[moki]

Some right-wing criticism of the war in Iraq...

from: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031207/nysu011a_1.html

.....

NEWSWEEK: Gingrich Speaks Out Against Administration's Policy in Iraq, Saying The U.S. Went 'Off a Cliff'
Sunday December 7, 10:25 am ET

Key in Iraq Is 'Not How Many Enemy Do I Kill' But 'How Many Allies Do I Grow'

NEW YORK, Dec. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- In an exclusive interview with Newsweek, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a quiet confidant of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, says the U.S. went "off a cliff in Iraq." In the December 15 issue (on newsstands Monday, Dec. 8), Gingrich talks about the shortcomings of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, saying that "Americans can't win in Iraq. Only Iraqis can win in Iraq."
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20031207/NYSU006 )

Gingrich, a member of the influential Defense Policy Board, argues that the administration has been putting far too much emphasis on a military solution and slighting the political element, report National Security Correspondent John Barry and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas. While he says he's not speaking for the board, it is rare that one of its members voices a dissenting view in public. "The Army's reaction to Vietnam was not to think about it," he says. Rather than absorb the lessons of counterinsurgency, Gingrich says, the Army adopted "a deliberate strategy of amnesia because people don't want to ever do it again." The Army rebuilt a superb fighting force for waging a conventional war. "I am very proud of what [Operation Iraqi Freedom commander Gen.] Tommy Franks did-up to the moment of deciding how to transfer power to the Iraqis. Then we go off a cliff."

The real key in Iraq, he says, "is not how many enemy do I kill. The real key is how many allies do I grow," he says. "And that is a very important metric that they just don't get." He contends that the civilian-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is fairly isolated and powerless, hunkered down inside its bunker in Baghdad. The military has the money and the daily contact with the locals. But it's using the same tactics in a guerrilla struggle that led to defeat in Vietnam.

Gingrich faults the Americans for not quickly establishing a legitimate Iraqi government, however imperfect. "The idea that we are going to have a corruption-free, pristine, League of Women Voters government in Iraq on Tuesday is beyond naivete," he scoffs. "It is a self-destructive fantasy."

The former speaker indicates it would be a huge mistake for American troops to leave Iraq by next November's election, a rumor that has been circulating in the Pentagon. The only "exit strategy," says Gingrich, "is victory." But not by brute American force. "We are not the enforcers. We are the reinforcers," says Gingrich. "The distinction between these two words is central to the next year in Iraq."

[theolein]

FWIW, I agree 100% with Gingrich.

[MacGorilla]

He speaks the truth. Very well said.

[Lerkfish]

what's interesting is that newt is saying exactly what I've been saying all along getting reamed by the republicans on this board for saying it.

so...that either means the republican members on this board will have to either:

1. be consistent and ream Gingrich for the same message...which would mean their objections were nonpartisan to my saying it earlier, but theyd have to ream one of their own...

or

2. agree with Gingrich because he's a fellow republican....and then therefore to admit I was valid with my earlier concerns, and the reaming was purely partisan and ignoring the valid content of my concerns.

either way, to newt for recognizing the obvious, and having the guts to say it.

[davesimondotcom]

He does speak the truth. Especially the part about the only exit strategy being victory.

One thing about Newt is that he is a very savvy guy. I used to listen to his speaches way before he became Speaker and he really can explain his point of view. But he's not great in sound bytes.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I'd love to hear what he said fully, and in context. Snippets and paraphrases have a way of distorting what people say. Recent examples include much ballyhooed "admissions" by Wolfowitz and Pearl.

Somehow I doubt that Gingrich said exactly what lerk has been saying. The fact that Gingrich supported the invasion makes that unlikely. But on the basis of the newsweek teaser, it is hard to tell.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'd love to hear what he said fully, and in context. Snippets and paraphrases have a way of distorting what people say. Recent examples include much ballyhooed "admissions" by Wolfowitz and Pearl.

Somehow I doubt that Gingrich said exactly what lerk has been saying. The fact that Gingrich supported the invasion makes that unlikely. But on the basis of the ap article and newsweek teaser, it is hard to tell.

LOL! so I guess we put you down for #1.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! so I guess we put you down for #1.

Huh? I'm not "reaming" him. I just don't trust Newsweek to fairly summarize his comments in a teaser article. Experience tells me that these kinds of "admissions' and "breakings of ranks" usually turn out to be less than advertised when the one advertising is a magazine eager to create a headline and sell copies.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Huh? I'm not "reaming" him. I just don't trust Newsweek to fairly summarize his comments in a teaser article. Experience tells me that these kinds of "admissions' and "breakings of ranks" usually turn out to be less than advertised when the one advertising is a magazine eager to create a headline and sell copies.

LOL! even funnier. Its the old standby: "I don't accept the source".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! even funnier. Its the old standby: "I don't accept the source".

No, it is simply that I don't trust journalists when they are summarizing someone's comments and then putting them and a few carefully selected very brief quotes in a teaser article as a press release. They have too much of a commerical interest in overstating controversy. It's very much like the truism, don't trust the headline, read the article. Or better yet, read the transcript if you can get it.

I'd say the same thing about the Weekly Standard or US News as Newsweek. They all have the tendency to overstate when there are sales involved.

[Wiskedjak]

I believe that's a SMACKDOWN for Newt, is it not?

[zigzag]

Here's the Newsweek piece:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002188.as...KB10&cp1=1

I like the "insightful, if mildly bombastic" comment - that pretty well describes Gingrich.

Both Gingrich and H. Clinton were on "Press The Meat" yesterday. Gingrich seemed to stand by his Newsweek comments, describing it as a "very, very serious matter." Since he's on the DPB, it's hard to understand why he would feel compelled to speak out in public - I figure he's either a lone voice, or he represents a group of insiders that wants to put public pressure on the administration.

He's not the first conservative to criticize the administration, just the most notable.

I would add that Hillary made an impressive showing. It's no wonder that she's the target of so much conservative venom - she's the sharpest player on the Democratic team, a real threat.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I just don't trust Newsweek to fairly summarize his comments in a teaser article.

You're a smart man.

[finboy]

Now that Gingrich is saying something that the collective Left wants to hear, he's an expert. The rest of the time, he's evidently the spawn of Satan. Hilarious.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by finboy:
You're a smart man.

Why did you quote Simey then

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by finboy:
Now that Gingrich is saying something that the collective Left wants to hear, he's an expert. The rest of the time, he's evidently the spawn of Satan. Hilarious.

Rather, now that Gingrich is saying something that the collective Right doesn't want to hear, he's evidently the spawn of Satan. The rest of the time, he's an expert.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
Now that Gingrich is saying something that the collective Left wants to hear, he's an expert. The rest of the time, he's evidently the spawn of Satan. Hilarious.

ok, I'll put you down as a #1.

[voodoo]

Oh yeah finboy is definetely a type #1.

[finboy]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Oh yeah finboy is definetely a type #1.

So it isn't name-calling when you have some list of "types"?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by finboy:
So it isn't name-calling when you have some list of "types"?

only idiots would ask like that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
So it isn't name-calling when you have some list of "types"?

uh, no, read further up, I suggested there would two types of responses. You responded along the lines of the first one: essentially, there must be something wrong with Gingrich, vs. the second type: Gingrich is right, and therefore we were wrong to disagree with the left wing posters earlier.

It was no attack against you, just classifying your response into a category.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by finboy:
So it isn't name-calling when you have some list of "types"?

Hey, he could have used some name like the one that Harry Potter's father's friends nicknamed him...

[finboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
uh, no, read further up, I suggested there would two types of responses. You responded along the lines of the first one: essentially, there must be something wrong with Gingrich, vs. the second type: Gingrich is right, and therefore we were wrong to disagree with the left wing posters earlier.

It was no attack against you, just classifying your response into a category.

I responded according to neither type -- I contended that the Lefties here and elsewhere can't make up their minds, without respect to the validity of what Gingrich is saying or not. Six months ago ANYTHING that he said was irrelevant, according to the left, because of his personal life, or his book contract, etc. Now none of that makes any difference, and he's a genius.

Whatever.

[thunderous_funker]

When Gingrich blasted the State Dept for its total ineptitude leading up to the Iraq war, I feared it was merely an insider DPB move to undermine Powell.

Now that he's said this, I have to believe he is in fact sincere in his criticism of our various failures in the Iraq campaign.

I always knew Gringrich wasn't afraid to speak his mind, but I'm surprised that he's breaking solidarity with the administration leading into an election year. Gutsy.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
I responded according to neither type -- I contended that the Lefties here and elsewhere can't make up their minds, without respect to the validity of what Gingrich is saying or not. Six months ago ANYTHING that he said was irrelevant, according to the left, because of his personal life, or his book contract, etc. Now none of that makes any difference, and he's a genius.

Whatever.

And predicatably you're arguing that his comments must obviously be some trick by the Liberal media.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by finboy:
Six months ago ANYTHING that he said was irrelevant, according to the left, because of his personal life, or his book contract, etc. Now none of that makes any difference, and he's a genius.

Something you apparently don't understand about "Lefties": we are generally able to separate people from their perspectives. Just because Gingrich has said stuff in the past doesn't mean I can't find merit with the stuff he's saying in the present. It's a refreshing sign that even the far right are beginning to see what we've been saying all along.

[Lerkfish]

Let's get back on topic, though (my apologies).

The substance of his remarks are that the administration's handling of the interim Iraq council and the post war strategy ARE seriously flawed. It doesn't matter whether Gingrich says it or I do: the fact that the website doesn't have any Iraqi faces is extremely telling. I realize anyone could have mucked up the site, but it highlights an important cognitive error of the administration: that if you are indeed going to "liberate" a people, you then don't try to rubber stamp them in your image.

IF the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is important, and it is in order to make a healthy transition, being negligent in how you approach that objective is damaging to the entire mission.

What I don't understand is why EVERY right wing person isn't asking the same questions Newt is. Irregardless of party affiliation, someone is mucking this up, big time.

I wasn't for the war in Iraq in the first place, but if you're going to go this far, at least do a good job. What is happening now is as bad as when we put in the Shah.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And predicatably you're arguing that his comments must obviously be some trick by the Liberal media.

What part of my posts argue that?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
What part of my posts argue that?

When you agreed with Simey that his comments were probably the products of Dowd-ification by Newsweek.

But don't let me distract you from commending Gringrich for his brave insight or condemning him for being "soft on terror" or whatever other reaction you might have to his comments.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
When you agreed with Simey that his comments were probably the products of Dowd-ification by Newsweek.

But don't let me distract you from commending Gringrich for his brave insight or condemning him for being "soft on terror" or whatever other reaction you might have to his comments.

That was simply a recognition of my mistrust of Newsweek. Sorry for the confusion.

I respect Gingrich's views on many things, and I always have. This incident, however, only shows the lefty media for what it is -- a bunch of hound dogs. Either he's Satan incarnate or he isn't: choose one. I can't think of anyone (save GWB or RWR) more thoroughly and repetitively vilified by the Left, and yet now his opinion is important and relevant. Amazing.

[saab95]

Key in Iraq Is 'Not How Many Enemy Do I Kill' But 'How Many Allies Do I Grow'

Gingrich is full of himself as usual.

We are not out to make "allies" so much as we are to get rid of an illegitimate government and aid and abet the forming of a legitimate government in Iraq.

Gingrich faults the Americans for not quickly establishing a legitimate Iraqi government, however imperfect. "The idea that we are going to have a corruption-free, pristine, League of Women Voters government in Iraq on Tuesday is beyond naivete," he scoffs. "It is a self-destructive fantasy."

Gingrich is part right here. We should have immediately formed a provisional government in Iraq whose purpose is to restore law and order and to protect the businessmen who live and work in Iraq. It should have been one with no alliance to any specific Muslim sect but one whose aim is to protect the rights of the individuals. At this point a declaration of state similar to the Declaration of Independence should have been drawn up, and then a permanent government set up.

What in hell is Bush's problem, anyhow?

You may find some insight here.

In Iraq we started by apologizing for our presence, when our invading soldiers were ordered to jeopardize their lives rather than risk harming civilians or damaging mosques. We have deposed Hussein—but we are still apologizing. We are unwilling to ask Iraqis to bear the costs of their liberation. We are endorsing the very statism we are supposed to be overthrowing as we permit the Iraqi government to own the oil supplies and to remain in the coercive OPEC cartel. We are begging the United Nations to authorize multinational troops so that the American visibility will diminish. This conciliatory attitude only emboldens the enemy, thereby encouraging resistance and inviting a "quagmire."

That, my friends, is what is wrong with Bush's policy in Iraq. He is betraying the American people and the families and victims of 9-11 with his crap.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
That was simply a recognition of my mistrust of Newsweek. Sorry for the confusion.

I respect Gingrich's views on many things, and I always have. This incident, however, only shows the lefty media for what it is -- a bunch of hound dogs. Either he's Satan incarnate or he isn't: choose one. I can't think of anyone (save GWB or RWR) more thoroughly and repetitively vilified by the Left, and yet now his opinion is important and relevant. Amazing.

You are a strange duck.

What does the media have to do with any of this? They reported his criticism. He's a notable political insider. His opinion on the matter is newsworthy.

And why must I consider him Satan? Aren't I allowed to simply disagree with him when our opinions differ?

So rather than the usual vitriol about the media or vast left-wing conspiracies wold you like offer your opinion on what Gingrich said?

Have we gone over the cliff? Is he right? Is he wrong? Both?

[theolein]

I'll say this: I look at the attitudes on this board and I really despire for humanity. What is it about one's political stance that makes it so incredibly difficult to admit that one is or was wrong on some point? What is it about one's political stance that makes it so incredibly difficult to have mixed feelings about a subject?

Is it a personal thing, or is it some twisted idea of honour? Or is it a matter of saving face, or pride, just like those Iraqis?

I know that both so called sides, the left and the right, often will use any semantic argument to avoid having to face the fact that they might not have been "right", and I put the word "right" in quotes because I see so many people who seem to have this dying need to be "right". They will argue for days, using any lie, twist of fact, fiction or plain denial to avoid having to face the possibility that they were "right".

I don't only refer to the topic of this thread but to most of them, since it seems to be endemic.

Is it fear? Is it lack of self esteem? Is it fear of weakness? I would dearly love to know.

[mr. natural]

Forgive me for asking the obvious, but just what the hell constitutes this "victory" Gringrich mentions and you all seem to agree upon as the only viable "exit strategy?"

Seems pretty vague to me but I'm all ears.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
That was simply a recognition of my mistrust of Newsweek. Sorry for the confusion.

I respect Gingrich's views on many things, and I always have. This incident, however, only shows the lefty media for what it is -- a bunch of hound dogs. Either he's Satan incarnate or he isn't: choose one. I can't think of anyone (save GWB or RWR) more thoroughly and repetitively vilified by the Left, and yet now his opinion is important and relevant. Amazing.

You appear to be blaming the media for what Gingrich is saying....am I right?

You do not say whether you agree with what he is saying, you just continue to blast the "lefty media". If you have an opinion on the substance of Gingrich's comments, let's hear them.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by theolein:
I'll say this: I look at the attitudes on this board and I really despire for humanity. What is it about one's political stance that makes it so incredibly difficult to admit that one is or was wrong on some point? What is it about one's political stance that makes it so incredibly difficult to have mixed feelings about a subject?

Is it a personal thing, or is it some twisted idea of honour? Or is it a matter of saving face, or pride, just like those Iraqis?

I know that both so called sides, the left and the right, often will use any semantic argument to avoid having to face the fact that they might not have been "right", and I put the word "right" in quotes because I see so many people who seem to have this dying need to be "right". They will argue for days, using any lie, twist of fact, fiction or plain denial to avoid having to face the possibility that they were "right".

I don't only refer to the topic of this thread but to most of them, since it seems to be endemic.

Is it fear? Is it lack of self esteem? Is it fear of weakness? I would dearly love to know.

excellent questions, and I've pondered them myself.

Especially, the convoluted denial pretzel is a bizarre thing to behold, when confronted with the obvious certainty that either what a political leader said or did was wrong or ill advised, there are tortuous steps that seem obligatory:

1. Denial of the obvious: in spite of evidence or logic, my man is still right.
2. Denial of the source: he never said that, the source is wrong, the source is biased.
3. Attack the messenger: The press is against him. the opposing side will stop at nothing to drag him down.
4. Attack the other side: only the other side is depraved or hateful enough to highlight where my man was wrong. Therefore, because they oppose him, this is a witchhunt. There's no way he could be fallible. He's like the pope in that regard. When he takes a crap, gold bricks come out. And only evil people like my opponents would spout such vile things about him such as fallibility.
5. Denial of your own prevous arguments: If x happens, I'll join your side, because I know I'm right. When x happens, That's not what I said, or I meant something else, or I'm allowed to change my mind.
6. Revisionism: My man never said that. My man said something else, you just misinterpreted what he said. NO, no, that's what it seemed to be before, but NOW its something different, and that's all that matters (until the next shift, lather, rinse, repeat)
7. Misdirection: (doesn't address actual problem) but YOUR man did x, y, z.

I dunno. I guess it comes down to partly not wanting to be wrong. It also comes down to partly being boosterism of your own side...being faithful cheerleaders. It also comes down to misinterpreting criticism of leaders as a personal attack against the poster themselves.
So its part arrogance, insecurity and defensiveness.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Forgive me for asking the obvious, but just what the hell constitutes this "victory" Gringrich mentions and you all seem to agree upon as the only viable "exit strategy?"

Seems pretty vague to me but I'm all ears.

FWIW, I don't understand the specifics of what he's saying on that point. either. Where I agree with him is when he comments on the nature of the planning and execution, and how it falls off a cliff after the military operation.

I also agree with him that Iraq should have been immediately handed over to the Iraqis, for good or for ill. That's the only way the "liberation" justification would ring true. Like Gingrich, I also realize that the western rubber stamp on the interim council is the kiss of death to getting support for any decisions made by them when we do leave.

[BlackGriffen]

I wish I had more on this than just second hand reports, but I can't find a transcript on Fox that is as current as this claim claims to be. That said, my source is, at the face of it, as biased as they come. The claimed original source, though, is Newt Gingrich himself speaking on Fox News. So, take it for what it's worth: a report of a prediction that you should be able to google for on Tuesday.

Wow - I just saw Newt Gingrich on Fox praising the Dean campaign for a "coup" in getting the Gore endorsement. Even that cynical bastard is impressed with us. And even more amazing: Newt is being openly critical of the war in Iraq, and admitted that any "serious person" would have to be at this point.

[...]
Posted by Jeff in Austin at December 8, 2003 10:18 PM

Original here

BlackGriffen

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
When Gingrich blasted the State Dept for its total ineptitude leading up to the Iraq war, I feared it was merely an insider DPB move to undermine Powell.

Now that he's said this, I have to believe he is in fact sincere in his criticism of our various failures in the Iraq campaign.

I always knew Gringrich wasn't afraid to speak his mind, but I'm surprised that he's breaking solidarity with the administration leading into an election year. Gutsy.

Maybe he's seeking to challenge Bush for the nomination?

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
Maybe he's seeking to challenge Bush for the nomination?

Aside from our little squabble in the other threads, I was wondering this myself. It would certainly fit that motivation.