Gingrich Slams Obama Administration as ‘Pro-Islamic’

Congress rarely represents the people. The public were split on the iraq invasion. I guarantee you Muslims did not like that policy.

The opposition arose after we got bogged down. I still support the policy. We could not allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power along with his two sons. AQ was already in Iraq along with Abu Nidal. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. He had invaded Iran and Kuwait and used WMD against his own people. The Israelis had already taken out an Iraqi nuclear facility. With all the oil revenue, Saddam would have been a real threat for many years to come not to mention the atrocities he was committing against his own people.

I flew over and drove thru the blazing oil fields in Kuwait a few days after the end of the Gulf War. He was a a mad man and this country and the world is safer with his regime gone.

I could care less about the Muslim reaction. We remember the Muslim reaction to Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoons, the celebrating in the streets after the 9/11 bombing. We cannot let our public policy be influenced by a very small minority of Muslims in the US just because we need their votes. Islam needs a reformation to get into the modern world.

I’m well aware of the dangers of radical islam which we should condemn but we must realize that we prop up a regime in SA that basically exports the most extreme version of it and has it as a state religion.

We are not propping up the Saudi Government. Our strategic national interests are best served by the present government. We got rid of the Shah and Khomeini took his place with consequences that we are living with today. The war on terrorism will never be won until the Iranian regime is removed.

Islam is the state religion in every Islamist state from Turkey to Indonesia.

Not all Muslims are of that variety and we should avoid painting a broad brush.

The problem is that most Muslims are not out in the streets condemning the actions of the fundamentalists.

What country will you leave?

You’ll strangle it for your COLA.

You are not even coherent. What the Hell are you talking about?

I disagree about Saddam. Iraq is a lot less safer now than under that particular “strongman”. And if you’re worried about Iran they now have more influence than ever in Iraq.

‘I could care less about the Muslim reaction.’

This is the problem and why we’re losing elections, you have to pay attention to what Muslims think. Please don’t be so arrogant that’s what is hurting us. We cannot afford to lose another fast growing voting block to the left forever.

Best interests served in supporting that horrible regime in SA? Give me a break... They export the most brutal and radical version of Wahhibism through support of building mosques and other activities. It’s also their state religion. 15 of the hijackers on 9/11 were saudi’s.

If the US stopped buying their oil and closed its bases there the regime would collapse because people are fed up of unemployment and the criminals in charge stealing everything.

I saw your reply re: immigration and will read it later, thanks for taking the time to respond even if we may disagree..

Newt was right. Beyond me how anyone could read his site, proposals and vote for any other candidate running.
The media and the republican establishment feared him and too many faux conservatives fell for their spin.

Good to see you ladies still fighting the good fight. God bless you both.

you stated..........”you have to pay attention to what Muslims think. Please don’t be so arrogant that’s what is hurting us. We cannot afford to lose another fast growing voting block to the left forever.”............

Come on...are you saying we lost the election because of the Muslim vote?....Further that we need to pay attention to them?????

kabar, sharing your posts;)

Too many look for perfection in a candidate...they want a God not a President. ...

Newt attacks conservatives on a regualar basis. He is a moderate.

And I like Romeny, but he was far too moderate to win, and he would be not much different than Obama.

There are forces at work in our country , and I believe I see relief in Romney that he didn’t win- meaning he didn’t have to deal with it.

What is different is that Obama bring his little personal agenda of Marxism, that Romney doesn’t have. Being as great as Reagan?

I am going to say that is doubtful.

Thanks for the reply and the stats which are a real eye opener. I appreciate the research because quite frankly I dont have time to look at it in as much detail as you...

The problem of birthright citizenship is not going to end and I dont think we can change this crazy policy. Yes bills are introduced every year but they’re introduced for a lot things and as you know most bills die in Congress.

The biggest problem for us is that we’re losing the battle in the Senate thanks to Flake, McCain, Rubio and Graham as it appears they have the votes to ram whatever they want through.

The House thus depends on Boehner and he’s not at all trustworthy. He is susceptible to constant stream of pressure from the president and the MSM which will be unrelenting especially if they pass something in the Senate.

Hopefully it will go through Goodlatte’s committee where it can be modified along the lines your mentioning but Obama is not going to sign a bill he doesn’t like and will use his position to hammer the GOP.

This puts us in a extremely tough spot whether we like it or not. I think he actually wants it to die so he can keep the issue alive for 2014

Now I know im focusing a lot on the politics here but the fact is America is changing demographically as you concede with or without normalization. In fact if we dont secure the damn border America will be flooded with more anchor babies who grow up hating the GOP because we wont accommodate their parents.

I’m really at a loss to know what to do at this point. Normally on big issues I would trust the experience of McConnell in the Senate but it looks like he has given up the fight by letting these guys negotiate with Schumer.

I think recent tragic events will slow it down to enable us to strategize further.

I really do not like this bill from the Senate and if they try and ram this through the House it will be the biggest mistake ever.

I dont think the GOP are that stupid.

Floridian Muslims probably put Bush in the White House.

I’m not saying we lost because of them but we need their votes.

Newt supports true conservatives. It is the moderates in the GOP that attack Newt. Gingrich is a Reaganesque conservative something Romney was not.

lol- sorry. That is the silliest thing I have read all day long. :)

Few things Newt proposed doing immediately.
Fire all 39 czars the first day.

Respect Each Sovereign Nation’s Choice of its Capital: Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own Capital. Accordingly, the U.S. State Department should be instructed to respect the choice of each sovereign nation and place the American embassy in their Capital. (Israel is the only country the United States discriminates against in this regard. The people of Israel have designated Jerusalem as their capital. Yet the United States retains its embassy in Tel Aviv.)

End the Attorney General’s Assault on the States: Instruct the Attorney General to withdraw all immigration-related lawsuits against states immediately, including those pending in Arizona and South Carolina. The Obama Administration refuses to enforce federal immigration laws, and instead sues states who are merely trying to enforce the laws that the federal government neglects. The Gingrich Administration will secure the border by Jan. 1, 2014 by any means necessary.

The Keystone Pipeline: Unleash American Energy by Approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. Instruct the State Department to approve a Presidential Permit immediately for the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that will send 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Great Plains and Southwestern states to Gulf Coast refineries lower staggering energy prices, and create up to 120,000 American jobs.

And YOU should be sorry as the founder of this forum also endorsed Newt for president.

I disagree about Saddam. Iraq is a lot less safer now than under that particular “strongman”. And if you’re worried about Iran they now have more influence than ever in Iraq.

Disagree all you like, but the removal of Saddam served the strategic interests of the US and our allies in the region. The Iraqis were given an opportunity at democracy. We will see how the elections turn out, but there are real elections. Whether internal conditions are less safe or not is not the measure of our foreign policy. I can tell you that our interests are better off.

As far as Iran is concerned, they have their own internal problems. I don't see them exercising hegemony over Iraq anytime soon. They will continue to support the Sh'ia in Iraq, which will be divisive. And the Kurds have always sought autonomy and independence. Our biggest mistake was not negotiating a SOFA so we could have maintained a presence there during the transition. Obama deserves all the blame for squandering our huge investment there in terms of resources and blood.

‘I could care less about the Muslim reaction.’ This is the problem and why we’re losing elections, you have to pay attention to what Muslims think. Please don’t be so arrogant that’s what is hurting us. We cannot afford to lose another fast growing voting block to the left forever.

I was stating this in the conduct of our foreign policy. We cannot allow Muslim reaction, whether in the US or elsewhere prevent us from protecting our national interests. In the case of Iraq, many Muslim countries in the region supported our actions either overtly or covertly. They all wanted Saddam out. They considered him a major threat.

Your obsession with the tiny Muslim voting bloc in the US is laughable. Yes, they voted for BARACK HUSSEIN Obama, who was born of a Muslim father and attended Muslim schools in Muslim Indonesia. He was also adopted by a Muslim father. Do you think those connections may have affected some of their votes?

Best interests served in supporting that horrible regime in SA? Give me a break... They export the most brutal and radical version of Wahhibism through support of building mosques and other activities. It’s also their state religion. 15 of the hijackers on 9/11 were saudi’s.

That "horrible regime" has served US interests in the region and elsewhere in ways most people are unaware. I lived five years in the Kingdom including during the entire Gulf War. They supported us in that war as well as assisting us when the Russians occupied Afghanistan and in Central America. They have helped stabilize oil production to lower the price of oil. We have used them as surrogates in many places.

The Saudi Royal family pursues its own foreign policy and interests, but some of those interests coincide with ours. That is what foreign policy is all about. It is not about black and white but shades of gray.

The Saudis walk a fine line when it comes to Islam. They have to with two out of the three holiest places in Islam being in the Kingdom. It is why the King't title is "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques." I find you little tirade against Wahhbism to be ironic--you who want all of us to be more sensitive to Muslims.

Yes, Islam is the state religion of Saudi Arabia just as it is in virtually every other predominantly Muslim country whether it is Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, etc. What's your point?

Yes the 9/11 hijackers were predominantly Saudi. So was UBL. But the Saudis, especially the Royal Family, have been targeted by AQ. UBL in his two main fatwahs declares war on the Saudi Royal family and wants the removed.

If the US stopped buying their oil and closed its bases there the regime would collapse because people are fed up of unemployment and the criminals in charge stealing everything.

You don't have a clue. First of all, Saudi Arabia is the biggest exporter of oil in the world. It does not depend on the US purchases to survive. In fact, just the opposite is true. The US buys about 15% of its oil from the Saudis. Canada and Mexico are our biggest suppliers. Oil is fungible worldwide. A reduction in US purchases will just shift Saudi sales elsewhere. We prefer to buy from the Saudis because of long term contracts and a good quality of oil.

We really don't have US military bases in the Kingdom. We do have trainers and others to help service and operate the military equipment we have sold them, including AWACs. We also have significant business interests in the Kingdom and there are about 25,000 Americans working there, primarily in the oil industry and in medicine.

Living conditions in the Kingdom in terms of roads, telephones, shopping, hotels, etc are on a par with the developed world. You can drink the water out of the tap. Garbage is picked up daily--at least it was when I was there. The Saudis are not living in great poverty.

I completely disagree with you about Iraq and strongly urge you to do independent research... you seem to have excellent research skills as seen from the immigration debate.. much better than mine!

Iraq is more corrupt and unstable than it ever has been. Car bombs go off daily and sectarian violence is tearing the country apart. I’ve seen news reports where the people in Baghdad yearn for the days of Saddam Hussein. He was a secular leader and yes a terrible dictator but he kept a lid on the sectarian violence.

As for Iran they now basically run Iraq and have huge influence.

1 trillion dollars+ (a lot more when you factor in VA benefits down the pike) and 10 years of war got the US what exactly? The Iraqi officials laugh at America and are aligned with Iran:

BAGHDAD — Ten years after the U.S.-led invasion to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the geopolitical winner of the war appears to be their common enemy: Iran.

American military forces are long gone, and Iraqi officials say Washington’s political influence in Baghdad is now virtually nonexistent. Hussein is dead. But Iran has become an indispensable broker among Baghdad’s new Shiite elite, and its influence continues to grow.

SOURCE:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/28/world/la-fg-iraq-iran-influence-20130329

So this war against Iraq - which never attacked the US and was never a threat - has replaced one corrupt leaders with another set of corrupt leaders and strengthened the hand of Iran.

Even China is getting more access to the oil fields.

Total and stragetic failure.

And we’ve not even addressed the fact that the debacle in Iraq cost the GOP massively in 06 and 08 elections when we lost the House and Senate and in 2009 there was a cabal of Blue Dog democrats still hanging around who rammed through Obamacare.

Wonderful.

War is not and never has been popular.

I knew it was a mistake from start to finish. I pray conservatives will learn from the mistake and re-examine their support.

Now they want to do the same thing in Syria...

Removing a non-sectarian leader and replace it with a bunch of radical islamics.

The FSA is backed by the US and aligned with AQ so we’re now supporting AQ just like we did in Afghanistan in the 80’s

This is a demented foreign policy and has to stop.

Please stop listening to the McCain and Graham’s of the GOP.

The problem of birthright citizenship is not going to end and I dont think we can change this crazy policy. Yes bills are introduced every year but they’re introduced for a lot things and as you know most bills die in Congress.

You are entitled to your own opinion--not your own facts. Birthright citizenship is not forever. It can be changed if we have the political will. The number of sponsors is growing each year. Once people begin to understand the negative impact on our economy and the costs involved, there will be push to stop it along with overturning Plyler vs Doe, which essentially force our schools to educate children not here legally. This country is bankrupt and reality is a bitch when it comes figuring out how to do with less.

The biggest problem for us is that we’re losing the battle in the Senate thanks to Flake, McCain, Rubio and Graham as it appears they have the votes to ram whatever they want through.

The Senate has been a problem even when the Reps controlled it. They passed an amnesty in 2006, Hagel-Martinez, but it was stopped in the House. There is no doubt that the Senate will pass an amnesty bill this year.

The House thus depends on Boehner and he’s not at all trustworthy. He is susceptible to constant stream of pressure from the president and the MSM which will be unrelenting especially if they pass something in the Senate.

Boehner has bypassed the Hastert rule on a number of occasions. I suspect he will do it on immigration using a small number Reps with the Dems to pass an amnesty. The GOPe is bought and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce. I briefed Cantor some time ago on immigration. I don't trust him at all.

Hopefully it will go through Goodlatte’s committee where it can be modified along the lines your mentioning but Obama is not going to sign a bill he doesn’t like and will use his position to hammer the GOP. This puts us in a extremely tough spot whether we like it or not. I think he actually wants it to die so he can keep the issue alive for 2014

Obama wins either way. There really is no sense of urgency to do something except from the WH and the GOPe. Immigration reform is an Obama promise that the Reps are helping him to fulfill. They are providing Obama with the rope to hang them. No matter if amnesty is passed or not, the Reps will lose. Obama gets all the credit if it is passed and any of the features that the Dems deem bad will be used against the Reps in 2014. For example, any delay in a path to citizenship will be decried as well as any penalties or inability to bring in aged parents, etc. And if it doesn't pass, the Reps will be blamed anyway. There is a reason why the GOP is called the Stupid Party.

Now I know im focusing a lot on the politics here but the fact is America is changing demographically as you concede with or without normalization. In fact if we dont secure the damn border America will be flooded with more anchor babies who grow up hating the GOP because we wont accommodate their parents.

IT IS LEGAL IMMIGRATION THAT IS CHANGING THIS COUNTRY DEMOGRAPHICALLY--MUCH MORE THAN ILLEGAL. 40% of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens came here legally and overstayed their visas. The border is only part of the problem. We have over 50 million visitors a year. There are 900,000 foreign students in the US at any one time. We have two million on temporary work visas. We have birth tourism where people come here legally and have their babies so they can get American passports.

’m really at a loss to know what to do at this point. Normally on big issues I would trust the experience of McConnell in the Senate but it looks like he has given up the fight by letting these guys negotiate with Schumer. I think recent tragic events will slow it down to enable us to strategize further. I really do not like this bill from the Senate and if they try and ram this through the House it will be the biggest mistake ever.

I have read the 1986 amnesty bill, the 2006 Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill, the 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill and now the 2013 Rusio-Schumer amnesty bill. The Rubio bill is closest to the McCain bill. Very similar in wording and content. McCain said his bill is not amnesty and so has Rubio. Both are lying. They are either fools or think we are stupid. Both bills set up "temporary" or provisional visas for everyone here before a date certain. Essentially everyone in the country illegally is made legal from day one. Internal enforcement stops immediately.

I am more pessimistic this time around. The GOPe is onboard and will try to ram this thru believing that it will end immigration as a political issue and more importantly, business will get more skilled workers to compete against Americans. Both parties have abandoned the American worker. Once passed, this country is finished. There is no coming back. Amnesty is forever.

I dont think the GOP are that stupid.

The GOP is that stupid. Look who is leading the party.

Jesus said:

‘Blessed are the peace-makers: for they shall be called children of God’.

I completely disagree with you about Iraq and strongly urge you to do independent research... you seem to have excellent research skills as seen from the immigration debate.. much better than mine!

I spent 28 years a Foreign Service Officer, including five years in Saudi Arabia during the entire Gulf War and two years in Iran during the fall of the Shah and the entrance of Khomeini. I understand what is going on in the region from personal experience and knowledge.

Iraq is more corrupt and unstable than it ever has been. Car bombs go off daily and sectarian violence is tearing the country apart. I’ve seen news reports where the people in Baghdad yearn for the days of Saddam Hussein. He was a secular leader and yes a terrible dictator but he kept a lid on the sectarian violence.

When a dictator or tyrant is in power, there is less public violence. You are living in a prison. The real violence takes place quietly and in the middle of the night. People disappear. Yes, Iran is a mess internally, but that doesn't mean that US interests have been damaged with the removal of Saddam. It is a good thing that he is gone along with his two sons.

As for Iran they now basically run Iraq and have huge influence.

They have influence, but they don't run the country. Iranians are not Arabs. There is still a huge impact from the Iran-Iraq war where over a million lost their lives.

So this war against Iraq - which never attacked the US and was never a threat - has replaced one corrupt leaders with another set of corrupt leaders and strengthened the hand of Iran.

Never a threat? This is simply not so. Iraq was on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for over a decade. Iraq attacked US interests whether it was in Israel, Turkey, or elsewhere in the region. Iraq invaded Kuwait. They provided a safe haven for terrorists including AQ and Abu Nidal. The Israelis took out the Osirak nuclear plant in 1981. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. After 9/11 how could we isolate or contain Saddam from using non-state actors like AQ as surrogates against us? He was circumventing the Gulf War accords. We were maintaining Northern and Southern no-fly zones so he didn't kill his own people. It was costing us $8 billion a year to maintain them. We would still be enforcing them today if we had not removed him.

And we’ve not even addressed the fact that the debacle in Iraq cost the GOP massively in 06 and 08 elections when we lost the House and Senate and in 2009 there was a cabal of Blue Dog democrats still hanging around who rammed through Obamacare.

That is not why we lost Congress in 2006. Bush had lost the confidence of conservatives due to his wild spending, doubling the education budget, supporting amnesty, and expanding Medicare with the prescription drug program. How do you explain what happened in 2010?

Now they want to do the same thing in Syria... Removing a non-sectarian leader and replace it with a bunch of radical islamics.

Blaming this on conservatives? Who was responsible for removing non-sectarian leaders from Libya and Egypt and replacing them with "radical Islamics." You had better be careful and be more "pro-Islamic," a term I have asked you repeatedly to define without success. It appears Obama has not lost the votes of Muslims by supporting what has gone on in Egypt and Libya. Why not Syria?

Please stop listening to the McCain and Graham’s of the GOP.

LOL. You mean the guys who are part of the Gang of 8 who want to implement an amnesty that will destroy this country with the stroke a pen. They are the last people I would listen to on anything.

The State Dept are a joke and them putting a country on a list for political reasons has no bearing on anything.

They were not a threat and the Iraq war was sold to the public with lies about WMDs.

As for his actual stocks of chemical weapons who did he get them off ?

Saddam was a CIA asset from the 60’s until 1991. Rumsfeld is right there on tape shaking his hand and selling those chemical weapons in the 80’s.

Iraq is just another example of a schizophrenic foreign policy. One minute they’re our friend next minute we want them removed.

As for spending and losing Congres... well Iraq debacle had a lot do with that. The iraqi’s formed a resistance and didn’t like having their country invaded (which is a completely natural reaction) so fought back.

Do you think the iraq war was cheap? It cost 1 trillion!+ and was a significant factor in losing the House.

The costs of war are bourne by the veterans of course. Many lost lives and limbs and bills will be with us for a long time .

Totally careless and not worth it.

One day you’ll agree with me I hope.