Donutboy 0 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 It looks like Zell Miller isn't the only Georgian to question his party's leadership!! These views come from Newt Gingrich, the architect of the Republican majority. Dissent in the Bunker Newt Gingrich, a quiet Rumsfeld confidant, thinks the U.S. went ‘off a cliff’ in Iraq. A NEWSWEEK exclusive By John Barry and Evan Thomas NEWSWEEK Dec. 15 issue — The military has been hitting hard lately in Iraq, using overwhelming firepower to kill the enemy in operations with videogame names like Iron Hammer and Ivy Cyclone II. But behind the scenes, some military experts, including high-ranking officers in U.S. Special Forces (Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs and the like), are beginning to complain that America’s strategy in Iraq is wrongheaded. “THIS IS WHAT Westmoreland was doing in Vietnam,†says a top Special Forces commander, referring to the firepower-heavy tactics favored by the military’s senior commander in Vietnam, Gen. William Westmoreland, who lost sight of America’s essential mission in that lost war: winning the hearts and minds of the people. One center of private concerns with America’s Iraq strategy is the Defense Policy Board, a collection of outside experts—mostly heavyweight conservatives—who regularly consult with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Disquiet in this quarter is particularly significant, since the DPB pushed from the outset for the invasion of Iraq. Last week one of the more colorful and outspoken members of the group, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, went public with his worries and ideas in an interview with NEWSWEEK. He was careful to say that he does not speak about the board’s deliberations “on or off the record,†but he proceeded to hold forth in his insightful, if mildly bombastic, way about the shortcomings of administration policy in Iraq. Sitting in his office in downtown Washington, Gingrich searched on his computer for the Web site of the Coalition Provisional Authority, set up in Baghdad to oversee the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq. “I’m told over there that CPA stands for ‘Can’t Produce Anything’,†says Gingrich. “Home page of the New Iraq,†he quotes. Then: “The opening quote is, of course, by [CPA chief Paul] Bremer. Next quote is by Bush. Next quote is by U.S. Ambassador Steve Mann.†He scrolls down. “Now this is a big breakthrough. They do have the new Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. On the front page. That is a breakthrough,†he repeats, adding, sotto voce, “I have been beating the crap out of them for two weeks on this.†His basic point: where are the Iraqi faces in the New Iraq? “Americans can’t win in Iraq,†he says. “Only Iraqis can win in Iraq.†Gingrich argues that the administration has been putting far too much emphasis on a military solution and slighting the political element. “The real key here is not how many enemy do I kill. The real key is how many allies do I grow,†he says. “And that is a very important metric that they just don’t get.†He contends that the civilian-run CPA is fairly isolated and powerless, hunkered down inside its bunker in Baghdad. The military has the money and the daily contact with the locals. But it’s using the same tactics in a guerrilla struggle that led to defeat in Vietnam. “The Army’s reaction to Vietnam was not to think about it,†he says. Rather than absorb the lessons of counterinsurgency, Gingrich says, the Army adopted “a deliberate strategy of amnesia because people didn’t want to ever do it again.†The Army rebuilt a superb fighting force for waging a conventional war. “I am very proud of what [Operation Iraqi Freedom commander Gen.] Tommy Franks did—up to the moment of deciding how to transfer power to the Iraqis. Then,†said Gingrich, “we go off a cliff.†In essence, the Americans never did transfer power. They disbanded the Iraqi Army and the government, realized that was a mistake, and quickly tried to cobble together an Iraqi police force and military. But the Iraqis in uniform today are seen by too many Iraqi citizens as American collaborators. Gingrich faults the Americans for not quickly establishing some sort of Iraqi government, however imperfect. “The idea that we are going to have a corruption-free, pristine, League of Women Voters government in Iraq on Tuesday is beyond naivete,†he scoffs. “It is a self-destructive fantasy.†(The White House insists that it is paying close attention to local politics and has speeded up the timetable to turn over power to the Iraqis.) The rumor mill in the Pentagon suggests that Bush’s “exit strategy†is to get American troops coming home in waves by next November’s election. Obliquely, Gingrich indicates that would be a huge mistake. The guerrillas cannot be allowed to believe that they only have to outlast the Americans to win. “The only exit strategy is victory,†Gingrich says. But not by brute American force. “We are not the enforcers. We are the reinforcers,†says Gingrich. “The distinction between these two words is central to the next year in Iraq.†Gingrich’s voice rang with his customary certainty. Hard to know if Rumsfeld and Bush are listening. Dissent in the Bunker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 The Bush administration responds to Gingrich comments!! Card dismisses questions over prewar intelligence as `moot'SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer President Bush's chief of staff dismissed as "a moot point" any lingering question about whether Bush relied on faulty intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. Andy Card also rejected charges from fellow Republican Newt Gingrich that the administration's postwar policies went "off a cliff" after an impressive invasion that deposed Saddam Hussein's government. Card dismisses questions over prewar intelligence as `moot' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Pre-war intelligence is pretty much moot now, at least from a practical standpoint. Bush has lost a lot of political capital from this escapade. So, in that sense, it isn't moot at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Bush has lost a lot of political capital from this escapade. So, in that sense, it isn't moot at all. No real big loss from what I can see. The only people bashing him for this in America are the ones that didn't like him to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I didn't say anything about bashing. I said he'd lost a lot of political capital. Many conservatives (Lott, McCain, Gingrich, Shelby, etc.) have publicly criticised his policies lately. Then and now: USA Patriot Act blows through the Senate with a 99-1 passage vs. arm twisting some conservatives to pass the Medicare Bill. His stonewalling of the 9/11 Commitee is ruffling a lot of conservative feathers. His manipulation of pre-war intelligence to get us into Iraq will certainly make his coattails less attractive in a lot of areas of the country with Republican Congressmen or Senators running for re-election. He can't even run roughshod over the UN anymore. We won't even talk about the economy and his tax cuts to the mega-wealthy that were supposed to create jobs-a-plenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 We won't even talk about the economy and his tax cuts to the mega-wealthy that were supposed to create jobs-a-plenty. More people are working now than before 9/11. All economic factors indicate the economy is strong once again. So, I'd say the tax cuts worked. Proves the point that if you give the people the money, they will spend it. Speaking of tax cuts, did you get a check? Did you cash it, or were you so against this measure that you stood fast to your principles and return it to the Department of Treasury? If you stood strong to your belief and returned it to the government, I salute you sir. If you cashed it, then you become another liberal hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 We won't even talk about the economy and his tax cuts to the mega-wealthy that were supposed to create jobs-a-plenty. More people are working now than before 9/11. All economic factors indicate the economy is strong once again. So, I'd say the tax cuts worked. Proves the point that if you give the people the money, they will spend it. Speaking of tax cuts, did you get a check? Did you cash it, or were you so against this measure that you stood fast to your principles and return it to the Department of Treasury? If you stood strong to your belief and returned it to the government, I salute you sir. If you cashed it, then you become another liberal hypocrite. I didn't receive a check and if I started getting more money in my paycheck, it wasn't enough to notice. Unlike the Bushs and Cheneys who saw millions in tax savings, I didn't see enough to even know how much to return. However, on your "hypocrite" statement. Not returning the check, if one got one, is not being hypocritical. With the size of the debt being run up by this "fiscal conservative" sending a check back would be like trying to float the Titanic with an eyedropper of water. What's truly sad is that so many people can't see the cycle here. Even over and above the tax cuts, this government is reaching deep into our children's and grandchildren's pockets to "donate" billions of dollars to corporations in the guise of Medicare reform, energy policies and terrorism packages. These recipients then donate a million or two of their billions back to the Bush re-election campaign in the hopes they can steal from us for another four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 TIS, I checked with Treasury department and was told I couldn't return it so we gave it to MoveOn.org to help them with their efforts in defeating Bush in 2004. We also give to our Church and to Catholic Social Services and various other Catholic charities. But, as I'm sure you are aware of, our tax cut advance was not very much. All totaled, the entire 'tax relief' measures Our Fearless Leader has given my family has been about $700 over the last 2+ years. We initially got $300 and then we got $400 for having one child, far below the $1500 average Bush was touting when he was selling it to the public. Democrats were demonized after telling people that the $1500 was a dream number because it was an average of ALL the cuts, including the checks worth tens of thousands that were sent to the extremely wealthy. Additionally, I have seen an increase in my paycheck of about $9.00. We had a great third quarter but most economists feel that it was spurred on by, as you said, the child tax credits that were sent out earlier. They also believe that this kind of growth, or any significant growth, won't be sustained because inflation adjusted real wage and income declined by 0.1% and many business expenditures were made because they would lose equipment tax credits if not done before the credit expired. For recovery to be sustainable, future household spending needs to be fuelled by income growth, which requires a recovery of the labor market and the trade deficit needs to shrink, which requires a sustained decline in the value of the dollar. As for the interesting suggestion that more people are employed now than were three years ago, I'd like you to explain how that is in a little more detail. Maybe it's because the economy is so bad that older people can't retire and younger people have to go to work to help their families buy food and shelter and utilities. Here are some interesting graphs: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 TIS, I checked with Treasury department and was told I couldn't return it so we gave it to MoveOn.org to help them with their efforts in defeating Bush in 2004. We also give to our Church and to Catholic Social Services and various other Catholic charities.But, as I'm sure you are aware of, our tax cut advance was not very much. All totaled, the entire 'tax relief' measures Our Fearless Leader has given my family has been about $700 over the last 2+ years. We initially got $300 and then we got $400 for having one child, far below the $1500 average Bush was touting when he was selling it to the public. Democrats were demonized after telling people that the $1500 was a dream number because it was an average of ALL the cuts, including the checks worth tens of thousands that were sent to the extremely wealthy. Additionally, I have seen an increase in my paycheck of about $9.00. We had a great third quarter but most economists feel that it was spurred on by, as you said, the child tax credits that were sent out earlier. They also believe that this kind of growth, or any significant growth, won't be sustained because inflation adjusted real wage and income declined by 0.1% and many business expenditures were made because they would lose equipment tax credits if not done before the credit expired. For recovery to be sustainable, future household spending needs to be fuelled by income growth, which requires a recovery of the labor market and the trade deficit needs to shrink, which requires a sustained decline in the value of the dollar. As for the interesting suggestion that more people are employed now than were three years ago, I'd like you to explain how that is in a little more detail. Maybe it's because the economy is so bad that older people can't retire and younger people have to go to work to help their families buy food and shelter and utilities. Here are some interesting graphs: TigerAl, there you go with that lib propaganda again. Imagine you using actual charts and graphs to prove a point. That's just not fair!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUBoggs 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 When I look my pay stub every 2 weeks and see the amount I've paid in taxes thus far this year I can't help but ask "How can elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation, honestly think taking nearly 36% of my money is fair"? Until spending is done responsibly, this country will have issues with deficits and debt. This is a problem regardless of who sits in the Whitehouse or Congress. Both parties are guilty of pandering to their constituents in order to remain in office and they do this with tax dollars. Why don't we, as the actual employers of our elected officials, determine what they make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 When I look my pay stub every 2 weeks and see the amount I've paid in taxes thus far this year I can't help but ask "How can elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation, honestly think taking nearly 36% of my money is fair"? Until spending is done responsibly, this country will have issues with deficits and debt. This is a problem regardless of who sits in the Whitehouse or Congress. Both parties are guilty of pandering to their constituents in order to remain in office and they do this with tax dollars. Why don't we, as the actual employers of our elected officials, determine what they make? How much would you believe is fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUBoggs 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 The whole structure needs to be changed. Everyone should pay less. Personally I like the flat tax idea, say 15% - 18% and limit deductions. They can have my SS, let me take the $$ and invest it myself. I know I can get a better return. Unfortunately it has become a pay-as-you-go program and has turned into a debacle. Sorry for the length response to a simple question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUBoggs 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 When I look my pay stub every 2 weeks and see the amount I've paid in taxes thus far this year I can't help but ask "How can elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation, honestly think taking nearly 36% of my money is fair"? Until spending is done responsibly, this country will have issues with deficits and debt. This is a problem regardless of who sits in the Whitehouse or Congress. Both parties are guilty of pandering to their constituents in order to remain in office and they do this with tax dollars. Why don't we, as the actual employers of our elected officials, determine what they make? How much would you believe is fair? I may be a little slow tonight, pay for the elected officals may have been your question. Since the majority of them have income from other sources, why not reimburse them for their expenses while in office and discontinue their salaries? Obviously there would have to be a cap otherwise their expense reports would have $3,000 a night hotels and filet mignon everynight (not to mention the entertainment costs)!If we could disuade those with the "silver spoons" from running maybe some real work could get done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 No, your first one (witholding tax) was the question I was asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.