Newt Gingrich said US must leave Iraq!!! I see pigs flying outside my

[Nimrod2005]

window!!!

<Snip>

"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/NEWS/604110311/1001

[drm604]

1. We NEED a flying pig icon.

Seriously!

[lavenderdiva]

24. ask and you shall receive....

and how about this as well?

[swag]

2. PNAC Signatories: Reveries then Regrets

[Nimrod2005]

3. Was he one of them? I did not know that if he was...

[swag]

5. I suck.

He was a recipient of a letter, not a signatory.

I apologize.

[shance]

6. Bingo. Newt only wants back in the Washington game.

After being caught red-handed.

Hasn't anyone wondered why he disappeared from view for a while?

[Supersedeas]

13. the NeoConservative legacy ain't much to smile about 'tis it?

[Erika]

4. W has been officially abandoned by his party

Yet our troops are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[BeyondThePale]

7. Arctic air mass moves in over hell this week -- expect freezing temps

Might want to keep the flying pigs indoors overnight!

[karynnj]

8. But it's NOT because he is against the concept of regime change

Read this part from the article:


"Gingrich told the students their generation was entering a dangerous period - just as dangerous or more than that of the Cold War. He said the best move would be to replace Iran's government by organizing opposition within Iran.

A student asked if that would be possible now, considering the United States' involvement in Iraq.

"Could we do it technically? Yes," Gingrich said.{i] "We're not using much of our Navy or Air Force.
"If Iranians don't think you're prepared to replace their government, they'll never consider (a) deal."

The italics are mine.

So, the fact that Gingrich wants to leave Iraq is NOT in least similar to either Kerry or Murtha. Where they both feel we can't do anything and don't want soldiers killed for a policy that can't work. (with Kerry still holding out some hope of getting Regional/international diplomacy to push the area from being the hellhole we created.)

[shenmue]

9. Wow, he had a coherent thought?

He stopped being an asshole for five seconds?

I'll be damned!

[bfranky]

10. Pull back?

Under Bush, and probably most Democratic leaders, we will just move soldiers to permanent bases away from the cities, away from the unfolding civil war. From those bases, they will just watch the strife -- and protect the oil. I think that's all Newt means.

www.homelanddecency.com

[cliss]

11. Hi, bfranky.

Welcome to the DU:smoke:

I agree. Newt is really a Chameleon.

[donkeyotay]

12. He helped achieve Bush's War

IIRC, he was one of the people being sent to the CIA analysts to help them come to the "right" conclusions. While not holding an elected office, he worked behind the scenes for this invasion. (IIRC, he also took part in the meeting immediately after 9-11 where they got the ball rolling.)

He did not hold himself accountable.
He did not say the invasion was a bad idea.
No, just that it was a bad idea to "try to occupy that country after June of 2003."

And to think people have floated his name for a presidential bid.

[maine_raptor]

14. Bingo.....The Prez Bug has Bitten

Newt ain't any dummy, he knows the worm has turned with the voters. He's jumping on this bandwagon and going to wave bye-bye to George.

Look for him to come out more "anti-Bush, true conservative" over the next weeks/months.

What next............Hmmmmm............pro-stem cell, rollback of top tier taxes, maybe?

Just watch, he'll try to run as a True Reagan Conservative.

[opihimoimoi]

15. This boy is attempting to save the PUB Party is all

Not being elected, he can say a lot...

By coming out for/against he is not risking...However, to save Pub Power, he must say whatever it takes even if it means countering Bushies thing....

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Gingrich's call for withdrawal is indicative of how badly Bush screwed up

The bipartisan list of those calling for US withdrawal in Iraq gets longer and more impressive. Last week, it was Senator Kerry and William F. Buckley. This week, Newt Gingrich added his name to the list.

Most people on the left (yours truly included) believe it was a bad idea to invade Iraq in the first place. Obviously, this isn't because we thought Saddam was a fine and dandy fellow; rather, it is because: we feel war is a last resort, not a first option; that Bush's case against Saddam based on WMDs and terrorist ties was unconvincing; that inspections were working. We noted that any promises of a democratic Iraq seemed hollow, not only because they came from a US regime whose power rested on a rigged election and was curtailing civil liberties, but because the US plans were to first put an American administrator in control who would rewrite Iraqi laws by decree and because the US was more interested in the views of a convicted embezzler who hadn't lived in Iraq since he was in his early teens rather than those of cab drivers in Baghdad and longshoremen in Basra. The whole thing smelled of corruption and dishonesty.

We turned out to have been right. Saddam was a paper tiger. The war was entirely unnecessary. We turned out to have been right. The war was not for the benefit of the Iraqi people. US troops entering Baghdad were too busy securing the oil ministry to prevent the looting of hospitals.

However, even if US troops had gone up the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and found Iraq awash in weapons-grade biological and chemical agents and skyscrapers archiving papers documenting Saddam's support of al Qaida, it wouldn't change the fact that Bush and his people had no clue how to reconstruct Iraq. Billions of dollars are missing, Halliburton overcharges the US taxpayer for shoddy service, the delivery of electrical power and water to homes and businesses is unreliable, criminal gangs roam the street, the garbage doesn't get picked up, the politicians can't form a government and people in the streets disagree as to whether that government is acceptable and take up arms to defend their turf.

It seems to me that there is a term for when people in a nation don't agree about the government and take up arms to settle the dispute: civil war. Bush, and his supporters like the right wing thug turned propagandist Oliver North, don't want to say civil war because it would be an admission of defeat. Nevertheless, they can put lipstick on a pig and call it "monique", but it's still a pig; Mr. North can call it "terrorists (refusing) to participate in the political process", but it's still a civil war.

The situation is out of control. Nothing positive can be accomplished. Civil war has not been prevented.

That is true whether the invasion was dishonestly conceived or the occupation poorly planned and ineptly administered.

[existentialist]

17. Who's providing comfort for the enemy now? (Gingrich flip flops)

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/


Who's providing comfort for the enemy now?


Newt Gingrich, Jan. 19, 2006: "I think it's quite clear . . . that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies."


Newt Gingrich, April 10, 2006: "It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy after June of 2003. We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."


-- Tim Grieve

[LittleClarkie]

18. He seems to be a bit more old school than many in his party

Somewhat less partisan. Kind of like Buchannan, a bit of a paleo-Conservative.

[existentialist]

20. he wasn't less partisan when he was in power

He was indeed a role model for the likes of Tom DeLay.

When he plays the nonpartisan card these days he reminds me of George W. Bush's statement that, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."


The fact that he is beginning to recognize the Iraq war for the disaster that it is means something, but it doesn't say much about Gingrich's character.

[LittleClarkie]

21. True. I thought of that when I posted. NOW he is less partisan.

He was even working with Hillary at one point. The HORROR (at least as far as Republicans go, anyway.)

[Hippo_Tron]

23. DeLay and Gingrich actually didn't get along very well

I'll agree with you 100% that Gingrich was incredibly partisan when he was in power. But they were different. Gingrich as wrong as he was about pretty much everything, was actually intelligent. DeLay is just an arrogant bully. The unholy trinity (a term actually coined by Josh Lyman but that I'm going to steal) of DeLay, Armey, and Gingrich really did not like each other. Of course, all of them are no longer serving in congress.

[Kenergy]

19. He misspoke...will retract tomorrow n/t

[sendero]

22. Newtie ..

... has his eye on the presidency. Being a consummate politician, he knows that Iraq is a political loser at this point.

I consider Newtie right up there with Tom Delay in overall slime factor. If you shake hands with him, you'd better count your fingers when you are done.

[GoldenOldie]

25. Newt the ultimate opportunist

He changes his opinions, theories, etc., like he changes his wives. I have made serious attempts to listen to his talks/speeches to discover how he attained his power and support yet I come away more confused as to why educated people buy into his spiel. He started with a slogan "Contract for America," which apparently really grabbed the minds of the Republicans who were wanting to gain control......yet it allowed the CON's who vetted Project for New American Century to hijack the GOP and use it as their own vehicle to garner control of our democracy.