The Worrier

The New Yorker's "The Political Scene" ^ | 2001-11-19 | Peter J. Boyer

[VA Advogado]

Newt is da man!

[lambo]

Bump to read later.

[Clinton's a rapist]

Sounds like Newt really knows what he is talking about. Sure, the guy is a lightning rod, but isn't there something we can do to get him working on the home defense stuff behind the scenes?

[McGavin999]

Why Wal-Mart? Because of their effective distribution system? He's right though, we need to get that food and supplies into the country and distributed as soon as possible. We could win the battles and lose the war if we don't.

In order to stamp out terrorism, we have to show that we are effective and that we're not going to end up screwing everything up as a result of our manhunts.

[Gracey]

..... but I think the underlying fact is that you have Bill Clinton's generals designing a campaign that is not very creative, and it's not very clever," Gingrich says. "I think it's important to recognize you have a very thin layer of Bush appointees over the Clinton bureaucracy."

This IS rather scary.

[RippleFire]

Interesting BUMP

[stands2reason]

Of course he's right. Though I do wish he'd tone down the Cassandra routine and make his criticism more "constructive." Some of his comments can be taken out of context as "soundbites" to imply he is against the Bush administration by liberal media types intent on creating division among Republicans.

[XBob]

Gingrich is normally so far ahead of the pack in Washington, that most don't have the vaguest idea what he is talking about, and then later it comes to pass, and they say wow, we have a 'crisis', and Gingrich would have fixed the 'crisis' before it happened and we wouldn't have had a 'crisis'.

[walden]

Bump for a good read. Lots to think about here.

[Nick Danger]

OK, for all you people who don't want to read this article because it's so long, here's the Cliff's Notes version.

---

Gingrich is enjoying renewed influence. He has long-time friendships with several major players in the Administration including Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney.

At one time Gingrich worried that Bush would not live up to his potential because of his seemingly poor communications skills. Following Bush's address to Congress, he no longer worries about that. "After that speech, you knew -- O.K., this guy's awake now."

Gingrich worries that the Administration may not fulfill Bush's stated goal of "rooting out global terrorism." Among the problems he sees are a State Department bureaucracy that has been on its own course since at least the days of FDR, often ignoring the stated goals of the United States in favor of coalition-building for its own sake; a Pentagon full of "Clinton's generals," and an Intelligence Community that needs a top-to-bottom overhaul. He is also concerned that there has been a lack of attention to planning for the day we win; he wants to see a big PR bonanza for the U.S. come from this, with Al-Jazeera televising happy Afghans telling their Muslim brethren, "Thank God the Americans won."

Gingrich does not believe we are taking 'homeland security' seriously enough. He likes Tom Ridge but thinks that national security is too complex a subject to be handed over to a newbie. He sees a lot of furious activity, but not much in the way of strategy or direction. Even simple things are going undone, like finding out how many labs had samples of the Ames strain of anthrax that was involved in the attacks.

The Administration figure that has impressed Gingrich the most is the President himself. Gingrich describes Bush as, "a great game athlete who is not a very good practice athlete," adding, "And now he's in the real thing, and he's performing."

Gingrich is successful in getting his ideas across. He is described as persuasive and convincing. He attributes at least part of this to the fact that he holds no office. "...they know they don't have to obey me. That's a very important distinction."

[Amelia]

Long but interesting read.

[Miss Marple]

Very interesting. I have been willing to give Ridge some time to come up to speed, but I really think he needs to do more in getting the American people involved.

I disagree about the President's speaking, he did fine in his Inaugural speech, Address before Congress, etc. I think that he has quit worrying about speech faux pas, and that has been the difference in the press conferences.

I think that we will continue and win the war on terror. The President is determined to continue, and he is not one to give up. I do think that the Clinton appointees in the government are a problem, especially because right before Clinton left he made many of them civil service employees, so that they cannot be fired. That is a BIG problem.

Newt should enjoy his influence but avoid too much talk, which I think he has done here. He is succumbing to the temptation to be thought of as important by the press.

On the other hand, and to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps some of this is a message that the administration wants the wider world to see. Who knows?

[Amelia]

And on the other hand, perhaps Newt isn't totally successful in getting his messages across...he's not in office any more...

[Irma]

Thanks for the flag, Amelia. This certainly was worth the read. I think it's one of the most interesting articles on FR in the past several weeks.

Despite what anyone thinks of Gingrich, he's no dummy and I think his views on the potential for catastrophic terrorist attacks should not be taken with a grain of salt. Because of his extensive work in this area, I think the administration would be wise to keep an open ear for what he has to say.

I also find myself agreeing with him on Ridge. I hope we're both wrong.

[Irma]

Nice job on the Cliff Notes! LOL!

[PoisedWoman]

Wonderful Cliff's Notes. Thanks

[Amelia]

I agree on Ridge, and I also agreed with his views on the State Dept. and coalition building.

At some point, we have to be more concerned about our own protection than about what everyone else thinks of us - and as the "world's last remaining superpower", I certainly hope we can defend ourselves!

[krunkygirl]

I always sit up and take notice when Newt is doing the talking. He is such a clear thinker and, being a history buff (professor?), can put things in historical context. He impresses me.

[Irma]

On the other hand, and to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps some of this is a message that the administration wants the wider world to see. Who knows?

I really think Newt is speaking from his own personal experience and background. Here's what Gingrich said to Tony Snow on FOX News Sunday on September 16, 2001, only five days after the attack.

SNOW: Speaker Gingrich, you've also been privy to intelligence over the years. There's a lot of very generalized talk about states that sponsor terrorism, and you can look at the terrorist list. Let's be candid, who are we talking about?

GINGRICH: Well, this is public knowledge. This is not secret. We're talking about Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria and Iran as sort of the inner circle. I mean, those five countries have an unquestioned, continuing process of supporting state terrorism and supporting terrorists that have training. You can't have a training camp without a host government.

Let me also say that the process of defeating terrorism, I think, has to mean, as a minimum, that these five states are required to kick out all the terrorist groups and to drop their support of terrorism, period.

Otherwise, this whole campaign has no meaning.

SNOW: At this point, the United States is talking about possibly inviting Syria and Iran into a coalition. Do you really think they're going to fulfill the condition that you've just outlined?

GINGRICH: Well, actually, we have not approached Syria. Syria has approached us. And I think there's a very straightforward line here, and this a very important line for the United States.

If Syria is prepared to kick the 10 terrorist organizations headquartered in Damascus out of Syria, if Syria is prepared to help us clean up Lebanon and kick out Hezbollah, then I think Syria should be part of the coalition. But to allow Syria or Iran to pretend to be part of the coalition, while continuing to sustain terrorism, I think, would actually make a mockery of the whole effort.

~SNIP~

SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I want to backtrack and then move forward on the issue of the president's leadership.

Juan just mentioned that the president had issued approval to shoot down any aircraft not responding to signals headed toward Washington. What does that tell you about his competence as commander in chief?

GINGRICH: Well, I think that the president reacted very rapidly, I think, to the shock of Tuesday. By Wednesday, he clearly was moving into a war footing, and by Thursday, he has a very clear articulated general strategy.

And I think that the president both emotionally and morally reacted -- and I agree with Joe Allbaugh. I can't imagine a stronger ability to lead the country, and the country really has reacted to that. But in addition, having assembled a team before the crisis that includes Dick Cheney and Colin Powell and Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld, I can't imagine a group sitting to discuss war that would be a more competent senior group that the United States could assemble in this generation.

SNOW: Secretary Rumsfeld and others have made the point that we are going to strike back and we've got to take the offensive against terrorism. In order to make that credible, in order to shake up terrorists, how swiftly and how decisively do we need to act?

GINGRICH: I think it's more important that we be decisive in our goals. The president has repeatedly said, Colin Powell has repeatedly said, we will not tolerate state-sponsored terrorism, we will not tolerate state-sheltered terrorism. If we communicate that and mean it, then countries like Syria and Iraq and Sudan and Afghanistan and Iran face a real future-deciding decision.

I mean, I think, second, we have to mobilize our forces, both diplomatically. I think, politically, I think we have a very real need to communicate, for example, to the Muslim world that anyone who wants a decent life, anyone who wants prosperity, anyone who wants a chance to have a government that's not ruthless and dictatorial and filled with secret police, we're your allies. We don't oppose Islam. There are more Muslims in the United States than there are Episcopalians. There were American Muslims who died on Tuesday because they were Americans. So I think we want to reach out very strongly.

And then I think we have to prepare to mobilize the American defense capability -- as Secretary Powell said, either by ourselves, if necessary, or with allies, when possible -- to communicate clearly that we are going to eradicate these overt systems.

You can't get the random nut terrorist who's hiding in a basement somewhere, but you can destroy terrorist camps. You can clean up governments that sponsor terrorism.

Yes, it's a big project. I think it's a three to five-year campaign. But I don't think this is like the war on drugs. I don't think this is a 20-year, hangout, have bureaucrats doing it occasionally. If we are serious, there will be no state-sponsored terrorism on the planet in three to five years.