PDA

View Full Version : Newt Gingrich Gingrich: Roosevelt would have attacked Iran, N. Korea




Agorism
07-30-2010, 10:07 PM
Gingrich: Roosevelt would have attacked Iran, N. Korea (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0730/gingrich-roosevelt-attacked-iran-korea)


In a speech Thursday before the conservative American Enterprise Institute, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich charged that the United States had failed to take George W. Bush's 2002 "axis of evil" speech seriously when it ignored the opportunity to attack Iran and North Korea following the invasion of Iraq.

Treating Bush's rhetorical phrase as though it had referred to a formal military alliance equivalent to the Axis Powers during World War II, Gingrich claimed, "If Harry Truman had done that, the world today would be communist. If Franklin Roosevelt had done that in ‘41, either the Japanese or the Germans would have won. If Lincoln had done that, we would have become two and then multiple countries."

Gingrich, who appears to be entertaining presidential aspirations, has recently been jumping on the anti-Islamic bandwagon. Last week, he came out against the building of an Islamic community center a few blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, saying, "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."

He later reaffirmed this position in even stronger language, decrying "the idea of a 13-story building set up by a group many of whom, frankly, are very hostile to our civilization."

Gingrich has also been doing his best to stir up fear of Sharia law. He recently told Newsmax, "Radical Islamists are people who want to impose on the rest of us Sharia, which is a form of medieval law which would fundamentally end America as we've known it."
During his AEI speech, according to Foreign Policy's Joshua Keating, "Gingrich cited a number of examples of sharia encroachment, which he described a 'mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and the world.' These included an Islamic loan program in Minnesota, the Islamic finance program at Harvard, and a court decision in New Jersey that was eventually overturned and of course, the much-discussed Ground Zero mosque. There was also the U.S. military's failure to immediately label the Ft. Hood shooter as an Islamic terrorist, and the fact that Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father's warnings were not taken seriously."

Keathing comments sarcastically, "Given that, as Gingrich acknowledged, Abdulmutallab's name found its way onto a database with 'half a million' other names, one might infer that there are an awful lot of people the U.S. is keeping tabs on. If only we would spend billions on a massive top-secret effort to sort through all that intelligence."

"Victory over radical Islam is a long process," Gingrich told AEI. "That is why I used the Cold War as an analogy. ... I believe [Bush] was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said. That is, there was an Axis of Evil: Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we're one out of three. And people ought to think about that."

"If Bush was right in January of 2002," continued Gingrich, "and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it, then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? It's because we’ve stood at the brink, looked over and thought, 'Too big a problem.'"

Steve Clemons, writing at The Washington Note, suggested that Gingrich's speech should be seen in the context of what Brian Katulis at the Center for American Progress calls "the brewing tension inside Republican circles between those who on one hand want to put forward a constructive, national-interest driven strategy that has at its core a patriotic commitment to reinventing American power and those on the other who engage in blustery, pugnacious nationalism that either clobbers other countries in efforts to remake them or walls them off from America."

Gingrich made it obvious on Thursday that he is of the second camp.

This video was posted at YouTube by ThinkProgress on July 29, 2010.



YouTube - Gingrich: We're one for three on the Axis of Evil, why not 3 for 3? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5XjiedoX1M)

Stary Hickory
07-30-2010, 10:33 PM
And Roosevelt was a god awful dictator in chief. FU Newt. A bigger mental midget has never existed. We do not need such unelightened moron running for POTUS. I will stop at nothing to see you do not get elected you POS.

If he care half as much about our freedoms as he does about wasting resources on war he might be decent. Newt is like the worst of every thing, Warmonger (check), Conservative by name only (Check), Liar(check).

South Park Fan
07-30-2010, 11:13 PM
Can we please send Gingrich on a special mission to fight in Iran or North Korea? I wouldn't mind if Clinton, Gates, Biden, and Obama came with him.

AmericaFyeah92
07-30-2010, 11:38 PM
Can we please send Gingrich on a special mission to fight in Iran or North Korea? I wouldn't mind if Clinton, Gates, Biden, and Obama came with him.

TEAM AMERICA BABY!!!!

YouTube - Sweet rescue scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0ByM5GjLrk&feature=related)

Liberty Star
07-30-2010, 11:51 PM
Can we please send Gingrich on a special mission to fight in Iran or North Korea? I wouldn't mind if Clinton, Gates, Biden, and Obama came with him.

These are troops, you can't send them without top commanders Lieberman, Lindsey Graham and Kristol.

AmericaFyeah92
07-30-2010, 11:56 PM
But seriously, the sooner Gingrich gets a tumor the better. If that guy runs, I might have to vote for Obama just because of that speech in the OP.

If, after 9/11, we had invaded Afghanistan, and then a year later invaded Iraq, Iran, AND North Korea, it would have resulted in the very least of the implosion of the United States. Even more likely, it would have ushered in a nuclear war and armageddon.

Matt Collins
07-31-2010, 12:03 AM
YouTube - Judge Napolitano on Iran War Rhetoric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv9QiL2p0dk)

South Park Fan
07-31-2010, 12:29 AM
These are troops, you can't send them without top commanders Lieberman, Lindsey Graham and Kristol.

Oh of course! How could I forget them! Not to mention McCain, Cheney, Krauthammer, and Wolfowitz.

libertybrewcity
07-31-2010, 12:32 AM
Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Where do they come from? Why do they do this to us? Why do they do this to theirselves? This is freaking nuts! Why are these idiotic schmucks dying to go to war?! Are they just retarded or is their some big plan that they have? Are they clueless to blowback and the consequences? Do they only think on the shortterm? I am sick and tired of these idiots. I am flipping my shit right now.

Mini-Me
07-31-2010, 12:38 AM
Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Where do they come from? Why do they do this to us? Why do they do this to theirselves? This is freaking nuts! Why are these idiotic schmucks dying to go to war?! Are they just retarded or is their some big plan that they have? Are they clueless to blowback and the consequences? Do they only think on the shortterm? I am sick and tired of these idiots. I am flipping my shit right now.
I know you're probably venting and already know this, but:
Military-Industrial Complex: Mmmmm, money and power! If you were, say, a large shareholder of Lockheed-Martin, you wouldn't necessarily be an "idiot" for promoting endless war...just a complete psychopath or sociopathic narcissist.
Problem: Endless [manufactured] war. Reaction: "Why can't all these different governments just get along and cooperate?" Solution: Gradually consolidate all coercive power under a one-world provincial government. Then, there will be no war ever again! Yayyy!! (Except for the endless war conducted by "peacekeeping troops" against the world's population, to continually justify the existence of the standing army and to keep the plebs in line.)

Matt Collins
03-08-2011, 12:08 PM
YouTube - Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions = Act of War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO-4v8qpYc)
YouTube - 12/21/09 Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions are Precursor to War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpROuKbV9x0)
YouTube - House Floor Debate on Iran Sanctions part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdCncpRHjpg)

Iran: Neither Threat Nor Menace: http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/17/iran-neither-threat-nor-menace

Lucille
03-08-2011, 01:38 PM
Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Where do they come from? Why do they do this to us? Why do they do this to theirselves? This is freaking nuts! Why are these idiotic schmucks dying to go to war?! Are they just retarded or is their some big plan that they have? Are they clueless to blowback and the consequences? Do they only think on the shortterm? I am sick and tired of these idiots. I am flipping my shit right now.

It's how neocons (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked/) roll.


The neocons’ national-greatness philosophy is also the animating force behind the their foreign policy. Indeed, neoconservative foreign policy is a branch of its domestic policy. The grand purpose of national-greatness foreign policy is to inspire the American people to transcend their vulgar, infantilized, and selfish interests for uplifting national projects. The neoconservatives’ policy of benevolent hegemony will, according to William Kristol and Robert Kagan, “relish the opportunity for national engagement, embrace the possibility of national greatness, and restore a sense of the heroic.” In other words, the United States should wage war in order to combat creeping nihilism. In the revealing words of Kristol and Kagan, “The remoralization of America at home ultimately requires the remoralization of American foreign policy.” Going to war, sacrificing both treasure and blood in order to bring “democracy” to strangers—this is a mission worthy of a great nation.

The neocons therefore believe that a muscular foreign policy—one that includes military intervention abroad, war, regime change, and imperial governance—will keep the American people politicized and therefore virtuous. By saving the world from tyranny, America will save herself from her own internal corruption. And there’s more. By keeping America perpetually involved in nation-building around the world, neoconservative rulers will have the opportunity to exercise their statesmanlike virtues. There can be no statesmanship without politics and there can be no truly magnanimous statesmanship without war, so the neocons fear and loathe moral principles that might deny them this outlet. A condition of permanent war, a policy of benevolent hegemony, and the creation of a republican empire means that there will always be a need for politics and statesmanship.

SWATH
03-08-2011, 02:03 PM
"You can also drive with your feet, but that doesn't make it a good fucking idea."
C. Rock

Zippyjuan
03-08-2011, 03:19 PM
Gingrich is seeking his party's nomination for President and to secure that, he has decided to pander to the hardcore right-wing sector of the party. In most primaries, the hardcore party members are sometimes the most likely to turn out in big numbers. But taking that tact will make it hard to win in a general election where most voters are much more moderate (assuming he actually got the party nod).

georgiaboy
03-08-2011, 03:27 PM
Roosevelt? A liberal Democrat? And that is supposed to make me want to vote for Newt, a supposed conservative Republican?

this flies in the face.

ItsTime
03-08-2011, 03:42 PM
LMAO Did Newt just out himself as a Progressive?

emazur
03-08-2011, 04:16 PM
LMAO Did Newt just out himself as a Progressive?

John McCain said Teddy Roosevelt was his hero and Meghan McCain calls herself a "progressive Republican (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/23/lkl.01.html)", so at this point you just kind of think "sure, what the hell"

BuddyRey
03-08-2011, 05:18 PM
Isn't it sad how today's "conservatives" draw inspiration from yesterday's socialistic proggies?

erowe1
03-08-2011, 05:19 PM
Another way of writing this headline is:

"Gingrich: I want to emulate FDR as president."

South Park Fan
03-08-2011, 06:19 PM
Isn't it sad how today's "conservatives" draw inspiration from yesterday's socialistic proggies?

Technically, they're living up to their name by seeking to "conserve" the same bad policies of yesteryear.

Philhelm
03-08-2011, 06:31 PM
Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Where do they come from? Why do they do this to us? Why do they do this to theirselves? This is freaking nuts! Why are these idiotic schmucks dying to go to war?! Are they just retarded or is their some big plan that they have? Are they clueless to blowback and the consequences? Do they only think on the shortterm? I am sick and tired of these idiots. I am flipping my shit right now.

They're not dying to go to war; they're dying for other people to die in war.

Indy Vidual
03-08-2011, 06:35 PM
YouTube - Judge Napolitano on Iran War Rhetoric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv9QiL2p0dk)

"War is the health of the State"

osan
03-08-2011, 10:57 PM
Gingrich is a mega-douche. We need to kidnap him and ship him to some place we don't like. Question is, is there any place so evil that sending Gingrich there would not constitute an unforgivably heinous crime? Didn't think so.

Crap.

Aratus
03-09-2011, 10:09 AM
is the NEWT morphing Teddy R. with Franklin R. in order to be rhetorical???
Teddy was into gunboat diplomacy, Franklin tended to ask the Brits first...