When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roy Beans
12 years ago
Confusing stuff these days. All aboard the Newt train for Fred Thompson and so many conservatives!
I liked Herman Cain, I liked Perry, I like Santorum, I even like the answers Romney gave in the debates. Conservatives could not stomach Herman Cain but Newt is right on! Right on! Right on!
Alleged affairs by a man that stayed married. Unsubstantiated affairs by people living in an apartment complex with Obama’s attack dog Axelrod who made attacks on his character from 20 years ago that cannot be substantiated and are made by desperate (financially) people with very checkered pasts. Cannot have this man, Herman Cain in the running for President. But a man who it can be substantiated had 3 affairs and probably many more. One woman, Anne Manning came forth and confirmed a relationship with Newt during the 1976 campaign. She said “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’”
If this is the case, what makes republicans think that a long line of accusations is not coming. And that is just sex and adultery…
There was the book deal in 1984. Horrendous and evil, NO, but illegal and lines were crossed. There were actually 3 border line book deals. Again bad judgment not evil. Story of Newt’s political life…bad judgement.
Newt is the father of earmarks (he designed them as a way to keep republicans in power, there were none before him), helped develop the idea of an individual Healthcare mandate and supported the idea for 18 years at the Federal level (Newt was for it before he was against it), proposed cap and trade, insisted on a comprehensive immigration proposal rather than build the fence and secure border first- all other issues related get addressed later, was tossed out of the speakership for corruption and poor leadership, was for Medicare part D (not to mention the “doc fix” legislation that deceptively “fix” the Medicare budget yearly but savings are never realized and terrorize doctors) and strong armed Republicans into voting for it, he accused Paul Ryan of Right wing social engineering for trying to gradually nudge Medicare in a bipartisan way toward private accounts (Newt was against Ryan’s plan before he was for it), S-CHIP program now near 4 in 10 children in the US are on Medicaid (a terrible medical plan which would become one of our budget breakers of today’s budgets-err continuing resolutions), and proposed eliminating Federal judges who don’t vote your idea of the constitution and calling up judges before congress (what’s fair for Republicans is fair game for Democrats). Newt bounced 22 checks as was revealed in the House banking scandal. YUP that is our guy. He talks tough to the media and has big ideas. Shesssh, we never learn!
“I think you can write a psychological profile of me, that says I found a way to immerse my insecurities in a cause large enough to justify whatever I wanted it to.” Newt once told interviewer Gail Sheehy. This fits nicely with the infamous comment about Clinton putting Newt on the back of Air Force One. His crushed ego led to the collapse, with this plane comment, of Republicans commitment to their budget and with that -came the reelection of Bill Clinton. Tom Coburn said Gingrich (at that time) became a whipped dog.
From Avik Roy: Former congressman Chris Shays (R., Conn.) probably captured the strength and weakness of Newt best in comments to Bolduc: “He’s a true entrepreneur in the classic sense. You can launch the business, but you can’t necessarily run it.” Gingrich brought us a once-unimaginable House GOP majority but ended up using that majority to expand, rather than shrink, the size of government. (see father of earmarks above).
Coburn and Shays are now skewered by Newt admirers as establishment Republicans and some even use the name Rino which is bizarre. They get added to the list of John Campbell, Jason Chaffetz, and Jeff Flake.
In the debates Newt has rattled off hundreds of things that he ‘will’ do to fix things. A president who is going to ‘do’ many many many things but all these things have to be written up in committees and passed by a House and Senate. Reagan had 3 goals and he focused on them and put a lot of energy into getting them done and they changed the country (and the world). A hundred or hundreds of things? Is this leadership, the shotgun approach? Gingrich is famous for finding red meat items to work on but the critical items we conservatives are interested in- to get America back on track, get pushed to the back. The Tea Party was about the insane spending from 2008 through 2010 (and before) and the effect this spending would have on taxes soon enough for us and big time for our children and grandchildren. The Tea Party is still concerned about spending but now have to different arenas in which we battle, enlarging the Tea Party caucus in congress. I know it is David Frum but see http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/23/newt-gingrich-trivial-issues-warrior.html
Ron Paul Is Right
12 years ago
We’re both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family. – Michael Corleone
Tercel
12 years ago
I want a guy that can articulate and reinforce and fight for the country based on the values of the founding fathers. While Gingrich is a flawed spokesman, I firmly believe a flawed vessel filled with the right message that can/will fight for it, is far preferable to a morally perfect milk toast perfect vessel that is incapable of articulating and raising a banner that others want to follow. I want a crusader not a manager. We need someone that can articulate and persuade for the cause.
Greta
12 years ago
Newt all the way. He is the only Republican running who has fire and has the ability to take it to Obama in the debate. Sent checks to newt for everyone in our family and have signed up to work for him in Ohio. The more the RINO establishement tries to push Romney down our throats, the more I push for Newt. If Republican powers trash newt to get him out and give us Romney, I will swith to full tea party affiliation and start to work for new candidates for that party in the future. Romney will say or do anything to get elected and has zero fire in the belly. Santorum is weak in debates turning off even pro life conservatives with his whininess. Ron Paul loves the constitution, but his foreign policy is out of the days of isolationist and therefore naive and dangerous. All are better than Obama, but only Newt can beat him.
Roy Beans
12 years ago
Yes Newt has always had ‘fire’ in his speeches. And a certainty in his words that brings people to nod their head in agreement as he is speaking. But soaring rhetoric and self certainty are not the only things needed in a candidate.
It did not work well when Newt’s speech to republicans included the proposal to freeze all spending in 1983 as Reagan was trying to rebuild the military. It did not work when Newt rose to the floor of the House and said “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”. Again and again in this speech he railed against the Reagan administration at a time when the media hounds and Ted Kennedy, Tip O’Neil, Jim Wright, and so many other Democrats were unleashing verbal hell on Ronald Reagan. You remember, some homeless man would be interviewed from his cardboard box and asked would you rather we helped the poor or pumped money into the military complex? It was a fine speech from Gingrich and it sounded so reasonable and well delivered but he was on the wrong side of history.
He said of Reagan summit meeting with Gorbachev that it was the most dangerous meeting as when Hitler and Chamberlain met. Yes, soaring rhetoric full of fighting words and delivered with great force! That’s our Mr. Newt. looking back – – – Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall! whoops!
Newt said of Reagan back then: “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.” You see Newt was so much bigger. A broad visionary. A big thinker. One who could grasp the entirety of it all. If only Newt had been president and not Reagan.
Years later when President Bush was trying to make the case for a ‘surge’ in Iraq after realizing some serious weakness in the strategy (as all wars have) and the need for new thinking and leadership; along came Newt Gingrich testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department. Yes his vision is so large that it almost covers his certainty. If only Newt had been president back then. The wonders a larger State Department could do in this treacherous world.
Later Newt was for the surge.
Newt has a real history of making war on his own party. Fighting conservative opposition to Medicare part D bill. Declaring Paul Ryan radical and social engineering. Telling his party they need get aboard the battle against Anthropogenic Global Warming and institute a world wide system of cap and trade. With great flair he announced the stubbornness of Republicans to see what was so plain to see – Carbon Dioxide is going to kill us! By 2010 oceans will cover low lying islands and the north pole will loose all of its ice in the summer time! We are going to die if we don’t start driving Volts! Ok Newt has rethought this and changed his views. All is forgiven.
But if he was certain back in 1983 and wrong and then certain through the years down to the surge and AGW and very wrong, it doesn’t matter as long as he delivers his speeches with earnestness and strength and doesn’t back down from the media and is certain in his view now -HEY! What could possibly go wrong!
Richard Wheeler
12 years ago
Roy Bean The most informative read I’ve had on Newt being Newt. Thanks.
Any informative rebuttal?
Anticsrocks Were you aware of his major disagreements with Reagan?
@Richard Wheeler, gosh darn… just don’t know where to start.
First of all, let me point out that Roy Bean is channeling NRO, sans blockquotes, who was channeling Ron Paul four days ago. So let me provide you a link to the complete article, from which he pulls excerpts but does not cite the source… today’s article written by Eliott Abrams, and posted to on NRO’s site. Abrams was in the Reagan State Dept, and functioned as a deputy national security advisor to Dubya. He was there, and he certainly has his own perspectives.
However he is not portraying his perspectives with both sides of the coin. So let me split this into two “add to the pot” pieces of information to Abrams NRO article, from which Roy Bean’s comment is constructed. I’ll start with the excerpt INRE Iraq and the surge.
First, Roy Beans comments, presented as his own original thoughts:
Years later when President Bush was trying to make the case for a ‘surge’ in Iraq after realizing some serious weakness in the strategy (as all wars have) and the need for new thinking and leadership; along came Newt Gingrich testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department. Yes his vision is so large that it almost covers his certainty. If only Newt had been president back then. The wonders a larger State Department could do in this treacherous world.
From Abram’s article:
He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators. Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.
The deliberate intention by both Roy, who is channeling Abrams, and Abrams is to portray Newt as anti-Iraq success. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Newt wrote an article in Sept 2007, appearing in Human Events, that criticized that the predictable response from Congress would be to split into two factions… those who wanted to “legislate defeat” (the Dems, save for a rare few), and the Bush loyalists who wanted to “stay the course”. Newt… totally *against* legislating defeat, felt that there was a third option missing.
From Newt’s article, and clarifying his position (and trying to keep the pertinent excerpts as brief as possible…):
What will be missing in this debate is a third choice: “a war-winning strategy.”
The great tragedy of the six years since 9/11 is that we have not had a national debate about the scale of our opponents, the depth of their hatred for our way of life and the very real threat that they will acquire nuclear and biological weapons. With the former, they may kill hundreds of thousands of Americans in our cities. With the latter, millions of Americans could die in a deliberate attack.
…snip…
Imagine that Lincoln had tried to assess Antietam and Gettysburg without thinking about the larger war for the preservation of the Union.
Imagine that FDR had tried to assess Pearl Harbor or Guadalcanal or Kasserine Pass without looking at the larger war with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.
Clearly, any battle report which focused only on Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal or the Battle of the Bulge would have been so negative that many Americans would have wanted to quit the war.
…snip…
The tragedy is that next week there will be a debate between “staying the course” and “legislating defeat.”
Both will be wrong.
Legislating defeat is more wrong than simply staying the course. Yet, staying the course is wholly inadequate to the long-term challenge of winning the larger war.
By focusing the country on a stay-the-course-versus-legislated-defeat choice, we have left no space for a dialogue about how to win the war.
…snip…
Let me be absolutely clear: I am unalterably opposed to legislating defeat.
And from talking to thousands of you across the country, including those in our armed forces, I know that the American people are opposed to defeat as well.
…snip…
If the “Reid-Pelosi Defeat America” legislation passes, every terrorist group on the planet will rejoice.
If the leftwing, pro-defeat activists celebrate a victory over Gen. Petraeus and President Bush, they will be joined in their celebration by every anti-American group around the world.
…snip…
Yet as wrong as legislating defeat is, the present strategy of staying the course is simply not good enough.
As long as Northwest Pakistan (Waziristan) is a sanctuary, the Taliban can never be defeated.
As long as we have failed to create a better economy in which growing and processing drugs is no longer the best way to earn a living, Afghanistan will never be safe.
As long as Iran is allowed to ship weapons into Iraq, we will never fully bring stability to Iraq.
As long as Syria is allowed to serve as a transit point for foreign terrorists coming into Iraq, we will never fully defeat the insurgent forces.
As long as Saudi sources finance the spread of Wahhabism across the planet and the Wahhabists continue to advocate Jihad and martyrdom, the flow of new terrorist recruits willing to die will continue.
As long as the current dictatorship runs Iran and works every day to create nuclear weapons and to sustain terrorists groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the professional state-sponsored terrorists of the Iranian Guard units, our civilization will not be safe.
…snip
A strategy for a larger war will involve some very difficult and, at times, frightening conversations about who is helping our enemies and what it may take to cut off that aid.
Confronting the Real War on its worldwide terms will require fundamental changes in national security, homeland security, budgets and preparations.
Setting out to win the larger war will require a new tempo and new rhythm for our bureaucracies and new determination to insist on real changes both in America and abroad.
…snip…
Gen. Petraeus will report that things have improved, that we are a long way from winning but we are gaining ground, and that we need more time and more patience. The report will indicate that the military situation in Iraq is improving faster than the political situation but that both are promising.
However, we should be prepared for the probability that the enemy has spent the last several months planning and preparing to launch devastating attacks to coincide with the release of the report.
Our enemies understand how Washington works, and they understand how the media work. They increasingly plan the timing of their attacks in an effort to undermine the resolve of our politicians and our public by perfecting their influence of the war coverage in our news media.
If the enemy fails to attack during the debate over the report, it will be a modest help to Gen. Petraeus and President Bush.
If the enemy does succeed in a series of deadly attacks during the debate over the report, those attacks will be seized upon by the American news media and the pro-defeat left as proof that legislating defeat is the right solution.
…snip…
Who Do You Trust? Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Pelosi?
No matter what happens that week, given a choice between the self-appointed political generals of Capitol Hill and the professional soldiers and Marines who have dedicated their lives to studying the art of war, it is a lot safer bet to believe in Gen. Petraeus’ analysis than Gen. Pelosi’s.
This upcoming debate is going to be the most serious effort to legislate the defeat of America in a generation.
Now, assuming you had the patience to go thru those excepts, for Abrams to leave the impression that Newt was anti-success in the Iraq war is a blatant mischaracterization. In fact, what Newt was suggesting is that they were short signed in viewing Iraq as the only theatre in the larger war.
Now, I haven’t been able to dig up Newt’s testimony, and Abrams didn’t bother to link it. But frankly, after the misinformation on Newt’s Iraq position by Abrams, I’ll bypass his summary and reserve judgment on any suggestions for the State Department in dealing with the larger war he recognized until I read it. Fact is, since Gingrich has been called to testify in front of sundry committees (both chambers) so many times in the past decade, I’m surprised that Abrams isn’t labeling that as “lobbying”.
Now, I’ve got some things to do, so I’ll get to the Reagan/Gingrich scuffles later. But somehow, I’m not finding that any particular Congressman questioning a POTUS spending proposal – especially a new one that was focused on the economy post Carter recession – as either surprising, nor heinous. Newt has adopted the Reagan tax and economic policies,… that does not necessarily mean he was in lockstep with Reagan’s foreign policies. Few were in those days. However despite Newt’s disagreements, he still voted with the caucus.
As far as his retrospect on the Reagan cold war policies today, I’m not sure that’s relevant. No one thinks that Newt is a Reagan clone. That’s what most of us would wish for. But unfortunately, Reagan, like all individuals, is a one of a kind type of guy, who was right for the country at that moment in time.
I’ll only provide a few excerpts, but if you realize what Newt is suggesting on information, technology and the need to process and massive influx of information, as a prevention of war and terrorism, it puts the Abrams blurb into a wider, more accurate perspective.
I suggest you read the entire speech link, but below are the excerpts for those less curious.
we need a new model State Department inside this new model of an integrated system, because we need both a much more sophisticated model of listening and a more sophisticated model of representation.
Four, that means you have to have about a 50 percent bigger budget for the State Department. The State Department today is grossly undercapitalized in information technology and is too small to have the training programs and the secondment of personnel needed to grow a genuine professional institution. It is impossible for the current Foreign Service to get the level of education it needs. They recruit really smart people. They grossly underinvest in training them. It’s a very significant problem.
Lastly, information technology’s at the heart of all this. Moore’s Law still lives. We are still doubling the amount of information available every 16 months per dollar. That’s an increase of a hundred-fold per decade. It means in the life span of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, you increase the amount of computing power per dollar by a factor of 10 billion. If you don’t start with a customer-centric, citizen-centric model embedded in an IT model and then redesign the institutions and the culture, you can’t possibly get into the 21st century as a serious system.
Newt testimony on the “alternatives” – i.e. “legislative defeat” vs “stay the course” – testimony by Gingrich in 2007 can be read here in the Senate Foreign Relations hearing in Feb 2007, with Gingrich’s testimony (and Chairman Biden’s intro) starting on pg 493 of the PDF.
I think you will find that Newt, using his usual bulleted points explanation, did suggest the 50% increase in the State Department, but not expounding on the detailed reasons as to why, as more fully explained and linked in the CFR speech I provided in the link in my comment #8. Questions are not necessarily a part of the GPOAccess database, so we only have the written testimony there. They may, or may not, have asked the Speaker to expound.
Bottom line, Abrams chose not to include the Newt position on why he suggested a 21st Century State Department.
Richard Wheeler
12 years ago
Great work Mata Thank you.
Off subject. Thought Newt was smart to back off attack on Romney’s immigration positions. In our home state when Mario speaks all listen.
This guy is an ACTUAL ” Compassionate Conservative” and I believe wins the Presidency in 2016. At this point he’s got my vote.
This assumes that BHO is re-elected after the smoke clears over the remains of the Repub Primary winner.
I ain’t done yet. I know the Reagan/Newt military disagreements from the 80s, but just trying to get time to compile the links for everyone to read. Probably just do an authored post, as I said.
I like the tar out of Mario myself. He’s extremely gifted in making his points (without a speech writer or teleprompter.. LOL), and has all the right ingredients. But I think he needs to gather up some experience. So does he… really doesn’t want the Veep offer for that reason.
This leaves your former favorite (or maybe still?), Romney, left with a seriously hypocritical quandary. He’s emphatically stated that the nation doesn’t need a “lobbyist” for a POTUS, yet his top short list Veep is Chris Christie… a lobbyist.
oops…
Roy Beans
12 years ago
No doubt Mata you started searching for Newt’s actions in 2007. I do no propose the speaker did not want to win in Iraq but when things got tough he came up with a laundry list things we did wrong and should be doing and very little supported the president. This impression he gave that the Bush administration was making a mess of things hurt republicans. This is the point, his constant flow of ideas on all sides of issues hurts the effort of republicans. He has made a host of enemies and a good number of them are conservative republicans.
Gingrich also said many good things. When he was supportive and defending the cause, he was very good. But Newt like to claim ideas and solutions as his. The Ryan attack makes this case. Newt had a similar plan that he made, but Ryan’s wasn’t his and so he spouted off.
If you read over some of the stuff I did, you found how Newt was all over the board. He infuriated republicans by criticizing their war effort starting long before 2007. In April 2006 he said there were too many troops in Iraq and generally criticized the war http://www.nysun.com/national/gingrich-criticizes-president-on-iraq-war/30844/.
There is a lot of statements about everything as typical for speaker Gingrich and we don’t have space here to hit them all but surely you must remember how angry we conservatives felt to have speaker Gingrich say things that hurt the administration and in turn made it harder for them to stay on course. Oh he wasn’t purposely trying to hurt the effort, he was trying to provide lots of big ideas and promote himself and his books. But we conservatives were hurt by the constant attacks from those who should have been strengthening our side and helping make our case. I assume you remember that. The press and the some democrats were acting like traitors. Bush lied, people died mantra and the fake tallies of Iraqi dead, the constant reframe of we are making terrorists. They used Gingrich’s comments to attack President Bush.
June 2005 The New York Times raved about former House Speaker Gingrich: “Lawmakers should take the time to at least thumb through this report, especially those who have been demanding Secretary General Kofi Annan’s resignation, supporting the ill-conceived nomination of John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and backing the latest benighted attempt to withhold America’s legally obligated dues.” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/opinion/16thu1.html
Ok back to the speaker. In August before the September speech you quoted, the Palm Beach Post said in an article that Newt said that the Bush administration is waging a “phony war” on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept 11. The speaker laid out how he would fix things by changing the strategy of producing energy. That was not helpful to Republicans and Newt reversed course soon after.
At the American Institute in Aug 2007 Gingrich cast himself as the only GOP presidential candidate deeply critical of the Bush administrations ant-terror strategy. He presented himself a cold shower on the General David Petraeus pro surge report.
There are great articles to find that lay out many good things Gingrich has done and several articles that show where he drives off the rails. In the mid 90’s we cheered Newt and the freshmen republicans on as they battled President Clinton. Clinton was a master of saying something that could be read many ways and it was near impossible to nail him down and display his poor judgment and economic strategy which was a minor version of Obama. But Newt self destructed. He could not stay on message. Newt’s demeanor came across as condescending. When he was in trouble he would say things meant to be conciliatory that were used to attack the republican cause. He was at his best when he used history to illustrate a conservative principle. He was at his worst when he spoke a stream of consciousness and gave a plan for everything, some were down right foolish but it sounded important as he said it mixed with facts and quotes and news articles.
As far as channeling Abrams, what I did is remember the messes that speaker Gingrich made and set out to nail down dates and settings. I am only observer not professional commentator with all the quote things but Abrams is just one of many stops I found when trying to bring up what I remember from the Reagan era. To say that Abrams is channeling Ron Paul is a stretch though. I believe Paul detests Abrams foreign policy ideas. I am not a fan of Ron Paul’s foreign policy in the slightest either. The problems of Gingrich’s service in government is something I will not easily forget. As an executive prospect, Gingrich fills me with dread. As a think tank guy who puts forth a ideas to consider or a teacher of history or one who reminds us of how conservative principles came to be through the grindstone of past events, I give him an A. The history course that Gingrich made that had a big stink made of it by democrats in congress when he was speaker was a marvel. I loved it.
Poppa_T
12 years ago
Drudge is sure hammering Newt today, why is that? By the way I thought Glenn Beck endorsed my man Ron Paul.
@Roy Beans: I do no propose the speaker did not want to win in Iraq but when things got tough he came up with a laundry list things we did wrong and should be doing and very little supported the president. This impression he gave that the Bush administration was making a mess of things hurt republicans.
Let’s go back to what you did say – actually most lifted from Abrams hit piece:
Years later when President Bush was trying to make the case for a ‘surge’ in Iraq after realizing some serious weakness in the strategy (as all wars have) and the need for new thinking and leadership; along came Newt Gingrich testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department. Yes his vision is so large that it almost covers his certainty. If only Newt had been president back then. The wonders a larger State Department could do in this treacherous world.
Later Newt was for the surge.
That, Roy Beans, is again channeling Abrams. Newt was never against the Surge, and to characterize his 2007 stance as that is skimming the surface of truth.
As I showed in from the CFR speech above, Newt was all for winning, but felt that just a military approach without a more well defined overview of the larger theater of battle was deficient. Out of the two camps – Dems legislating defeat and GOP staying the course – he felt neither was adequate for the global enemy. Thus why he was using those terms… because he felt it was short sighted.
Yet you, channeling Abrams, HotAir, Ron Paul etal, say “later Newt was for the Surge”. pffft…
I already put this information on another thread (comment #11) showing that Newt’s foundation in a military that is constructed to best meet the warfare and enemy faced is a long standing thing for him, and where he and Reagan disagreed.
On the campaign trail, Newt only speaks of Reagan and his efforts for economic policies… not foreign policy. They differed on that, and he never suggests anything different. It’s only this new hit piece that tries to suggest Newt is portraying himself as a Reagan clone.
Never did, and never will.
When it came to military, Newt was co-founder of the Congressional Military Reform Caucus with Dem Gary Hart during Reagan’s first year as POTUS. The RMC was not anti-strong military, but they did believe that the way to address a larger Soviet army and nuclear weapons… since no one wins a nuclear war… required a different way of building the military. Without going into all this again, just click on the link above for the source links and explanation.
Newt still holds this same attitude today… to go to war with the appropriately armed military, as well to define the enemy. Thus the 2007 stance that is consistent with his RMC past, but cannot be spun as to being against the Surge or against winning.
In retrospect, Reagan’s approach worked very well. Newt was not alone in the GOP to disagree with his approach, and military reform was as big a topic back then as it is today. Wars and the way they are fought are constantly changing… which brings to mind Rummy’s astute observation that you don’t go to war with the military you want, but the one you got.
Many believe that it’s a wise move to start catering the military to the new modern warfare of a stateless enemy… and that may be more dependent upon HUMINT, sifting thru new media communications that overwhelm the system and diplomatic presence in nations that host these enemies.
Thus the reason the Newt suggested an increase in the State Dept, among other changes he suggested in his CFR speech linked above, to accommodate for the vast amount of data that needs to be managed in today’s Info Age. So your channeling of Abrams, again, with the offhand observation of the State Dept is yet another skim the surface observation, devoid of context of the larger plan and why.
That’s simply political BS. And if people are going to bring this up, you might as well get the complete picture.
We can certainly debate the balance of how that intel data is managed between State and Intel agency departments, but we can’t ignore the fact that out best hope to prevent war and fight this enemy is to know where they are, and what they are going to do in advance. Because they sure aren’t all going to stand in one foreign nation, and face the west wearing uniforms and using only conventional weapons.
I’ve familiarized myself with Newt’s military reformist past during the Reagan years – the arena where they disagreed – plus his speeches and testimony during the Iraq years. There is no “all over the map” happening. What is all over the map is the lifted tidbits and breathless whispers of scandal, done solely to lessen any support of a candidate making headway against Romney. This is dangerously unfair to those attempting to evaluate a POTUS during this important election. We don’t need half truths running willy nilly, merely to bolster another candidate.
Now, please spare me Jennifer Rubin quotes… the woman is an unpaid Romney campaign operative who will skewer the truth at every avenue to stand by her man. I prefer testimony transcripts, speech transcripts etc for source material, and not some pundit’s uneducated summary.
And in the future, I do respectfully request that you include the source articles that you lift/paste in to your own comments. It’s just a courtesy not only to the original author, but allows the rest of us to see what’s left out for a more full perspective.
Nan G
12 years ago
@MataHarley:
“Roy Bean is channeling NRO, sans blockquotes, …”
Yeah, about that.
What has been happening to FA’s comment system?
Is this the final version?
We used to have an easier way to put in blockquotes.
And italics, boldings even cross-through(ings).
I to this day don’t know how to put in a link other than to simply paste the whole thing in.
Where did that shortcut go?
Oh, and as per Fred Thompson…..
When I get a reverse mortgage based on his advert maybe then I’ll think about the value of his endorsement.
Maybe he’s more influential back in the East.
Tell me, what legislative bill did Newt introduce and/or vote for… all by himself… that enabled earmarks that had been happening a decade or so before he became Speaker? Did Newt add all the earmarks himself to bills? Was this a a practice solely confined to the Republicans?
And just what civics course did you take that leaves you under the impression that a Speaker – who rarely introduces bills, debates on the floor, and often abstains from voting himself – can accomplish all this by himself, without a majority of House representatives?
Nonsense… lies, scandal and calumny! (.. she says, channeling Capt Jack Sparrow…LOL)
@Nan G, don’t know what happened with the vast changes in edit choices here. That’s a Curt question. However most… as you demonstrate… make an effort to separate their own commentary from the original source material. Roy did not do that. So I have respectfully requested that he at least provide links to the original source material in the future for us tor read. He’s new as a commenter here, so perhaps he doesn’t know we’re a very link intensive community… and often picky about the quality of the links. LOL
Donald Bly, I doubt that the Daniels spammer is that curious. I’m just surprised he hasn’t poked his head in to triumphantly announce that IN is passing a right to work bill. Well duh… the GOP has supermajority in both their assembly chambers. That’s like saying Obama/Pelosi/Reid passing O’healthcare and Dodd-Frank, plus the ARRA, was some vast accomplishment against all odds.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that IN is moving on their own recovery track. But as I stated about Daniels before, he’s not been tested in a volatile situation. Pretty easy to govern when you have veto proof chambers.
Confusing stuff these days. All aboard the Newt train for Fred Thompson and so many conservatives!
I liked Herman Cain, I liked Perry, I like Santorum, I even like the answers Romney gave in the debates. Conservatives could not stomach Herman Cain but Newt is right on! Right on! Right on!
Alleged affairs by a man that stayed married. Unsubstantiated affairs by people living in an apartment complex with Obama’s attack dog Axelrod who made attacks on his character from 20 years ago that cannot be substantiated and are made by desperate (financially) people with very checkered pasts. Cannot have this man, Herman Cain in the running for President. But a man who it can be substantiated had 3 affairs and probably many more. One woman, Anne Manning came forth and confirmed a relationship with Newt during the 1976 campaign. She said “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’”
If this is the case, what makes republicans think that a long line of accusations is not coming. And that is just sex and adultery…
There was the book deal in 1984. Horrendous and evil, NO, but illegal and lines were crossed. There were actually 3 border line book deals. Again bad judgment not evil. Story of Newt’s political life…bad judgement.
Newt is the father of earmarks (he designed them as a way to keep republicans in power, there were none before him), helped develop the idea of an individual Healthcare mandate and supported the idea for 18 years at the Federal level (Newt was for it before he was against it), proposed cap and trade, insisted on a comprehensive immigration proposal rather than build the fence and secure border first- all other issues related get addressed later, was tossed out of the speakership for corruption and poor leadership, was for Medicare part D (not to mention the “doc fix” legislation that deceptively “fix” the Medicare budget yearly but savings are never realized and terrorize doctors) and strong armed Republicans into voting for it, he accused Paul Ryan of Right wing social engineering for trying to gradually nudge Medicare in a bipartisan way toward private accounts (Newt was against Ryan’s plan before he was for it), S-CHIP program now near 4 in 10 children in the US are on Medicaid (a terrible medical plan which would become one of our budget breakers of today’s budgets-err continuing resolutions), and proposed eliminating Federal judges who don’t vote your idea of the constitution and calling up judges before congress (what’s fair for Republicans is fair game for Democrats). Newt bounced 22 checks as was revealed in the House banking scandal. YUP that is our guy. He talks tough to the media and has big ideas. Shesssh, we never learn!
Glenn Beck is right on Newt all others are in the tank including the big voice on the right.
Glenn Beck endorses Newt http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/23/glenn-endorses-newt-gingrich/
“I think you can write a psychological profile of me, that says I found a way to immerse my insecurities in a cause large enough to justify whatever I wanted it to.” Newt once told interviewer Gail Sheehy. This fits nicely with the infamous comment about Clinton putting Newt on the back of Air Force One. His crushed ego led to the collapse, with this plane comment, of Republicans commitment to their budget and with that -came the reelection of Bill Clinton. Tom Coburn said Gingrich (at that time) became a whipped dog.
From Avik Roy: Former congressman Chris Shays (R., Conn.) probably captured the strength and weakness of Newt best in comments to Bolduc: “He’s a true entrepreneur in the classic sense. You can launch the business, but you can’t necessarily run it.” Gingrich brought us a once-unimaginable House GOP majority but ended up using that majority to expand, rather than shrink, the size of government. (see father of earmarks above).
Coburn and Shays are now skewered by Newt admirers as establishment Republicans and some even use the name Rino which is bizarre. They get added to the list of John Campbell, Jason Chaffetz, and Jeff Flake.
In the debates Newt has rattled off hundreds of things that he ‘will’ do to fix things. A president who is going to ‘do’ many many many things but all these things have to be written up in committees and passed by a House and Senate. Reagan had 3 goals and he focused on them and put a lot of energy into getting them done and they changed the country (and the world). A hundred or hundreds of things? Is this leadership, the shotgun approach? Gingrich is famous for finding red meat items to work on but the critical items we conservatives are interested in- to get America back on track, get pushed to the back. The Tea Party was about the insane spending from 2008 through 2010 (and before) and the effect this spending would have on taxes soon enough for us and big time for our children and grandchildren. The Tea Party is still concerned about spending but now have to different arenas in which we battle, enlarging the Tea Party caucus in congress. I know it is David Frum but see http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/23/newt-gingrich-trivial-issues-warrior.html
We’re both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family. – Michael Corleone
I want a guy that can articulate and reinforce and fight for the country based on the values of the founding fathers. While Gingrich is a flawed spokesman, I firmly believe a flawed vessel filled with the right message that can/will fight for it, is far preferable to a morally perfect milk toast perfect vessel that is incapable of articulating and raising a banner that others want to follow. I want a crusader not a manager. We need someone that can articulate and persuade for the cause.
Newt all the way. He is the only Republican running who has fire and has the ability to take it to Obama in the debate. Sent checks to newt for everyone in our family and have signed up to work for him in Ohio. The more the RINO establishement tries to push Romney down our throats, the more I push for Newt. If Republican powers trash newt to get him out and give us Romney, I will swith to full tea party affiliation and start to work for new candidates for that party in the future. Romney will say or do anything to get elected and has zero fire in the belly. Santorum is weak in debates turning off even pro life conservatives with his whininess. Ron Paul loves the constitution, but his foreign policy is out of the days of isolationist and therefore naive and dangerous. All are better than Obama, but only Newt can beat him.
Yes Newt has always had ‘fire’ in his speeches. And a certainty in his words that brings people to nod their head in agreement as he is speaking. But soaring rhetoric and self certainty are not the only things needed in a candidate.
It did not work well when Newt’s speech to republicans included the proposal to freeze all spending in 1983 as Reagan was trying to rebuild the military. It did not work when Newt rose to the floor of the House and said “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”. Again and again in this speech he railed against the Reagan administration at a time when the media hounds and Ted Kennedy, Tip O’Neil, Jim Wright, and so many other Democrats were unleashing verbal hell on Ronald Reagan. You remember, some homeless man would be interviewed from his cardboard box and asked would you rather we helped the poor or pumped money into the military complex? It was a fine speech from Gingrich and it sounded so reasonable and well delivered but he was on the wrong side of history.
He said of Reagan summit meeting with Gorbachev that it was the most dangerous meeting as when Hitler and Chamberlain met. Yes, soaring rhetoric full of fighting words and delivered with great force! That’s our Mr. Newt. looking back – – – Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall! whoops!
Newt said of Reagan back then: “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.” You see Newt was so much bigger. A broad visionary. A big thinker. One who could grasp the entirety of it all. If only Newt had been president and not Reagan.
Years later when President Bush was trying to make the case for a ‘surge’ in Iraq after realizing some serious weakness in the strategy (as all wars have) and the need for new thinking and leadership; along came Newt Gingrich testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department. Yes his vision is so large that it almost covers his certainty. If only Newt had been president back then. The wonders a larger State Department could do in this treacherous world.
Later Newt was for the surge.
Newt has a real history of making war on his own party. Fighting conservative opposition to Medicare part D bill. Declaring Paul Ryan radical and social engineering. Telling his party they need get aboard the battle against Anthropogenic Global Warming and institute a world wide system of cap and trade. With great flair he announced the stubbornness of Republicans to see what was so plain to see – Carbon Dioxide is going to kill us! By 2010 oceans will cover low lying islands and the north pole will loose all of its ice in the summer time! We are going to die if we don’t start driving Volts! Ok Newt has rethought this and changed his views. All is forgiven.
But if he was certain back in 1983 and wrong and then certain through the years down to the surge and AGW and very wrong, it doesn’t matter as long as he delivers his speeches with earnestness and strength and doesn’t back down from the media and is certain in his view now -HEY! What could possibly go wrong!
Roy Bean The most informative read I’ve had on Newt being Newt. Thanks.
Any informative rebuttal?
Anticsrocks Were you aware of his major disagreements with Reagan?
@Richard Wheeler, gosh darn… just don’t know where to start.
First of all, let me point out that Roy Bean is channeling NRO, sans blockquotes, who was channeling Ron Paul four days ago. So let me provide you a link to the complete article, from which he pulls excerpts but does not cite the source… today’s article written by Eliott Abrams, and posted to on NRO’s site. Abrams was in the Reagan State Dept, and functioned as a deputy national security advisor to Dubya. He was there, and he certainly has his own perspectives.
However he is not portraying his perspectives with both sides of the coin. So let me split this into two “add to the pot” pieces of information to Abrams NRO article, from which Roy Bean’s comment is constructed. I’ll start with the excerpt INRE Iraq and the surge.
First, Roy Beans comments, presented as his own original thoughts:
From Abram’s article:
The deliberate intention by both Roy, who is channeling Abrams, and Abrams is to portray Newt as anti-Iraq success. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Newt wrote an article in Sept 2007, appearing in Human Events, that criticized that the predictable response from Congress would be to split into two factions… those who wanted to “legislate defeat” (the Dems, save for a rare few), and the Bush loyalists who wanted to “stay the course”. Newt… totally *against* legislating defeat, felt that there was a third option missing.
From Newt’s article, and clarifying his position (and trying to keep the pertinent excerpts as brief as possible…):
Now, assuming you had the patience to go thru those excepts, for Abrams to leave the impression that Newt was anti-success in the Iraq war is a blatant mischaracterization. In fact, what Newt was suggesting is that they were short signed in viewing Iraq as the only theatre in the larger war.
Now, I haven’t been able to dig up Newt’s testimony, and Abrams didn’t bother to link it. But frankly, after the misinformation on Newt’s Iraq position by Abrams, I’ll bypass his summary and reserve judgment on any suggestions for the State Department in dealing with the larger war he recognized until I read it. Fact is, since Gingrich has been called to testify in front of sundry committees (both chambers) so many times in the past decade, I’m surprised that Abrams isn’t labeling that as “lobbying”.
Now, I’ve got some things to do, so I’ll get to the Reagan/Gingrich scuffles later. But somehow, I’m not finding that any particular Congressman questioning a POTUS spending proposal – especially a new one that was focused on the economy post Carter recession – as either surprising, nor heinous. Newt has adopted the Reagan tax and economic policies,… that does not necessarily mean he was in lockstep with Reagan’s foreign policies. Few were in those days. However despite Newt’s disagreements, he still voted with the caucus.
As far as his retrospect on the Reagan cold war policies today, I’m not sure that’s relevant. No one thinks that Newt is a Reagan clone. That’s what most of us would wish for. But unfortunately, Reagan, like all individuals, is a one of a kind type of guy, who was right for the country at that moment in time.
Okay, I haven’t found the testimony, but I found Newt, circa 2007, discussing exactly what Abrams tosses out, offhandedly about the State Department in a Gingrich speech called “A 21st Century State Department” to a CFR meeting on April 26, 2007.
I’ll only provide a few excerpts, but if you realize what Newt is suggesting on information, technology and the need to process and massive influx of information, as a prevention of war and terrorism, it puts the Abrams blurb into a wider, more accurate perspective.
I suggest you read the entire speech link, but below are the excerpts for those less curious.
I’m back… for a bit.
Newt testimony on the “alternatives” – i.e. “legislative defeat” vs “stay the course” – testimony by Gingrich in 2007 can be read here in the Senate Foreign Relations hearing in Feb 2007, with Gingrich’s testimony (and Chairman Biden’s intro) starting on pg 493 of the PDF.
I think you will find that Newt, using his usual bulleted points explanation, did suggest the 50% increase in the State Department, but not expounding on the detailed reasons as to why, as more fully explained and linked in the CFR speech I provided in the link in my comment #8. Questions are not necessarily a part of the GPOAccess database, so we only have the written testimony there. They may, or may not, have asked the Speaker to expound.
Bottom line, Abrams chose not to include the Newt position on why he suggested a 21st Century State Department.
Great work Mata Thank you.
Off subject. Thought Newt was smart to back off attack on Romney’s immigration positions. In our home state when Mario speaks all listen.
This guy is an ACTUAL ” Compassionate Conservative” and I believe wins the Presidency in 2016. At this point he’s got my vote.
This assumes that BHO is re-elected after the smoke clears over the remains of the Repub Primary winner.
I ain’t done yet. I know the Reagan/Newt military disagreements from the 80s, but just trying to get time to compile the links for everyone to read. Probably just do an authored post, as I said.
I like the tar out of Mario myself. He’s extremely gifted in making his points (without a speech writer or teleprompter.. LOL), and has all the right ingredients. But I think he needs to gather up some experience. So does he… really doesn’t want the Veep offer for that reason.
This leaves your former favorite (or maybe still?), Romney, left with a seriously hypocritical quandary. He’s emphatically stated that the nation doesn’t need a “lobbyist” for a POTUS, yet his top short list Veep is Chris Christie… a lobbyist.
oops…
No doubt Mata you started searching for Newt’s actions in 2007. I do no propose the speaker did not want to win in Iraq but when things got tough he came up with a laundry list things we did wrong and should be doing and very little supported the president. This impression he gave that the Bush administration was making a mess of things hurt republicans. This is the point, his constant flow of ideas on all sides of issues hurts the effort of republicans. He has made a host of enemies and a good number of them are conservative republicans.
Gingrich also said many good things. When he was supportive and defending the cause, he was very good. But Newt like to claim ideas and solutions as his. The Ryan attack makes this case. Newt had a similar plan that he made, but Ryan’s wasn’t his and so he spouted off.
If you read over some of the stuff I did, you found how Newt was all over the board. He infuriated republicans by criticizing their war effort starting long before 2007. In April 2006 he said there were too many troops in Iraq and generally criticized the war http://www.nysun.com/national/gingrich-criticizes-president-on-iraq-war/30844/.
There is a lot of statements about everything as typical for speaker Gingrich and we don’t have space here to hit them all but surely you must remember how angry we conservatives felt to have speaker Gingrich say things that hurt the administration and in turn made it harder for them to stay on course. Oh he wasn’t purposely trying to hurt the effort, he was trying to provide lots of big ideas and promote himself and his books. But we conservatives were hurt by the constant attacks from those who should have been strengthening our side and helping make our case. I assume you remember that. The press and the some democrats were acting like traitors. Bush lied, people died mantra and the fake tallies of Iraqi dead, the constant reframe of we are making terrorists. They used Gingrich’s comments to attack President Bush.
June 2005 The New York Times raved about former House Speaker Gingrich: “Lawmakers should take the time to at least thumb through this report, especially those who have been demanding Secretary General Kofi Annan’s resignation, supporting the ill-conceived nomination of John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and backing the latest benighted attempt to withhold America’s legally obligated dues.” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/opinion/16thu1.html
Ok back to the speaker. In August before the September speech you quoted, the Palm Beach Post said in an article that Newt said that the Bush administration is waging a “phony war” on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept 11. The speaker laid out how he would fix things by changing the strategy of producing energy. That was not helpful to Republicans and Newt reversed course soon after.
At the American Institute in Aug 2007 Gingrich cast himself as the only GOP presidential candidate deeply critical of the Bush administrations ant-terror strategy. He presented himself a cold shower on the General David Petraeus pro surge report.
In Dec 2003 Gingrich told Newsweek “Americans can’t win in Iraq.”
And here is a piece from Jennifer Rubin on some of the things above- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/in-the-iraq-war-gingrich-was-with-obama-clinton-and-reid/2011/12/01/gIQARllEHO_blog.html
There are great articles to find that lay out many good things Gingrich has done and several articles that show where he drives off the rails. In the mid 90’s we cheered Newt and the freshmen republicans on as they battled President Clinton. Clinton was a master of saying something that could be read many ways and it was near impossible to nail him down and display his poor judgment and economic strategy which was a minor version of Obama. But Newt self destructed. He could not stay on message. Newt’s demeanor came across as condescending. When he was in trouble he would say things meant to be conciliatory that were used to attack the republican cause. He was at his best when he used history to illustrate a conservative principle. He was at his worst when he spoke a stream of consciousness and gave a plan for everything, some were down right foolish but it sounded important as he said it mixed with facts and quotes and news articles.
As far as channeling Abrams, what I did is remember the messes that speaker Gingrich made and set out to nail down dates and settings. I am only observer not professional commentator with all the quote things but Abrams is just one of many stops I found when trying to bring up what I remember from the Reagan era. To say that Abrams is channeling Ron Paul is a stretch though. I believe Paul detests Abrams foreign policy ideas. I am not a fan of Ron Paul’s foreign policy in the slightest either. The problems of Gingrich’s service in government is something I will not easily forget. As an executive prospect, Gingrich fills me with dread. As a think tank guy who puts forth a ideas to consider or a teacher of history or one who reminds us of how conservative principles came to be through the grindstone of past events, I give him an A. The history course that Gingrich made that had a big stink made of it by democrats in congress when he was speaker was a marvel. I loved it.
Drudge is sure hammering Newt today, why is that? By the way I thought Glenn Beck endorsed my man Ron Paul.
http://dailybail.com/home/glenn-beck-endorses-ron-paul-for-president.html
Let’s go back to what you did say – actually most lifted from Abrams hit piece:
That, Roy Beans, is again channeling Abrams. Newt was never against the Surge, and to characterize his 2007 stance as that is skimming the surface of truth.
As I showed in from the CFR speech above, Newt was all for winning, but felt that just a military approach without a more well defined overview of the larger theater of battle was deficient. Out of the two camps – Dems legislating defeat and GOP staying the course – he felt neither was adequate for the global enemy. Thus why he was using those terms… because he felt it was short sighted.
Yet you, channeling Abrams, HotAir, Ron Paul etal, say “later Newt was for the Surge”. pffft…
I already put this information on another thread (comment #11) showing that Newt’s foundation in a military that is constructed to best meet the warfare and enemy faced is a long standing thing for him, and where he and Reagan disagreed.
On the campaign trail, Newt only speaks of Reagan and his efforts for economic policies… not foreign policy. They differed on that, and he never suggests anything different. It’s only this new hit piece that tries to suggest Newt is portraying himself as a Reagan clone.
Never did, and never will.
When it came to military, Newt was co-founder of the Congressional Military Reform Caucus with Dem Gary Hart during Reagan’s first year as POTUS. The RMC was not anti-strong military, but they did believe that the way to address a larger Soviet army and nuclear weapons… since no one wins a nuclear war… required a different way of building the military. Without going into all this again, just click on the link above for the source links and explanation.
Newt still holds this same attitude today… to go to war with the appropriately armed military, as well to define the enemy. Thus the 2007 stance that is consistent with his RMC past, but cannot be spun as to being against the Surge or against winning.
In retrospect, Reagan’s approach worked very well. Newt was not alone in the GOP to disagree with his approach, and military reform was as big a topic back then as it is today. Wars and the way they are fought are constantly changing… which brings to mind Rummy’s astute observation that you don’t go to war with the military you want, but the one you got.
Many believe that it’s a wise move to start catering the military to the new modern warfare of a stateless enemy… and that may be more dependent upon HUMINT, sifting thru new media communications that overwhelm the system and diplomatic presence in nations that host these enemies.
Thus the reason the Newt suggested an increase in the State Dept, among other changes he suggested in his CFR speech linked above, to accommodate for the vast amount of data that needs to be managed in today’s Info Age. So your channeling of Abrams, again, with the offhand observation of the State Dept is yet another skim the surface observation, devoid of context of the larger plan and why.
That’s simply political BS. And if people are going to bring this up, you might as well get the complete picture.
We can certainly debate the balance of how that intel data is managed between State and Intel agency departments, but we can’t ignore the fact that out best hope to prevent war and fight this enemy is to know where they are, and what they are going to do in advance. Because they sure aren’t all going to stand in one foreign nation, and face the west wearing uniforms and using only conventional weapons.
I’ve familiarized myself with Newt’s military reformist past during the Reagan years – the arena where they disagreed – plus his speeches and testimony during the Iraq years. There is no “all over the map” happening. What is all over the map is the lifted tidbits and breathless whispers of scandal, done solely to lessen any support of a candidate making headway against Romney. This is dangerously unfair to those attempting to evaluate a POTUS during this important election. We don’t need half truths running willy nilly, merely to bolster another candidate.
Now, please spare me Jennifer Rubin quotes… the woman is an unpaid Romney campaign operative who will skewer the truth at every avenue to stand by her man. I prefer testimony transcripts, speech transcripts etc for source material, and not some pundit’s uneducated summary.
And in the future, I do respectfully request that you include the source articles that you lift/paste in to your own comments. It’s just a courtesy not only to the original author, but allows the rest of us to see what’s left out for a more full perspective.
@MataHarley:
“Roy Bean is channeling NRO, sans blockquotes, …”
Yeah, about that.
What has been happening to FA’s comment system?
Is this the final version?
We used to have an easier way to put in blockquotes.
And italics, boldings even cross-through(ings).
I to this day don’t know how to put in a link other than to simply paste the whole thing in.
Where did that shortcut go?
Oh, and as per Fred Thompson…..
When I get a reverse mortgage based on his advert maybe then I’ll think about the value of his endorsement.
Maybe he’s more influential back in the East.
And this is another example of hyperbole.
Tell me, what legislative bill did Newt introduce and/or vote for… all by himself… that enabled earmarks that had been happening a decade or so before he became Speaker? Did Newt add all the earmarks himself to bills? Was this a a practice solely confined to the Republicans?
And just what civics course did you take that leaves you under the impression that a Speaker – who rarely introduces bills, debates on the floor, and often abstains from voting himself – can accomplish all this by himself, without a majority of House representatives?
Nonsense… lies, scandal and calumny! (.. she says, channeling Capt Jack Sparrow…LOL)
@Nan G, don’t know what happened with the vast changes in edit choices here. That’s a Curt question. However most… as you demonstrate… make an effort to separate their own commentary from the original source material. Roy did not do that. So I have respectfully requested that he at least provide links to the original source material in the future for us tor read. He’s new as a commenter here, so perhaps he doesn’t know we’re a very link intensive community… and often picky about the quality of the links. LOL
I’m wondering how long before MiTchell pokes his head on to this thread and high tails it. Well done Mata.
Donald Bly, I doubt that the Daniels spammer is that curious. I’m just surprised he hasn’t poked his head in to triumphantly announce that IN is passing a right to work bill. Well duh… the GOP has supermajority in both their assembly chambers. That’s like saying Obama/Pelosi/Reid passing O’healthcare and Dodd-Frank, plus the ARRA, was some vast accomplishment against all odds.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that IN is moving on their own recovery track. But as I stated about Daniels before, he’s not been tested in a volatile situation. Pretty easy to govern when you have veto proof chambers.