NEWSWEEK: Gingrich Speaks Out Against Administration's Policy in Iraq,

Saying The U.S. Went 'Off a Cliff'

NEW YORK, Dec. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- In an exclusive interview with Newsweek, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a quiet confidant of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, says the U.S. went "off a cliff in Iraq." In the December 15 issue (on newsstands Monday, Dec. 8), Gingrich talks about the shortcomings of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, saying that "Americans can't win in Iraq. Only Iraqis can win in Iraq."
(snip)
Gingrich, a member of the influential Defense Policy Board, argues that the administration has been putting far too much emphasis on a military solution and slighting the political element, report National Security Correspondent John Barry and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas. While he says he's not speaking for the board, it is rare that one of its members voices a dissenting view in public. "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 don'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 Tommy Franks did-up to the moment of deciding how to transfer power to the Iraqis. Then we go off a cliff."
(more)
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031207/nysu011a_1.html

It isn’t a condemnation, but it is weird nevertheless. What are they up to? I don’t trust this at all.

OTOH, he lived through the vietnam era. Guess Cheney isn't getting the unlimited obedience he is accustomed to.

regardless of his politics, the man is no fool...

wish he would.

Would that be fabulous, or what? Two of the worst creeps in American history beating each other's brains in. I'd pay to see that!

and positioning himself as the war's succesful architect until State got it's hands in the mix.

Maybe not. Who knows, but there is something to this. May just be Gingrich going off a cliff...

Naw, the one thing we know about Newt is that he has no conscience.

You're right that this is some sort of strategic move, God knows what. It looks like we’ll have to wait to find out, your guess about Rummy is as good as any.

sell his books and get his speaking fees.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when such discussions take place.

Check out Josh Marshall's comments on this in today's Talking Points Memo.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Thanks for posting that Shakespeare

"Add to the mix the fact that the neocons react to James Baker's name about the way a gas station attendant does if you try to light a cigarette while you're filling your tank."

This is going to get interesting and fast . Woa !

I cannot believe that it has come to this --- I agree with Newt Gingrich.

I need to go lie down.

bitches about the sexually transmitted disease that he caught.

Forget it. The guy is starved for attention and wants to get back in the limelight. He's just jealous that he's been ignored for soooo long.

cut out of the same fabric. Hot air and inflated egos with alarge dose of snake oil mixed in.

For the good of America, I'm willing to change my registration so I can vote for him in my state's R caucus. But then I'm going back to "Independent-As-A-Hog-on-Ice" status.

Chimpy Vs. Newtie - that would be a hoot and a half !

this is some kind of game the DOD is playing. They are laying the groundwork for withdrawal before elections perhaps? It will eventually become obvious. This cabal used to float ideas out two or three different times and then claim we all knew all about it. That was before the Shrubbies became totally blatant, finally caring not at all what the citizenry wants and thinks.

elements that are ravaging it right now. Bush will
get no political capital if he pulls out and things
fall apart.

Newt? I don't know.

victory, honor, remember Nam, back in oh '73 this is what is going on

The policy has failed and now they're laying the work to get the hell
out and declare victory and go home

This is some sort of message control. They are going to take Gingrich's words and twist them to some sort of advantage. Exactly how is a mystery to me .

A Shia? A Sunni? A Kurd?

Now I've seen everything. But the real important story here is the cracks in republican unity. (Buchanan is also talking of an independent bid - should be as a member of the National Front) Unfortunately, that is the best hope for the Democrats, because things in this country probably aren’t bad enough to unelect Bush. Don't get me wrong... things suck, but most Americans are selfish and employed. Unless they are feeling threatened, I don't expect a mass revolt. Remember, 1984 was worse than 2004 will be, and Reagan won by a landslide. He lied all the time too, and unemployment was at 9.2%. The Dems need to unite behind a centrist candidate and soon, or will probably lose another election. This time, it could ruin the country.

Or is it oxymoran, either way IMO the possibility that these were statements made just out of truthfulness is the least likely possibility. Even the fact that the statements may be true doesn’t improve the likeliness that he said them out of integrity. No, something is amiss.

The Democrats will unite when the nominee is selected. All this smoke now may be a good thing to vet the right candidate, it's the best process there is.

I love it!

...kicking ass and establishing a framework of money and access. This is a clear shot at the State Department, which, as we all know, has been effectively castrated since well before the invasion.

see:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042703A.shtml

US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Elizabeth Jones was asked to comment on Gingrich's recent harsh criticism of her department's Middle East diplomacy.

"Newt Gingrich does not speak in the name of the Pentagon and what he said is garbage," US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Elizabeth Jones told the Publico daily.

"What Gingrich says does not interest me. He is an idiot and you can publish that," she added.

Gingrich called on Tuesday for dramatic change at the State Department, which he accused of backing Middle East dictators and undermining the policies of President George W. Bush.

The former House of Representatives speaker also blasted Secretary of State Colin Powell's plan to visit to Syria, which Washington has accused of harbouring fleeing Iraqi leaders and developing chemical weapons.

He said it was "ludicrous" to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad, who Gingrich called a terrorist- supporting, secret police-wielding dictator.

and at the very least, sidelined them. Gingrich then blamed the State Deept for 'diplomatic failure' and undermining *. Rumsfeld and Cheney were effectively running the State Dept and NSC. "Mistakes" were not made. The sabotaging of diplomatic efforts was purposeful.

Gingrich is for Gingrich.




Gingrich blasts 'diplomatic failure' at State Department
White House defends Powell
Tuesday, April 22, 2003 Posted: 4:18 PM EDT (2018 GMT)


The White House defended Secretary of State Colin Powell and the State Department.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted the State Department Tuesday for a series of what he described as diplomatic failures leading up to the war with Iraq, and warned that the pattern is poised to repeat itself.

In a speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, Gingrich contrasted the experience of the State Department with the Defense Department. He said the State Department had failed in its efforts to apply diplomatic pressure to persuade Iraq to disarm and comply with U.N. resolutions, and it is time for "bold, dramatic change" at the department.

"The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success," said Gingrich, who sits on a Pentagon advisory committee. "The first days after military victory indicate the pattern of diplomatic failure is beginning once again and threatens to undo the effects of military victory."


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Powell "an extraordinary figure" but said the institution was "broken."
Specifically, Gingrich cited as failures the United States' inability to persuade Turkey to allow U.S. troops on its soil before the war and the failed attempt to win a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/gingrich.powell/

Never, ever think that Newt would do something without Rummy okaying it. We shall see how this plays out, but do not for a second think that Newt is doing this out of concern for Americans or our soldiers.

Most of the history of Russia in the 19th century and probably before that is about the peasants wanting their own plots of land. For 11 years, 1917-1928, they got what they had always wanted. Then Stalin collectivised the farms forcing them back into Serfdom.

War is about POLITICS and military, when Hitler invaded Russia all he had to say was he was going to break up the collective farms and he would not have had an army to fight. Instead it was purely military invasion with the added spice of Himmler and his murdering cut-throats followed the army into Russia and making sure that the Russian army would fight to the last man.

The last diary of Geobals contains references to his meetings with the Vlasovites. Basically the Nazis had realised where they had gone wrong 3 years before, and hoped that by adopting the right strategy, when the Russians were knocking on the gates of Berlin, that magically everything would turn out all right.

I think maybe this is what is happening with Gingrich. The time for these ideas was two years ago. By now we all know about the oil situation, we have all read PNAC, and we have all been recipients of the behaviour of the totally unpleasant right-wing mentality.

Nice try Gingrich, but piss off.

The dumping of Saddam out of Kuwait is a classic example. Very limited war aims, just the removal of an army from a small piece of land. A very forgiving scenario to any mistakes that are made. You are not getting into the territory where the survival of Saddam and his regieme are at stake nor is there paticularily any ideology at stake.

It's when you get to the really big all encompassing wars, the fights to the death, the wars of ideology, these are the difficult wars and that's when you have to start showing some real finesse, and bush* doesn't know what the word means.

When America entered WWI, they came with their armies, but more important they came armed with Wilson's fourteen points. bush*, however, decided he wanted a war against Islam just to get a bit of revenge, and also so he could dominate the planet, and also to reward his corporate sponsers, and he made it as obvious as possible to everybody that these were his intentions. Hence the strengh of the resistance to his ambitions.

Good point.

and now he is mad? Tough shit Newty...you reap what you sow, asshole!

Unfortunatly America was standing close by and Newt, being the total coward that he is, decided to take his self-loathing aggression out on Lady Liberty. America got scared, went out, and bought a gun. Now ol' Newty is crying because she wants to blow his balls off!

What really gets me is that 3 females actually married that rat bastard!

Friends,

I have a different take on this than most of you.

I was initially startled to see Newt Gingrich as the 2nd guest on Meet the Press this morning. Newt's message was a severe criticism of the
Bush-Rumsfeld-Chaney axis and it's prosecution of the post invasion war in Iraq.

The way I read it was that Newt was a televised message from the Republican Powers in Congress to Resident Bush: change your Iraqi program or lose the upcoming election.

Nothing but a message that dire could pit Newt against the very White House that, with bad timing, has tried to pull off the very programs that Newt originally initiated(minus, of course, the balanced budget idea).

As a political symbol, Newt's position is very clear; he represents the "Republican Revolution", the plan to end the FDR social security state. More to the point,he represents "winning"...moving from a losing minority to a winning majority; his major historical accomplishment for conservatives and the Republican Party.

In this context, doesn't the warning he represents seem clear, and wouldn't Resident Bush himself be the natural intended receiver of it?

eric

and welcome :hi:

First, Newtie boy was one of the movers trying to discredit Powell and the State Department not too very long ago.

Second, Newtie bo is a signatory to the PNAC.

I don't think he's changing his colors. I think this is some twisted strategy to get Powell out and further the PNAC agenda. Don't know how just yet but something is definitiely afoot here.

- He's a Neocon operative trying to find an out for Bush* by redirecting blame. Don't be fooled because he says a few negative things about the war. He has no more interest in Democracy than the fool on the hill.

he still smells real bad.

...Coulter would say he was guilty of treason. Apparently it's only OK for Republicans to dissent.