| Home | About Us | Login/Register | Email News Tips |

A liberal dose of news, national and local politics, commentary, opinions and common sense conversation…

Gingrich Says War on Terror ‘Phony’

by Pamela Leavey

On Thursday, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich broke from Bush and the GOP pack’s party line and said that “Bush 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, 2001.” Perhaps Newt has learned something since his debate with John Kerry on Global Warming, because he sure sounded a lot of Kerry here:

A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

I can’t imagine the stalwart Bushies to have been happy with this assessment from Gingrich:

We’ve been engaged in a phony war,” said Gingrich. “The only people who have been taking this seriously are the combat military.”

His remarks seemed to reflect, in part, the findings of a National Intelligence Estimate made public last month.

In the estimate, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that six years of U.S. efforts to degrade the al-Qaida terrorist group had left the organization constrained but still potent, having “protected or regenerated” the capability to attack the United States in ways that have left the country “in a heightened threat environment.”

“We have to take this seriously,” said Gingrich.

“We used to be a serious country. When we got attacked at Pearl Harbor, we took on Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany,” he said, referring to World War II.

“We beat all three in less than four years. We’re about to enter the seventh year of this phony war against … [terrorist groups], and we’re losing.”

Gingrich, speaking at National Conservative Student Conference noted the “failures of the performances of Republicans” and said, “We were in charge for six years…” referring to the Republican control between 2001 and early 2007, “I don’t think you can look and say that was a great success.”

He also called for end to the “partisanship” that has “polarized national politics and paralyzed the workings of government.”

We have got to get past this partisan baloney, where I’m not allowed to say anything good about Hillary Clinton because ‘I’m not a loyal Republican,’ and she’s not allowed to say anything good about me, or she’s not a ‘loyal’ Democrat. What a stupid way to run a country.”

Surprisingly, right wing blog Hot Air actually gave Gingrich some props on this.

4 Responses to “Gingrich Says War on Terror ‘Phony’”

  1. The Bushco boat is clearly taking on water. This kind of thing will be a major subplot in the upcoming moths, gaining momentum, and it’s going to be very pleasant to watch. The final verdict is already in on this administration and Republicans can ignore it only at their own peril.

  2. Once in a while ol’ Newt can say something profoundly wonderful. I beleieve it was he who said in the summer of 2006 that the Democratic campaign slogan for ’06 need be just two words : “Had Enough?”

  3. Before you lib dogs line up for a bowl of what the press reports about what Newt said, please read his speech IN CONTEXT. You may learn what is really at stake “…The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of threat. Let me give you two examples.

    When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk. Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I’ve simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with. And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs. This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons. And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us. This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to pro actively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement. And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruct ion, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous. This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about , and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate. This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to KILL us, all-non Muslims, esp. Americans and Britons, and eventually ELIMINATE WESTERN CIVILIZATION We must not put our heads in the sand and hope this is not true. It is true and we cannot allow it to happen. Please pass this on to everyone on your list. May be this is why Pres. Bush is so bull headed about the the War? Could it be so many people see Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan as the trees but miss seeing the Islamic Movement as the Forest? In a way I hope Bush is wrong but I am afraid he is right.” GINGRICH

  4. “Lib dogs”?

    Didn’t your momma teach you no manners?

    Ah … never mind.

    The answer is plain enough.

    (Assuming, of course, that you HAD a momma.)