Here is a pix of the new newt.
Posted on 09/01/2006 7:44:52 AM PDT by slowhand520
Gingrich opposed to U.S. strike on Iran By Ralph Z. Hallow THE WASHINGTON TIMES September 1, 2006
ROME -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich this week moved a step further toward casting himself as the conservative alternative to Sen. John McCain in a possible run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. In an impromptu speech during a Mediterranean cruise that hosted scores of conservative donors and activists, the Georgia Republican expressed unexpected skepticism about prospects of military intervention to halt Iran's nuclear program. "I am opposed to a military strike on Iran because I don't think it accomplishes very much in the long run," said Mr. Gingrich, who supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and has been a strong defender of Israel. "I think if this regime [in Iran] is so dangerous that we can't afford to let them have nuclear weapons, we need a strategy to replace the regime," Mr. Gingrich said. "And the first place you start is where Ronald Reagan did in Eastern Europe with a comprehensive strategy that relied on economic, political, diplomatic, information and intelligence" means. The statement represented a significant modification of one of his most hawkish foreign-policy views. Earlier this year, he said, "A nonviolent solution that allows the terrorists to become better trained, better organized, more numerous and better armed is a defeat. A nonviolent solution that leads to North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons threatening us across the planet is a defeat." Mr. Gingrich was a guest speaker and panelist on a 10-day "Freedom Cruise" sponsored by the Virginia-based Freedom Alliance that featured 16 other well-known conservatives, including Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese, former National Review publisher William Rusher, Reagan White House national security aide Oliver L. North and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Like arguing that it would have been wrong to attack Hitler before he started WWII in earnest. I thought that Gingrich was a historian of some repute.
He is...and Iran of 2006 and Germany of 1939 are two completely different situations. I agree with Gingrich on this...the Iranian regime and enemies of the US around the middle east would only be strengthened by a military attack on Iran
Newt is just shooting from the lip, just like he has always done. He's making Chuck Schumer seem like a camera shy recluse.
Newt could be right if were not for the fact that they may be developing a nuke. Otherwise, I would be in favor of stabilizing Iraq and pressuring Iran by non-military means. The nuke threat changes everything.
No kidding. When we attacked hitler we weren't really ready and we did a lot of losing before we got around to winning.
10. Ging Newtrich
9. Gewt Ningrich
8. Nut Grinderswitch
7. Ghingis Newt
6. Mr. Goodwrench
5. Grinch Neutron
4. Newt Gringhers
3. Newtros Newtros-Gingy
2. El Newto Gingricho
1. Naginga!!!
Gingrich is talking like we have 5+ years to work it out and that Republicans will still be in the 'majority' and dictating foreign policy!
Makes him look like a "big talker." Full of bluster, but when push comes to shove, he's in Kerryland.
Here is a pix of the new newt.
Heard a guy last night on a cable show argue that although it would be hard to take out Iran's nuclear facilities (because of bunkers, etc.) we could damage them enough to set them back some years and "hope" for regime change.
But as to "inflaming" the ME, he said the Sunni's aren't so keen on the jihadist tactics of the Shia and Iran and that attacking Iran might not make the other Muslim countries as "mad" as we assume. In fact he went as far as to say it might be the opportune time because Hezbollah, which would be sure to attack if Iran was bombed, has already used much of their arsenal in the recent months and that would lessen their ability to attack.
I wish I could remember the guy's name, sorry.
If the Newter is so smart and tough on foreign policy, why did he allow Clinton (both of em), women and song get to him?
Also, what in the world does he think the lessons of 9/11 are beyond the US needing a reformed health care policy?
Agree completely. BTW, I love your picture since I am a biologist with a soft spot for reptiles.
Well it worked great while he was leader of the House in 1994 with N. Korea. END SARCASM!
IMO Gingrich is making sense. Nothing short of invasion and occupation long enough to root our their program is certain to seriously derail it - post air-attack Tehran would just announce that their program has survived assault by the "Great Satan" and in fact we would not know know to what extent that was true. Meanwhile, for better or worse, another massive ground assault and difficlt occupation would be a pretty tough sell to the US electorate.
it was Eagleburger.
he fails to make the distinction re "sunnis" by lumping them all together....
there are oil-rich "sunnis", Kuwait, SA, Emirates, etc.
then there are the rest of the "sunnis" of the ME....
Not to mention that we would have to go it alone. No country - save for perhaps Great Britain, will commit to military action in Iran. Add the fact that Iran is 3x the size of Iraq and it becomes painfully apparent that we do not have the resources (nor the political backbone) to take military action.
Sadly, it will take another 9/11 to change things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.