Gingrich Criticizes ‘Bad Deal’; Warns of 2004 Troubles

Newsmax.com ^ | 5/13/03 | Joel C. Rosenberg

[truthandlife]

This exclusive interview is republished with the permission of World Magazine

Washington, D.C. -- Newt Gingrich is making news again, sharply criticizing President Bush's top diplomat in an exclusive interview with WORLD magazine.

Last month the former Speaker of the House warned that the idea of Secretary of State Colin Powell going to Syria to meet "with a terrorist-supporting, secret police-wielding dictator" was "ludicrous."

Powell struck back. "He's accusing the president of a ludicrous act," Powell told a TV interviewer. "Mr. Gingrich was taking a broad swipe and a shot at the policies of the president of the United States. He was allegedly doing it because he has some dissatisfaction with the way the State Department runs. But he missed the State Department and hit the president."

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage then told USA Today that, "It's clear that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds (medications) and out of therapy."

Now Gingrich tells WORLD that Powell struck a "bad deal" in Damascus, says Powell has "no interest" in reforming the State Department bureaucracy, and warned that putting too much pressure on Israel to make a peace deal with Yasser Arafat could be a "suicide pact."

Gingrich also spoke out on domestic politics, warning that "the economy not growing is the biggest threat" to President Bush's reelection and urging the GOP to focus on health care reform.

The interview with WORLD magazine:

WORLD: Mr. Speaker, you sparked a lot of controversy by opposing Secretary Powell's trip to Syria. Now that he's met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, would you say the trip was successful?

GINGRICH: No trip to Damascus by any American Secretary of State has had any serious effect on the dictatorship of the Assad family in the last thirty years.…The terrorist groups in Damascus reported the day after Secretary Powell's visit that they were not closing their offices despite the reassurances he had been given by the dictator.

This follows precisely the pattern of dishonesty and blatant lying we have seen from Syrian dictators for thirty years. Assad got a photo opportunity with a famous American and America got lied to. That strikes me as a bad deal.

WORLD: Have you spoken with Secretary Powell or the White House since making your remarks?

GINGRICH: I have talked with people from the White House regularly. I get messages from people inside the State Department who agree with my criticism of the current State bureaucracy. No one from the Secretary's office has called me and given the personal nature of some of their comments (attack the messenger if you can't defeat the message is an old rule of Washington politics).

I suspect they have no interest in pursuing ideas or discussing reform. Over the last two years I've met with the Secretary and his deputy and found no interest in serious reform.

WORLD: What are the biggest challenges the U.S. now faces in the Middle East?

GINGRICH: First, to win the second campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq to grow societies with safety, health, prosperity and freedom for the Afghan and Iraqi people.

Second, the U.S. must help grow a Palestinian political movement and government willing to defeat the terrorists....As long as the Palestinians who want peace do not defeat the forces of terrorism, the Israelis will feel compelled to fight the terrorists and it will be impossible to achieve peace. The focus should not be on diplomacy.

The focus should be on growing and strengthening the forces of peace in Palestinian society and driving out the terrorists (of whom Arafat is one).

Third, the United States has a continuing challenge with dictatorships seeking weapons of mass destruction (Iran, Syria, Libya in the Middle East) and with terrorist organizations.

WORLD: Do you support an independent Palestinian state, and how would you assess the prospects of reaching a peace agreement in the next 12 months or so?

GINGRICH: A Palestinian state should arise as soon as Palestinians defeat the terrorists and prove they could be neighbors Israel could live in peace with. Negotiations over a Palestinian state while there are still terrorists [that are] tolerated by the Palestinian Authority is a suicide pact for Israel.

WORLD: What are the biggest threats to President Bush's reelection?

GINGRICH: The economy not growing is the biggest threat. Republicans become complacent is the second biggest threat.

WORLD: How damaged is the Democratic Party after opposing the war in Iraq?

GINGRICH: If the economy recovers, President Bush will win handily. If the economy stays in the doldrums the President will face a tough campaign but will probably still win. In the age of 24-hour television news things can change very fast. The Democrats will have a lively primary campaign and it is impossible to predict whom they will nominate or how effective their nominee will be.

WORLD: Ten years after the Clinton administration rolled out its "Hillary Care" approach to nationalizing health care, you've written a new book on a free market approach to health care reform. Why?

GINGRICH: Republicans should focus on growing the economy [and] creating a better system of health care….Health care is the most important challenge Americans face in their daily lives.

It is the largest segment of the economy (over 13% and growing)….We need to have an individually centered system where you have knowledge about your own health, you own your own electronic medical record, you have an insurance plan which has a tax free build up of interest on a health reimbursement account that gives you more decision making power about your own health and the system should focus on wellness and prevention so you don't become a patient unless it is absolutely unavoidable....

The title of our book is Saving Lives and Saving Money [because] we believe that applying best practices can actually lead to better health at lower cost. We are [also] establishing a Center for Health Transformation on the Internet that will help people, companies and governments learn more about better outcomes at lower cost….Readers who want to know more about it could go to www.newt.org and see what we are doing.

WORLD: What are the dangers of demonizing the pharmaceutical industry?

GINGRICH: The American pharmaceutical industry saves thousands of lives everyday by its contributions to better health. With each new discovery its products become more important. People attack the pharmaceutical industry for higher prices when those are actually a result of a badly designed market.

If people had access to an Internet-based system for drugs like Travelocity and Expedia are [available] for airlines reservations then people could make knowledgable choices about prices and effectiveness and there would be the same downward pressure on drug prices that there are on airline prices.

The pharmaceutical companies are paying the price for a market that has been designed wrong but we should focus on fixing the market not on attacking the drug companies.

[r9etb]

Sigh. No man is so blind as the one who will not see.

[Just mythoughts]

Mr. Powell told Timmy on Meet the Press he authorized those words.

Timmy however, never pressed Mr. Powell about why the State Department ignored the "OIL for Food Program under the UN.

Timmy took sheer pleasure as so many here in making Newt the bad boy again and if the dirty dealing of the State Department causes President Bush problems in the future we sure can't say nobody knew.

[Just mythoughts]

Time will tell who is wearing the blinders. Thank you very much.

[mr.pink]

Mr. Powell told Timmy on Meet the Press he authorized those words.

Thanks for that info, I'm a bit surprised by that as it's bit out of Powell's style.

Newt should have taken a classier approach to his critique. It was ham handed and spoltight driven, all the arrows heading his way are well deserved IMHO.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Time will tell what? That Newt is trying any publicity to sell a book? That Newt should be President? Or the obvious... that Newt failed in the world of politics because he was beaten down by the leftist spin of democrats, because he has bad form and bad timing? What do you want, a monument to Newt? His bad politics as our Speaker of The House,again? All of this defense for a man who left his dying wife, and does nothing for the conservative cause, but speak out like he is not a downtrodden speaker.

[OldFriend]

You are not the President and I put my total trust in the man who is...........

[OldFriend]

Newt was beaten out of politics because he had a zipper problem. To me that spells a lack of integrity.

Much as I have a great deal of trouble paying much attention to Dick Morris, I feel the same way about Newt.

[Just mythoughts]

The reaction by the State Department is what tells me that this place is a HOLY Shrine to some and there is no one not even Newt going to mess with them.

On Earth Day they had Jane Goodall (sp) come and speak in Chimp language to them, who knows how much we shelled out for that performance. This was in the middle of their self righteous outrage over Newt's questioning of their policies.

Now if their response had been able to address what Newt was asking about, "accountability" and "making deals" with terrorist capitals, showing they were acting in good faith for national security, I would say they are on the right track.

That is not what they did, Mr. Powell pulled a Hillary and set President Bush out as the one being questioned. So if President Bush is comfortable with the dealing of the State Department then that is his choice, and Newt has the right and obligation to ask questions about an agency who has caused harm and has not changed its policies.

[r9etb]

It was ham handed and spoltight driven

That's Newt, all right.

[houstonian]

State is a mammoth bureaucracy, inefficient and stilted as any government agency, and worst of all it's still filled with Klintoon cronies and other leftwing, America-hating pi$$ants. Someone's got to clean up that rats' nest....

The pronounced leftist tilt of the State Department goes back (at least) to FDR, although the Clinton appointments have certainly laded on the most recent fashions of delusional sentiments.

I had thought Powell's appointment to State surely carried a directive to throw over the worst of the Leftist drivelers when or wherever they revealed themselves. The series of events associated with the war in Iraq has certainly uncovered weaknesses in DOS competence (e.g., irrecoverable snags in the dipomatic negotiations with Turkey, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, et al.). That Powell is now receiving fire from the Right should serve as a reminder of his responsibility in this regard.

[Stultis]

As for Newt, I agree....it's time for him to shut up.

So it's O.K. for thousands of FReepers to complain (mostly ineffectually) about the status-quo obsessed, arabist, establishment pinstripers at Foggy Bottom, but if someone who might actually have some influence says the same things, he should be silenced?!

I don't understand this reaction at all. Conservatives are increasingly dominating politics and policy precisely because they have ideas, which they take seriously enough to debate and advance, and are more progressive and critical in attitude than liberals. If we loose those attributes we will eventually loose the power we have acquired, or at least will deserve to.

Besides, it's not as if Newt was sniping from the left. His original comments were made at the American Enterprise Institute, for Gosh Sakes. Sitting next to him, and apparently in substantial agreement, was Charles Krauthammer, an FR icon who is virtually never criticized but says many of the very same things about State.

You know, I've noticed this A LOT on FR lately, how often conservatives here reflect, in their attitudes toward prominent individuals, what are actually leftist inspired stereotypes. Newt (he's divisive and self-obsessed) and Richard Perle (money-grubbing, sell out, jew-lover) are prominent examples.

Please DON'T further leftist character assassination!

[OldFriend]

What could anyone on FR or anywhere else say or do to assassinate Newt's character.

Precisely because Newt was leader of the house he needs to be aware that his words give aid and comfort to our enemies.

[Just mythoughts]

Time will tell if the State Department acts in this nation's best interest.

Book what book and why is it that so many have a problem with Newt and books?

Newt is not the only failure in politics and a good number of them are still in office.

No I seek no monument to Newt, however, this contempt of him, is telling. Ignoring questions that have merit all because he "might" harm the President?

His wife died?

I don't hold his lack of political skills against him, the ones with the best political skills are the "liars".

I respect him because he took risks and don't hold against him his imperfections. He took his lumps and walked away and left the House in tact. He looks at things over a historical perspective and he can nail the liberal ideology better than anyone else since Reagan.

Newt never tried to rip off the tax payers and it was NEWT that kept pointing to the foundation of this country "RIGHTS given to the individual by the CREATOR no government can take".

[NYC Republican]

"Gingrich needs to shuddup. His constructive criticisim of lately is like he is a representative that knows foreign policy better than anyone. Arrogance...comes to mind as a good word"

I agree 100%!

[Stultis]

Precisely because Newt was leader of the house he needs to be aware that his words give aid and comfort to our enemies.

No they don't. Our enemies overwhelmingly side with State (and Powell) against Defense (and Rummy) and oppose the kind of reform Newt (and many other conservatives) call for at Foggy Bottom. They would prefer to attack Rummy and Dubya, and will so far as they can, but both are popular and it's difficult for the left-extremists to draw blood. They will be happy to take Newt as a proxy, and will be even more delighted if conservatives help out.

I don't have any problem with substantive criticism of Newt comments, btw, and there is plenty of room for that. There has been plenty of cogent criticism of him right here in this thread. But this "he should shut up," attitude is an entirely different story. To the extent it prevails it will sap the vitality of conservatism.

[FairOpinion]

Gingrich is right, most people KNOW that he is right.

If Powell had any sense, he would have publicly agreed with Newt, embraced the idea, after all Newt gave Powell a good excuse, that the Hart-Rudman commission suggested major changes at State, before Powell's time, and set as one of the priorities for himself to revamp the State Dept.

Just as there were and probably still are problems in the Defense Dept, but Rumsfeld took the bull by the horns and has made and still making important changes.

Powell, if he really IS on side of the US should do the same. The fact that he isn't, but instead just continuing the State Dept.'s anti-US policies, is really cause for concern.

For some reason the State Dept. can't get it through their heads thatthey are working for the US, NOT Europe, Syria, Russia, etc.

[Sonny M]

Is this forum slated to be a mini-DU, where anyone not toeing the line is told to shut up? Gingrich happens to be right on this one and the Bush Administration ought to change their policies before they turn into disaster.

I happen to think he's right about alot of things, and tend to agree with him, but there is a time and a place for these things, and this is neither. Especially considering the fact, that if he really wanted to, he could probably speak to Bush directly, he certainly speaks to Rumsfeld often enough, he admits that he speaks to people in the state department, he has a nice set of rolodecks, he knows senators and congressmen in the house, is it so hard to call them, or do things behind the scenes instead of coming across as attacking Powell, and by default, attacking Bush?

[mr.pink]

If Powell had any sense, he would have publicly agreed with Newt, embraced the idea,...

Now that's funny.

Powell should tell his boss, the President, that Newt Gingrich knows better than the President in how to handle Syria?

Bush hears the Newt position from others within his Admin, but they at least have the good manners not to advocate that position by screaming it via bullhorn over the WH fence.

[FairOpinion]

Look at the timelines.
Powell is the one playing games.

Bush was taking a hard line against Syria.

Then out of the blue,Powell announces publicly that he is going to visit Syria to meet with Assad.

At this point Bush was put in a very ackward situation: either publicly denounce Powell, that he, Powell made those statements without consulting with the WH, which really makes the WH looks bad, or make the best of a bad situation, and go along, saying that this is what they had in mind all along, figuring that Powell couldn't do too much damage with his visit. This isn't the first time Powell tried to do an endrun around Bush, THAT is very bad from, much worse than anything Newt is doing.

An how do you think this switch from Garner to the new guy happened? That was another State Dept. shinanigans. and there are just too many of them, most of them detrimental to the US.