The "phony war"

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Bush's war on terror is 'phony,' Gingrich says

Bob Deans, Cox News Service

WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday 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, 2001.

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

"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the Georgia Republican told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.

Gingrich, who led the "Republican revolution" that won the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 1994 midterm elections, was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

Said Gingrich, "Look at New Orleans; how can you say New Orleans is succeeding? Look at Baghdad. If you can't look failure in the face, how do you improve it?"

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/658561.html

[quietfan 233]

Guess I better call Beelzebub for a temperature report from his neighborhood...I'm actually agreeing with Newt Gingrich??

[DKW 86 7,440]

I think Gingrich is agreeing with me. I have basically advocated that very position for years now.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The sad part is that there are few that refuse lobbyist’s money. One of those being, well, you know who that is. Removing the money from of Washington will help tremendously, but ridding ourselves of the banking industry would be the beginning of liberty that we all dream about. There is a movement to create a four branch of government that would allow us to vote on new laws.

[otterinbham 0]

I think Gingrich is agreeing with me. I have basically advocated that very position for years now.

Yep. Now watch the kneejerk response coming....I can almost feel it bubbling up...

On the other hand, I have a hard time taking Newt seriously, given he's the guy who blew his very own Republican Revolution in 1995. Basically, instead of overhauling the government, he instead embarked on a crusade to get rid of Clinton in 1996 by shutting down the Federal Government--A very stupid move on his part. Then, of course, we had the total mishandling of the Monica Lewinsky thing.

[AFTiger 282]

I think Gingrich is agreeing with me. I have basically advocated that very position for years now.

Yep. Now watch the kneejerk response coming....I can almost feel it bubbling up...

On the other hand, I have a hard time taking Newt seriously, given he's the guy who blew his very own Republican Revolution in 1995. Basically, instead of overhauling the government, he instead embarked on a crusade to get rid of Clinton in 1996 by shutting down the Federal Government--A very stupid move on his part. Then, of course, we had the total mishandling of the Monica Lewinsky thing.

Actually without the preplanned assistance of big media and big labor, Clinton's budget veto would have had a different ending. Remember, the Republican Congress was trying to reduce spending and Clinton was trying to increase it.

Lewinsky was a small part of the general coruption of the Clinton Whitehouse and his minions managed to get everybody focused on the sex issue instead of the perjury and witness tampering deal. He is indeed a politcal magician.

I haven't heard what Gingrich has proposed to win the war on terror.

I believe Gingrish's desire to ween us from foreign oil involves drilling our own oil. The Democrats will continue to fight that and keep us at the mercy of foreign oil.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Mistakes were obviously made in Iraq, after the fall of Saddam. We don't hear much about Afghanistan, other than rumors and sound bites about how the Taliban is back, in spots, making life miserable for a few. Having said that, I'm a bit confused at what Newt's real agenda is here.

He talks about weening the U.S. off of Mid East oil, but that simply isn't going to happen. Why ? Mid East oil is the cheapest and most abundant oil on the planet. Compared to anywhere else in the world, M.E. oil is easy to extract and that's the bottom line. If companies don't have to spend huge amounts of $$ getting oil from wells to refinery to gas stations or where ever, that's where they're going to get their oil. U.S. oil refineries are running at near 100%. Opening up the oil fields in ANWR, for example, wouldn't bring any of THAT oil to the US, as it would likely be sold to Japan instead. So the claims that we'd ' use our own' is nonsense. The market determines what oil we use, and things would have to get much much worse before we look elsewhere than the M.E. for our oil.

Newt's right about the failures of holding Congress and the W.H. for 6 yrs and not achieving much. How's this related to the war on terror again?

Then he brings up New Orleans and Baghdad. Why ? New Orleans is suffering from a dose of their own medicine, having re-elected Ray Nagin as Mayor. There's not much the President or the Fed Gov't can do about a city who refuses to help itself. Quite the contrary, Gov't red tape has made matters unbearable in N. O, as the back log of paper work and bureaucratic nonsense has made a tangled mass of everything down there. But why compare it to Baghdad ? And again, what's the point of connecting all this to the war on terror?

I think Newt is trying to sound like a candidate, more than anything, with out having to be one. My best guess is that he's positioning himself as a VP candidate, which is what this is all really about.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Mistakes were obviously made in Iraq, after the fall of Saddam. We don't hear much about Afghanistan, other than rumors and sound bites about how the Taliban is back, in spots, making life miserable for a few. Having said that, I'm a bit confused at what Newt's real agenda is here.

Who says he has an agenda? You're the first. I believe the man is just speaking truth to power.

We all know who to blame for the failures. In so many words, he is calling this administration a "failure" in relation to true conservative principles. I have yet to see anyhting sucessful come from this administration. What? The bullhorn moment. LOL! They have succeeded in stealing our moeny, that's what has happened (i.e. war-profiteering).

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?arti...;dcn=todaysnews

He talks about weening the U.S. off of Mid East oil, but that simply isn't going to happen. Why ? Mid East oil is the cheapest and most abundant oil on the planet.

Not true. There is enough oil on the northern slope of Alaska to last us 200 years. It can be pumped for $3 per barrel, which is $2/barrel below what the Arabs pay.

Newt's right about the failures of holding Congress and the W.H. for 6 yrs and not achieving much. How's this related to the war on terror again?

Well, they did manage to pass tax cuts and draconian legislation.

Then he brings up New Orleans and Baghdad. Why ? New Orleans is suffering from a dose of their own medicine, having re-elected Ray Nagin as Mayor. There's not much the President or the Fed Gov't can do about a city who refuses to help itself. Quite the contrary, Gov't red tape has made matters unbearable in N. O, as the back log of paper work and bureaucratic nonsense has made a tangled mass of everything down there. But why compare it to Baghdad ? And again, what's the point of connecting all this to the war on terror?

A recent court decision not to provide payments by insurance companies to Katrina policyholders favored insurers. I compare it to Baghdad because it's just another example of bad government.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...0,7808056.story

I think Newt is trying to sound like a candidate, more than anything, with out having to be one. My best guess is that he's positioning himself as a VP candidate, which is what this is all really about.

He would make an excellent President or VP.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Not saying having an agenda is a BAD thing. I happen to like Newt. Hell I voted for him back when he was in Congres.

On the conservative front, clearly Bush has failed. And as the architect of the GOP Revolution back in '94, I bet Newt feels a bit betrayed at the success he was able to show that has now been wasted on Bush's watch. Despite Bush's cutting of taxes and choosing 2 USSC justices, there's not much else he can point to as being positive.

Dunno how much it costs to pump the oil out of ANWR, but the enviroment is far tougher to deal with than in the M.E.

A recent court decision not to provide payments by insurance companies to Katrina policyholders favored insurers. I compare it to Baghdad because it's just another example of bad government.

Maybe those policy holders weren't due payments ? The big guy isn't always the bad guy. I don't know the specifics of the court order, but I fail to see how that examplifies 'bad gov't' , nor do I see what it has to do w/ Baghdad or the war on terror. Best I could come up with is that a oversized Gov't runs things poorly. And W made our Gov't bigger and less effective. Though I don't know if that's honestly the case across the board, in every section of Gov't.

I was high on Newt being President a while back , despite some of his personal issues. Now, I'm not so sure. He comes off sounding passionate and well informed, which he is, but there are times when I think he's simply out of touch. It's not his knowledge of history or passion for effective Gov't that I'd mind, but his personal views on a few things which I feel might turn some folks off. No candidate is perfect, by any means. I'd vote for him even still, but he's by no means my first choice.

[AUman43 5]

Newt is saying the "right things" but I have no more trust in him to follow through with true changes than any of others who are already in the race for the Presidency. The REAL problem in Washington is the power of the lobbyists, ( pharmaceutical industry, American Medical Association, Insurance Industry, Oil Industry, Environmental activists, Trial Lawyers, etc.) political corruption, immorality, greed, and a TOTAL DISREGARD for the wishes and opinions of the American people! We, as a people, desperately need another REVOLUTION in this country in which the people DEMAND that those things just mentioned be reduced or eliminated and hold those who violate it responsible in the next election. That's the only way things will ever improve! I say research their voting records, affiliation with lobbyists, acquired wealth since being elected and for those who don't measure up, fire them! If we don't, this country is h eaded down the drain...................................