleum, and the fever will engulf the entire world.
Maybe China will restore world order. We sure are in no position to do so.
May you live in interesting times.
I listened to the interview and Newt gave a 5 second answer to a 5 second question. (How would you make the situation in Syria better? simple replace Assad) He did not say that we should invade, bomb or anything else. He simply said to make things better in Syria, Assad needs to go. Nothing more nothing less.
Obama has given us an Islamic fundie government in Egypt via the Muslim Brotherhood.
And now Newt wants to give us an Islamic fundie government in Syria via the Muslim Brotherhood.
Newt is a dangerous dipshit. NO thanks.
One tactical nuke on the presidential palace should do the trick.
Assad is already at the toppling point.. the US could work with the opposition military leaders and dump the guy with the backing of a strong President without much US military involvement.. it would not take an invasion with thousands of US troops to do it like in Iraq.... I would have started there before Egypt and Libya
I’m thinking Assad is at about 12:43 of his 15:00 minutes.
If he’s a little smarter than some of his fellow dictators, he has a plane or helicopter on standby 24/7. Maybe a little vacation in Switzerland, a little skiing, buy some good congac, a Rolex or two.
Better than being Qaddaffied.
I can tell, just by looking at or own crumbling, utterly corrupt country, that we know how to do everything better than anyone else on the face of the earth, so we should just go in, blow up whatever we want, and replace whomever we want, any time we want.
We are going to pay one hell of a price, and we are going to deserve it, and that’s all I got to say on this.
The Turks aren’t too happy with Assad, either. Could use the Turks as a proxy to invade Syria. Might not even require that. Like you said, work with Syrians-in-exile, opposition leaders, more than likely there’s Syrian officers that are displeased with him as well.
There have always been aspects of the dealings between Nations that are deliberately not transparent.
Newt, in suggesting a "bull in the china closet" approach to foreign policy, helps neither America nor his own candidacy.
William Flax
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.