Posted on 11/29/2006 9:48:42 AM PST by jamese777
In N.H., says Bush must admit that to regain trust
BEDFORD, N.H. -- Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told a New Hampshire audience yesterday that unless the Bush administration admits that the war in Iraq is a "failure," it will never develop a strategy to leave the country successfully.
Gingrich, who has been laying the groundwork for a presidential run, said the Bush administration needs to plan a "third stage" in Iraq, following the military takeover stage and the recent democracy-building stage. But he says a third stage can come about only if officials admit they must change course.
"If the military, White House, and State Department continue to avoid the word 'failure,' how can you bring about a third stage?" Gingrich said.
Gingrich was in New Hampshire for three campaign-style events Monday night and yesterday. While the former speaker has expressed interest in a presidential run, he said yesterday that he is more interested in injecting ideas in to the 2008 campaign than in putting his name on the ballot. He said he will not seriously entertain a presidential campaign until September.
Gingrich, who served on a key Pentagon board that advised Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the runup to the Iraq war, was eager to distance himself from the Bush administration's handling of the war.
He said a show of contrition by the White House would help the president regain the trust of the American people and avoid a quick pullout, which would be disastrous.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Afganistan and Iraq are not inextricably intertwined. The proper question is -- what would things be like had we gone into Afganistan, and stayed out of Iraq?
Please, Newt, explain to me, in particulars, how the Iraq war can be deemed a "failure."
A work in significant progress, yes. At least as messy as the occupation of Europe after WWII, yes.
But a "failure"? Hardly.
Does Newt think this is going to gain him some kind of points and, if so, with whom? Just askin'.
Governments of poor countries will always hate us.
They can't give their citizens what they want; blue jeans, iPODS, home computers, etc.
Their only option is to blame their problems on us for somehow holding them back or stealing their resources.
So we have the option of sitting back and defending ourselves whenever someone pops up and attacks us, or try to make them more like us so they can have material wealth and debased culture, like we have.
This will be the history of the next several hundred years.
Yeah, and it would appear the unappeasables here in the U.S. did too.
"While Newt is not helping on this by using the terminology I can't see why anyone should be disagreeing with him."
There are too many people who equate criticism of our policy with embracing the Democrats. I supported the toppling of Saddam, as did most Americans, but I have never been all that enthusiastic with the Willsonian adventure in nation building. We should of focused more on setting up a secure government that would not harbor terrorists and then let the Iraquis decide for themselves if they wanted to make the transisition to a democratic form of government.
For any of you dunder heads that cannot figure out that this PC crap is a quick path to defeat, someone like Newt is here to tell you.
So you whine and complain that he told you and the World that the current course is a failure.
Would you prefer to just let things go on, convincing yourself that it is a raging success?
There is a need to separate "the Iraq war" into distinct parts.
- The goal
- The tactics
- The majority of Iraq that is peaceful and safer than our Nations capital.
- The parts of Iraq that are just as dangerous as certain parts of Washington DC.
Bush and the pro-war supporters need to compare Iraq to our own "war on drugs" or "war on crime" or whatever we in the USA can relate to.
Yes, thats totally right. What kills me is that those of us for 2 years have been saying that they have to do things different, for one be aggressive, act like an occupier, and have a PR effort, have been ignored. Now we have Newt pandering. Pathetic.
Newt's become Henry Kissinger without the accent. No real power, lots of opinion and a complicit media when he sides with their wish to bash the administration, which is about 50% of the time.
Yep, he's running and furiously trying to court the moderates of the left.
I have to say I pretty much think Newt's right about this...
Jiffy-Pop and Dr. Pepper will do.
Privately, the military and political leadership is reviewing constantly what went right and what went wrong. In any war, you have to be flexible and adjust. Publicly, Bush has already said he will listen to the Baker Study group. What Newt wants Bush to do is admit publicly that the war is a failure. What good will that do in winning the war? You have a leader who just said the War in Iraq was a failure, but now follow me because I have a new plan. Bush is finished as a leader if he admits publicly that the war is a failure.
damn Newt, that is a deal breaker....
They decided in three different elections when up to 12 million Iraqis braved life and limb to vote.
I'm waiting for word to get out that Jeb Bush once wore mismatched socks...the horror! He'll be sunk!
And he thinks THIS will win him points with "the base?" Looks like we won't have Newt to kick around any more.
Stunningly brilliant idea! Since the War on Drugs has been such a tremendous success, costing only 5,000% more than projected, and only killing tens of thousands. I will never forget that afternoon when Drugs signed the formal Armistice aboard a Coast Guard cutter off of the coast of Peru. Still makes me misty-eyed. The War on Crime has been even better. Since people no longer have anything to hide, we can search their homes and persons without warrants or probable cause. You should really be a consultant to the GOP. And I mean it.
"They decided in three different elections when up to 12 million Iraqis braved life and limb to vote."
And they selected the Islamic Al-Dawa party, founded by Muqtada al-Sadr's uncle to run their government. Islamic Al-Dawa is a Shiite fundamentalist political party.
"Say what? That democracy and stablity are on the march in Iraq and Maliki is a believer in individual freedom? Is that what he should say?"
LOL! Good point! He should just lie to make FReeprs feel better.
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.