Gingrich says war on terror "phony"

TVoffBrainOn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
313
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html?=roflcoptorattack

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

"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."

"We're about to enter the seventh year of this phony war against ... [terrorist groups], and we're losing."
 
Werbung:

heyjude

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
226
Location
Pacific Northwest, on the beach
This started with RR, but Gingrich represents the neo-con revolution that occured in this country. The generation of anger, hatred, and win-no-matter-what politics. I have had the feeling for a long time, that looking back on the results, he is sorry for what he did. He should be.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
You miss me TVBrain? Sorry, the new girlfriend is demanding more of my time.

You do understand that he's not calling the War on Terror "phony", right? He's saying that the way we are waging it is phony, especially in contrast to how we fought WW2 where we mobilized 15 million men, built a 3 ocean navy, built the B-29, completed the Manhatten project, all in about 4 years.

It has been 6 years since 9/11 and we still haven't reorganized our government bureaucracies so they are effective, we still don't hold our enemies accountable, we still don't insist our "allies" pay attention, we haven't secured our border...

He sees this as a serious issue. We are in a global conflict against an enemy that wants to destroy us. A biological attack is very real, when you have 6 out of the 8 terrorists in Great Britain being medical doctors. Pakistan is unstable and the Iranians and N Koreans are unchecked. We are not taking this war seriously enough.

As for "winning" the WOT, Newt insists that we are lying to ourselves. We, in the West, have suffered an enormous defeat in Gaza and a significant defeat in South Lebanon. He's right. But I also thing something has to be said about the absence of a successful terrorist attack on American soil since the onset of the War on Terror.
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
The British death toll this year is about to reach and exceed the death toll of the first year in action, despite the fact we are supposed to be winning the war, maintaing and destroying the insurgents and stopping the violence.
 
R

Rokerijdude11

Guest
If the Admin was TRULY so worried about terrorism and the War on Terrorthey sure have a funny way of showing us citizens this? If Terrorism was TRULY something the US was worried about................then why is the us mexican border as porus as a sea sponge
 

jb_1430

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
1,011
If the Admin was TRULY so worried about terrorism and the War on Terrorthey sure have a funny way of showing us citizens this? If Terrorism was TRULY something the US was worried about................then why is the us mexican border as porus as a sea sponge

Because standing guard at the border isnt very effective at stopping terrorist. All the 9/11 terrorist went through guarded borders.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
If Terrorism was TRULY something the US was worried about................then why is the us mexican border as porus as a sea sponge

This is true Roker. There is absolutely no excuse that our border hasn't been secured. And the problem is not that we can't do it. We still do engineering well, we just don't do politics and bureaucracy well.

When you immerse yourself in American society during WW2, it becomes entirely clear that they would have had the border secured in 6 months. We were once a serious nation.
 

TVoffBrainOn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
313
You do understand that he's not calling the War on Terror "phony", right? He's saying that the way we are waging it is phony, especially in contrast to how we fought WW2 where we mobilized 15 million men, built a 3 ocean navy, built the B-29, completed the Manhatten project, all in about 4 years.

That's what YOU are saying. Gingrich is saying the WOT is phony because it's being fought in Iraq and not in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a historical buff you love to reference the Civil War and WWII every chance you get.

It has been 6 years since 9/11 and we still haven't reorganized our government bureaucracies so they are effective, we still don't hold our enemies accountable, we still don't insist our "allies" pay attention, we haven't secured our border...

Hey, you voted for him.

He sees this as a serious issue. We are in a global conflict against an enemy that wants to destroy us. A biological attack is very real, when you have 6 out of the 8 terrorists in Great Britain being medical doctors. Pakistan is unstable and the Iranians and N Koreans are unchecked. We are not taking this war seriously enough.

Well we do have a completely inept and corrupt administration to blame. Pouring troops into Iraq isn't taking the WOT seriously either.

As for "winning" the WOT, Newt insists that we are lying to ourselves. We, in the West, have suffered an enormous defeat in Gaza and a significant defeat in South Lebanon. He's right. But I also thing something has to be said about the absence of a successful terrorist attack on American soil since the onset of the War on Terror

The good ole' "we haven't been hit since" line... but im sure you put a hefty load of blame on the Clinton administration for 9/11.

"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."

"I believe we need to find leaders who are prepared to tell the truth ... about the failures of the performance of Republicans ... failed bureaucracies ... about how dangerous the world is," he said when asked what kind of Republican he would back for president."

Your guy, saying your guys failed. and he's right.
 
R

Rokerijdude11

Guest
Because standing guard at the border isnt very effective at stopping terrorist. All the 9/11 terrorist went through guarded borders.

You live in a fantasy world, if you believe what you wrote, in my opinion.
 

Dr.Who

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
6,776
Location
Horse Country
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html?=roflcoptorattack

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

"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."

"We're about to enter the seventh year of this phony war against ... [terrorist groups], and we're losing."

Well I had a hard time believing that Newt said this at first. so I looked it up and found it on 4 independent sources. So unless they are all lying we just have to assume that he did in fact say it. However, I did learn an interesting fact. The first three articles omitted the fact that he said other than militarily we are not winning the war. It didn't give an exact quote so I don't know exactly how this fits in with his other comment but it certainly sheds new light on just what he meant.

Since the terrorists are real the phone comment did not mean that we were waging it against a phone enemy. He must mean the way we are doing it.

If we take his comparison to WW2 seriously we must wonder if he meant that we need to commit as much manpower and energy as we did to WW2 as well as committing ourselves on the domestic front (by becoming energy independent).

Would having a real number of troops involved make this not phony?
Would being committed at home make this not phony?
Would including his comment about "other than militarily" make the reporters not phony?
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
Well we do have a completely inept and corrupt administration to blame. Pouring troops into Iraq isn't taking the WOT seriously either.

The blame can't be laid solely on Bush's shoulders. We have a failed political system that goes way beyond one administration. Sure, Bush hasn't done anything to change these problems can be traced back to LBJ's "Great Society".

The good ole' "we haven't been hit since" line... but im sure you put a hefty load of blame on the Clinton administration for 9/11.

I do.

"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."

He's right. You won't find me championing the cause of the modern Republican party. They have failed to shrink the size of government, they have failed to eliminate many of our great economic liabilities, they haven't reorganized our bureacracies, they've failed to secure our border, they've mismanaged the war, they've spent out of control... I can go on and on. The Republican Congress most certainly wasn't a great success, but I believe that this problem stems from our broken political system that doesn't allow for real change.

Take for example, the Republican and Democratic "debates". I think it was Newt who said that they are a mixture of American Idol and Survivor. It's like a gameshow -- you're almost waiting for who's going to be voted off stage.

The debates are dominated by a TV personality who is often rude and disrespectful to the candidates, cuts them off, etc. And then you have these candidates who are trying to force in their 30 second memorized bit which is what their paid political consultants said works well in the focus groups. There isn't a 30 second answer to Iraq or social security or healthcare or illegal immigration.

Getting back on track here, how can any real change or any big ideas possibly come from such a political system?
 
Werbung:

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
Well I had a hard time believing that Newt said this at first. so I looked it up and found it on 4 independent sources. So unless they are all lying we just have to assume that he did in fact say it. However, I did learn an interesting fact. The first three articles omitted the fact that he said other than militarily we are not winning the war. It didn't give an exact quote so I don't know exactly how this fits in with his other comment but it certainly sheds new light on just what he meant.

Since the terrorists are real the phone comment did not mean that we were waging it against a phone enemy. He must mean the way we are doing it.

If we take his comparison to WW2 seriously we must wonder if he meant that we need to commit as much manpower and energy as we did to WW2 as well as committing ourselves on the domestic front (by becoming energy independent).

Would having a real number of troops involved make this not phony?
Would being committed at home make this not phony?
Would including his comment about "other than militarily" make the reporters not phony?

I would first suggest reading his article (written 7/10):

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21462
 
Top