Posted on 02/14/2012 7:20:22 PM PST by VinL
Newt Gingrich criticized Republican rival Rick Santorum on Tuesday afternoon for his “complete misunderstanding of modern warfare” over the former Pennsylvania senator’s remarks on women in combat.
Santorum on Thursday said he had “concerns about women in frontline combat.”
“I think that could be a very compromising situation … where people naturally, you know, may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved,” Santorum told CNN’s John King.
Gingrich fired back at Santorum, calling his credentials to be commander in chief into question during a press availability at the Tulare World Ag expo during his four-day swing in California.
“We should be very proud of the men and women who put on the American uniform and risk their lives in order to protect this country,” Gingrich told reporters. “I just think that Rick completely misunderstands the nature of modern warfare by his comments.”
The former House speaker... said he believes no matter where you are wearing the U.S. military uniform, you are in combat – something Santorum should understand.
“Whatever your technical assignment, whether you’re a truck driver or you’re working with logistics, or you’re a military person, you’re in combat. And I think that we have to understand that from day one,” Gingrich said.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
Sorry to say it”s another example of Newt expounding unnecessarily, demonstrating his mental excellency on any subject....too often a bunch of BS.
OK... I just got pwned.
I could however go into a “you want us to be like the French” tirade and continue the argument. But you’re right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4TGR5j6v9w
Perhaps you could learn to MYOB. Quit trying to control what others think and say. I have seen as many nasty things posted around here about Santorum.
The best way to grow up is respect the fact that others don’t always agree. Ignore negative posts about your candidate if they bother you.
Both the Soviet and Israeli experiments with women in combat were born out of far leftist/communist ideology that strove to erase gender lines and establish complete egalitarianism. I guess if that's your model...
Very true, but there is a huge difference between an 88M (truck driver) who finds himself in a combat situation versus an 11B (infantryman) whose job it is to kit up, leave the wire, and find and kill bad guys.
LOL @ the video
As I suspected, a quote from a history course, taken out of context by a bitter democrat-something woman ... YAWN
“I don’t believe females should be included in front line”
Define “front line “ in modern war. Were the female soldiers murdered by Hasan in the Forth Hood massacre “in front line” or not? Was Officer Kim Munley who stopped the massacre by shooting and wounding the murderer “in front line” or not?
I will tell a secret. Military or civilian people, we are all now “in the front line.” It’s been a long time since the enemy armies don’t go out of cities on a field or hill and battle against each other until one is declared victor like at Austerlitz or Waterloo...
Nutty eh?
Put the rhetoric aside. There is a difference between the front line or the battle zone and being vulnerable to attack in rear areas. Troops in the battle zone are in a constant combat environment. They cannot get up out of the fox hole and meander over to the NCO club to wind down after hours.
Perhaps. Just don’t go for the “fall in line with Jim Rob’s or anyone else’s dictate” on FR program. Should have posted sarcasm warning but I didn’t think it needed it but what passes for clear thought here as of late might make it hard to pick up.
It’s these open boxes where we can type anything we want (save profanity). If Jim Rob or any moderators want to keep things to a party line maybe they can turn these open text boxes into multiple choice drop downs where we can express our choices of varied support for Newt. (that is kinda sarcasm)
As another woman, the way I see it, there are women who are strong enough and capable to engage in frontline combat. And I personally believe chivalry is long dead - most men would rush to their best friend’s side before they’d rush to protect someone just because she’s female (unless there were romantic feelings involved). *
HOWEVER, all that said, women should be held to the same standards as men. In photos of women in the armed forces, many of them have long hair. Aren’t men in the armed forces required to shave their heads? If so, why not the women? It makes me wonder: What other requirements don’t the women have? If a woman is to engage in frontline combat alongside men, she should be held to the same standards.
And, even then, she would have to be incapable of becoming pregnant - just like the men. While many of us are very capable when we’re pregnant, we have to be concerned for another life. I have great respect for the women and men in the armed forces. I’m just commenting on the reality of the situation.
* (One of my teenaged sons just commented: He agrees with Santorum in thinking a man would be more inclined to help a woman. I tend to think my son is the exception to the rule today.)
The quote from your story actually indicates precisely the opposite. It shows Newt was being completely consistent even 17 years later. He told Santorum that if you're in the army, you're in combat no matter where you are. And the quote on your linked page shows Newt saying the exact same thing, that being "in combat" can mean just being on a ship, and that women can perform that duty well. As for the rest of Newt's statement, again, just like the left, you take someone making a joke out of context and try to demonize them for it. Pitiful.
And yet, he went on, if being in combat "means being on an Aegis class cruiser managing the computer controls for 12 ships and their rockets, a female again may be dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."
Give me a break!
Please quote the "misquote." Newt wasn't talking about either of the things you mentioned. He simply said that Santorum's narrow definition of "combat" was inaccurate. I'll trust the judgment of a guy who teaches military history to our troops over the other candidates.
Tell that to the victims of Nidal Malik Hasan. In the war against Islamic fundamentalism, all of our troops are targets, stateside or not.
“In the war against Islamic fundamentalism, all of our troops are targets, stateside or not.”
All of us are targets to one degree or another. And that doesn’t change what I wrote.
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. How could Newt be against women in combat when he said in his statement that combat can mean being on a battleship and that women would be very good at that job?
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.