The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Newt Gingrich left Tim Russert mumbling banalities on NBC's MTP this morning, as he talked of ideas while Russert sought mutual Bush-bashing. Among the ideas mentioned by Newt was a proposal to get young Iraqis working for the U.S. government in an FDR-style Civilian Conservation Corps. He also wants a Lincoln-Douglas-style national dialogue between Barack Obama and the Republicans. He'll announce his Presidential intentions in September.
On FOX News Sunday, the Dems sent Teddy Kennedy to talk to Chris Wallace. Kennedy was sober, as near as I can tell, and he admitted that Iraq was no Vietnam. He proved himself an awkward military strategist when he said that our military's goal should be to "put the safety and security of our troops first."
Harry Reid, on ABC's This Week, said in regards to Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota: "Doctors tell us everything is going to be fine." He's not a doctor, so he doesn't know whether or not Senator Johnson is conscious. And Reid has no fears whatsoever that Joe Lieberman will run with his Joementum and caucus with the GOP.
On CBS' Face the Nation, Colin Powell said he has not seen a "solid reason" to put more troops into Iraq, a la John McCain. He matter-of-factly observed that we were losing but had not yet lost in Iraq. He talked about a troop drawdown coordinated with the Iraqis taking over, beginning sometime in the middle of 2007.
On CNN's Late Edition, Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi called the Iraqi army "incompetent" and "corrupt," and insisted that he was not saying this merely because he was a Sunni and the army was run by Shi'ites. He admitted that foreign governments were interfering in Iraq. Asked by Blitzer to name names, the Sunni veep named only Iran. He said that they have worked with Syria and can continue to do so.
Read More – for the show-by-show review:
NEWT GINGRICH ON MTP. With Newt Gingrich as his first guest, Meet the Press (NBC) host Tim Russert wanted to start in with Gingrich's recent pronouncement that President Bush had to admit "failure" in Iraq. Newt said that it was a "failure," but that it was not per se attributable to Bush. Our solution for Iraq was "too American," he posited. The strategy had been failed from the start, "the care doesn't run." We have to look to the larger war, including Iran, and all of our instruments of policy were broken.
Russert played a clip of Newt supporting the war in 2003 and asked him to explain why he had changed his mind. Newt said he had not. He said that the President is a "very proud, very stubborn man" who has to admit that his strategy "is not succeeding" on come up with a new one.
Newt's strategy is a government strategy, straight from the second President Roosevelt's New Deal: a Civilian Conservation Corps for Iraq, putting all the Iraqi young Iraqis to work for our government. This is one of the few things, he said, on which he and Hillary agree.
Newt said he wants to increase the size of the State Department by 50-percent. Why? It's an instrument of power and it is broken.
Russert went over the list of pre-war assumptions -- flowers in the street, greeted as liberators, no looting, etc. -- most of which are of his own creation, and declared that they were all wrong. Newton told him that this was a judgment he did not accept. Russert insisted it was not a judgment; rather, it is a question.
New talked of a Marine Captain, Travis Patriquin, who had spelled out six points early in the war which would have won the al-Anbar province, Patriquin, who was recently killed, had said that the sheiks in the area had been running it for 1,300 years, and getting them on board would solve our problems. The army wanted to do this, but Paul Bremer's people arrived and decided that they were the new solution, none of this mattered. Newt promised us more info on Patriquin. But the Army had a "clear path" to success, but the civilians overruled it in June of 2003.
Newt said that he wants our government to close down jihadist web sites. Russert asked him how, and Newt suggested a three judge panel as one possibility. In response to the argument that this violated free speech rights, Newt said that McCain-Feingold was worse. (So?) Russert did not ask Newt about the slippery slope he would create regarding governmental control of our Web or how he would shut down some dopey site out of Bahrain or the Yemen.
Newt said that Obama had positive messages that other candidate's didn't have. Of Hillary: "Of course she can win." He said that those who say she cannot -- which would include me -- are living on "another planet." He worked on the Hillary/Bill mythology, how they're the most politically ingenious thing to come down the street in eons.
Russert showed him some poll showing Rudy in front, McCain in second, Newt in third, and Romney a distant fourth. But, Russert pointed out, Newt had the highest unfavorability rating. New didn't care.
Russert said that Newt had changed; does he regret having been so negative when he ran the House? Newt answered that "we're in different times now" and that negativity in politics has become "almost pathological."
Russert read from an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article listing Newt's liabilities. Newt said that he's been exonerated on every ethics charge and the Democrats were out to get him because they blamed him for their having lost power for the first time in 50 years. He admitted signing one letter which was incorrect, but he paid $300,000 for it. His college course? Newt said that he was a PhD and was protected by free speech when teaching a college course.
Russert asked him if he regretted pursuing impeachment against Clinton. Gingrich said that Clinton lied under oath to a federal grand jury. He spoke of a precedent, a slippery slop. Presidents, he said, have an obligation to tell the truth.
Russert asked Newt about his self-description: "I'm not a natural leader; I'm a natural intellectual gadfly." Newt agreed with himself.
Finally, Newt declared that "the three" -- McCain, Giuliani, Mitt -- were formidable candidates, and that his own announcement now would change nothing. He is seriously thinking about seeking the nomination, but he will not decide until September. On Obama's inexperience, he pointed out that Abe Lincoln had served only two years in the House of Representatives when he became President.
For now, he's urging "bipartisan forums" -- "a real dialogue of Americans" -- wherein Republicans sit down with Barack Obama and solve our nation's problems. He wants to model them after the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858.
Russert tried to steer the conversation to petty politics and New wanted to talk about his ideas. Newt talked over and around Russert and had his forum.
TED KENNEDY ON FNS. Of course, FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace seems enthralled with the idea that Democrats are suddenly appearing on his show, something perhaps born of Clinton (Bill) strategy. Ted Kennedy did not appear to be drunk on FNS this morning, but he was as blockheaded as we'd expect.
He said that our troops were in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. He asked, "What are the rules of engagement between the Shi'a and Sunni""
Ted Kennedy declared that "this is a different situation than Vietnam."
He said that we have to "put the safety and security of the troops first." This is a curious notion.
He described the situation in Iraq as "absolute chaos." He said that Carl Levin was going to hold weekly hearings into Iraq and that this would galvanize the public against the war.
Kennedy said that the Dem candidate had to have character, sense of vision, ability to inspire. On Obama's inexperience, he pointed out that Abe Lincoln had served only two years in the House of Representatives when he became President. (Kennedy and Newt are reading from the same OBAMA cue cards.) It begs for an aging Republican to counter: "I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine. Senator Obama is no Abe Lincoln." Then again, these folks seem to think he is.
Kennedy said that all the potential Dem nominees, including John Kerry, are "better than Bush."
Wallace closed the interview with: "Now that you've found us, come back any time."
STEPH CHATS WITH HARRY REID. On ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos interviewed Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, the soon-to-be House Majority Leader, first about Senator Tim Johnson. Harry Reid expressed confusion as to the color of the Green Room and said of Johnson that: "He got sick." He said, "Doctors tell us everything is going to be just fine." Steph asked if Senator Johnson is conscious, and Reid answered: "Dammit, Steph, I'm a politician, not a doctor!" (A creative paraphrase.)
Steph pointed out that the Republicans have said that they will give Johnson as much time as he needs. Reid said that the Republicans have been great. He has no fears that Joe Lieberman will caucus with the GOP.
Reid said that the situation in Iraq was "grave and deteriorating." These were not his words, he pointed out though he agrees with them. He said that James Baker is a Republican.
"The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has," Harry Reid decided for us. (Someone tell this guy that we don't need his drossy decision-making anymore. We're TIME Mag's Person of the Year!)
Reid said that there are no Iraqi troops which are battle ready.
Steph suggested that Congress set benchmarks which have to be met before they authorize money for our troops in Iraq. Reid said that our military will get what they want, no question, but he wants to look at the 100,000 civilian companies profiting in Iraq. He declared that Halliburton has made enough money in Iraq.
Steph brought up Nancy Pelosi's ethics reform being her top issue. Reid said it was his, as well. Steph mentioned Barack Obama's non-partisan, independent agency which will enforce lobbying laws. Reid said they'll take a look at his amendment, and everything else, when it is offered.
Steph's face donned that little grin he sometimes gets when discussing pure politics, and asked Harry how it complicates his life that five of his colleagues – Hillary, Kerry, Dodd, Joe Biden, and Obama -- are now thinking of running for President. Reid said that he's not running for President, and that others are does not complicate his life. They're all a part of the caucus, he said, and rarely miss a boat.
Steph said that both Reid and Mitt are Mormons, and a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll from July showed that 35% of those surveyed would not support a Mormon who ran for President. What does he say to voters who won't vote for a Mormon? Reid joked that this reinforces his own decision not to run, but that religion is a personal thing. He never discusses it. Steph asked if this were Reid's advice for Mitt, and Reid said he's never met Mitt so Mitt will have to look elsewhere for his advice.
COLIN POWELL ON FTN. On CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer talked to former State Secretary Colin Powell. He began this show: "Tonight on Face the Nation..." No news, straight to the in-studio interview.
Powell said he agrees with Baker-Hamilton, the situation is "grave and deteriorating." He agreed with Bob Gates that we are "not winning." Colin Powell said that "we are losing, but we've not yet lost."
He talked of various phases of crisis, the latest, sectarian, having begun with the blowing up of the mosques in Samarra. He calls it a "civil war," that the government can't control the situation of killings and kidnappings. "It seems to me that this looks like a civil war, and we ought to call it that."
Schieffer asked him about McCain's advice for a "temporary surge" in troop levels vs. the Baker-Hamilton proposal for drawing down forces. Powell said we've tried the surge in troops over the summer, and he's not convinced that it will work. He said his question would be, "What mission will these troops have." He said that we don't have enough troops to secure Baghdad. He said that we cannot "grab a number [of troops] out of the air." He said that "this is the time" to tell the Iraqis that if they say they can control Iraq, they have to show how they can do it. He said that the Iraqis need police force. He wants to know why our troops would be going and for how long they would be there.
Schieffer asked if we had the troops to send. Powell agreed with General Pete Schoomaker that "the active army is broken." (Schoomaker actually told Congress that without more men and money, the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan will break the active duty army.) But Powell explained that the troop surge would be accomplished by keeping troops already in Iraq on for a longer time and accelerated the arrival of troops who would already be there. Our army doesn't have enough active troops, he said, to sustain that.
Schieffer asked if Bush had sent too few troops on the invasion. Powell said we had enough to invade, but we did not have enough for security and we overestimated our ability to train Iraqi troops. He said that under international law, we had to provide security, and now Iraqi neighborhoods were "ethnically cleansing themselves."
Powell is not persuaded that 150,000 or 160,000 troops would do better than the current 140,000.
Schieffer asked if victory were possible, saying that Baker-Hamilton avoided that term. Powell said that it depends how we define victory, but victory can be achieved only by the Iraqis. "The United States will not be able to do it for them."
Schieffer asked if we were safer or less safe because of what happened in Iraq. Powell said less safe, in that we have fewer troops available for other problems. He suggested that there are underreported good things going on around the world.
Schieffer, of course, held him on through the break. I mean, that was the plan, right?
Schieffer started in, after the break, with the Baker-Hamilton suggestion of a troop drawdown, of using our troops as advisors. Powell said that we have embedded advisors now, Abizaid wanted to use more, and he thinks "that is a sensible plan."
He said that we have to start drawing down troops, turning it over to the Iraqis, by the middle of next year (2007). "Eventually, it has to happen."
He said that sending more troops is not the answer, "unless you can give me a solid reason."
He said that we need to reinforce the Iraqis, train their leaders, and train them "to be more effective." In the months ahead, he said that Iraqis have to come up with a strategy and we have to fit into that, rather than us announcing a strategy from Washington.
Schieffer wanted to talk Syria. Powell said that in his four years as Secretary of State, he engaged Syria. He talked to Syria. He said that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once asked that the rockets stop from Lebanon; Powell talked to Assad, and the rockets stopped. He said that "low-level communications" with Syria might help the problems. Powell posited that most of the trouble in Iraq originates in Iraq. Some help from Iran and Syria, yes, but the problem was Iraqi in nature.
Schieffer revealed that Vice President Cheney had said that Don Rumsfeld was the finest SecDef in history. Powell countered that Casper Weinberger and Dick Cheney were "fine" Secretaries of Defense, and that history would judge Rumsfeld.
IRAQI VEEP ON LE. On CNN's Late Edition, Wolf Blitzer opened by speaking to Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi about the quagmire, quagmire, not-Vietnam-said-Ted. He pointed to very little disagreement between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government. He said that Iraq and the United States "have a common interest" which should be "pursued jointly." He worried that the American people might not understand this.
He wants more United States troops because he wants to "secure Baghdad." Blitzer brought up Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie as calling for the Iraqi troops take over and put the Americans in the suburbs. Hashimi, the top Sunni politician in Iraq, said that the Iraqi army was incompetent and corrupt. They are not professional, he said, or reliable.. He insisted that this had nothing to do with any fears that the Shi'ites had "infiltrated" (Blitzer's word) the Iraqi armed forces.
Hashimi faulted Paul Bremer for breaking up the Iraqi Army. Blitzer said that Paul Bremer was "working with " Don Rumsfeld, so it was his fault as well.
Hashimi differentiated between the foreign terrorists in Iraq and the Iraqi insurgents, and Wolf told him that the foreign terrorists were not a problem. It was the sectarian violence, Blitzer instructed. Hashimi said that they both were part of the problem, and the insurgents could be brought to the negotiating table if the government had the tools to do it. (It's sad when the Iraqis there disagree with the heterodoxy of the American media.)
Wolf said that Iraq was now three countries: the Kurds to the north, the Shi'ites, and the Sunnis. And the ethnic cleansing. Hashimi said that this was true only in Baghdad.
Hashimi said that he is optimistic about the future of Iraq, if they bolster their security and start pursuing a national agenda, not a sectarian one. Blitzer posited that the Iraqi people had to make these decisions themselves; the Americans could do very little. Hashimi agreed. Hashimi also faulted foreign governments who interfered with Iraqi's ability to do this. Blitzer asked him to specify the names of these foreign governments, and the Sunni Hashimi specified Iran. Asked about Ba'athist Syria, Hashimi said that they had worked with Syria in the past and could keep doing so.
-----
There are some interesting things to kick around this week, so have at it. Barring some big news, the next Sunday Morning Talk Show review will be seen in this spot on January 7, 2007. We've two upcoming holiday eves, and I'd sooner discuss the Prince of Peace than write about wars, be they military or inter-ideology.
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - preview — Comments (0) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 24 Comments (0 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com
Newt had Russert on his heels the entire interview. It was almost surreal to watch the usually aggressive and pugnacious Russert get talked around by Newt and even corrected on several occasions. That is exactly what we so desperately need -- someone the polar opposite of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II -- a candidate who welcomes tough interviews and shines. Newt is hands down the best articulator of conservative principles. We are going to need at least that, $500m, and a bit of luck to win the White House in 2008.
It was just nice to see someone so thoroughly clean Russert's clock. Week after week, the man is able to drag the subjects of his interviews down to BushLied™ and quagmire, quagmire, Vietnam.
Digging up FDR and putting him to work in Iraq and sitting 'round the table with Barack Obama to discuss our nation's future are losing propositions, but Newt was a winner on style and for providing actual substance.
Would you please elaborate as to why "sitting 'round the table" with Barack Obama to discuss our nation's future is a losing proposition?
Is not the true but hidden purpose behind such an initiative (I think Newt is making a big enough deal about the idea for it to be considered an initiative) to put on display before the American people a side-by-side comparrison of their (Barak's) ideas and our own, thereby circumventing the media's control of message delivery- and allowing all to see the substance and consequences of ideas? (which of course most presently have conveniently filtered for them prior to delievery)
Or perhaps Newt means something else by this? Maybe that their ideas have merit, and should be taken seriously and put to use? Surely not!
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine
national dialog. He called it a "national dialog," not a "national debate," both of which would be a waste of time an energy, a smokescreen.
There are those who would not engage in an honest debate with the other side, and that's not a per se bad thing. But who is to determine which ideas would be useful and which wouldn't? We already see and hear ideas from both sides without the pretense of constructive dialog.
No, this is the stuff which sounds good when campaigning for higher office. If he pulls this off, his image is a uniter and he will run. Not that anything substantial can possibly come of it.
Newt's suggestion of a national dialogue among both parties and the voters should have been phrased differently. Perhaps something like a national discussion on how to achieve a successful post-war Iraq (ok, I'm open to different phrasing).
That would force the Democrats to:
1). Offer a definition of success
2). (grudgingly) Admit they want success
3). Identify the steps to get there
From what I've seen, the Dems have only made half hearted suggestions around #3 by saying things like train the troops, disarm the militias, etc. Things we are already doing. Josh Bolten's letter to Harry Reid a few months back on that topic was priceless.
Right now the center of gravity in the Democratic party with respect to the war is cut and run, our previous sacrifices in blood and treasure be damned. This would be utterly disasterous for Iraq, the region, and the world. We have a very strong national interest in Iraq moving in the direction of a functioning, peaceful democracy. That goal is at best a long way off. But it is still achievable and certainly not a "lost cause" as lefties will tell you ad nauseum in the hopes you will throw in the towel too and sink into their cesspool of defeatism.
I agree with your sentiment that the Democratic party in general is not a responsible partner in Newt's suggested "dialogue" on Iraq and therefore such a dialogue borders on useless. Most Dems hate Bush so much that they would gladly let Iraq implode in order to make Bush look bad. These twisted priorities are what makes them irresponsible participants in a national dialogue because their end goals are different.
This is why Newt, as one of the leading Republican voices, and other GOP leaders should begin by articulating their positive vision for success in Iraq and challenge the Democrats to do the same. If all Nancy and her acolytes have to offer is whining, bitching, and complaining in lieu of a vision for success, then their tenure in control of Congress will be brief. American voters want and deserve problem solvers in their elected leaders, not incessant complainers. The GOP just lost Congress because they weren't solving issues important to the people. If (when) the Democrats fail to do so, they will be kicked to the curb too.
this is why I think Newt has much better chances than he is given for electability. Nobody wants to debate w/ Newt. Rep or Dem. His knowledge of history, common sense plain positive effective communication skills can win people over pretty quickly. The short memory of Americans will be even shorter when Newt connects w/ voters during debates and campaign coverage should he run. Of course the MSM will try to take him down early by not letting him in and then continuing attacking w/ his "baggage". It could very well backfire on the MSM.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
When Hashimi said he thought the insurgents could be brought to the table, was he talking about the Ba'athists, the Jihadis or both?
and the criminal element. It's a reasonable argument, that these folks can be accommodated. They're not all extreme.
The jihadists are another piece of work. Although Hashimi didn't say this, the general hope if for the Iraqis to come together and rid themselves of the jihadists. (This is happening to an extent, as exaggerated by Blitzer when he spoke to the effect that there were no jihadists.)
What I found most interesting about this interview was that Hashimi dismissed the Sunni vs. Shi'a schism while excusing the Syrians (Sunni) and blaming Iraq (Shi'ite).
will not be an extremist muslim state. They all want to get rid of the jihadists.
www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com
like just about every other political figure in Iraq. He's going to have to make do with Iran's influence for a while. As is the U.S.
A report I read from April numbered the insurgency at 77,000, with 60,000 of those being Ba'athist and Fedayeen. The remaining 17,000 were counted as jihadis, with roughly a third of those being foreigners.
whose report this was? I've heard numbers thrown around, and claims that the foreign jihadists were diminishing, By all accounts, it was the foreign fighters who at least sparked the mosque bombings in Samara which threw this whole adventure into a new zone.
because I've been trying (with little success) to do a landscape analysis of possible coalitions, and it's got a nice overview of the players involved, with some statistics.
It's called "Meeting the Challenge of a Fragmented Iraq", by Nawaf Obaid. You can get it at:
http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=3021
It's a little strange (it's from a Saudi perspective, and meant to advise the Saudi government), but good reading. More fun than the ISG report, at any rate.
He does note, at that early date, a drop in foreign fighters due to "the implementation of stronger mechnanisms preventing foreign fighters from entering Iraq". Also interesting is his analysis of the composition of the foreign fighters (16% syrian, 10% saudi, 22% algerian, etc.).
I don't think Newt would have much chance as a presdential candidate, but he'd make a great head of the RNC. Howie would be even more afraid of appearing on TV with him, than he was with Mehlman.
I suspect you’re right. But he can define the debate and move the party to the right in the process.
In my opinion he is a bit quirky and eclectic but he still raises damn good points. We need a debate on the issues. With Newt running, the level of the debate can only rise. Let’s not vote for a “moderate” whose meaningless win will be no mandate. We need a real debate within the Party to define the priorities for the future.
"He's not a doctor, so he doesn't know whether or not Senator Johnson is conscious."
Is that what you were saying during the debate over Schiavo down in Florida? I seem to remember a lot of pontificating and TV-diagnoses being put forth by Republicans on the House and Senate floor, most of whom were not doctors, and in the end were found to be completely wrong.
Mark - thanks for the dog's work you do every weekend. You deserve some time off but I don't know what I'll do without you for two weeks!
Anyway, I used to be one of those people who said Hillary can't win - no, freakin' way. After all, her master politician of a husband couldn't crack 50%.
After watching the last six years of anti-GOP hysteria wrought by the Dems and their lickspittles in the MSM I'm just not confident that Hillary can't win.
I can see a scenario or two where after the next two years of stories about BushLied, GOP obstruction and corruption, blah, blah, blah Hillary and her Dems depress enough conservatives and peel away enough moderate-conservative women (Soccer Moms, Security Moms, whatever) that she squeaks in. We just watched Sen. George Allen lose for no apparent reason other than a lot of people who should have voted for him didn't. Gov. Bob Ehrlich was sporting a 50+% approval rating in Maryland and got creamed. Michael Steele lost to a bland, gray suited milquetoast... A lot of good Republicans went down in 2006 and it can be traced to reflexive anti-Republican voting.
If the electorate comes to its senses in 2008 then Hillary can't win but I'm not sure it will.
As for Newt in 2008 - Newt is a true political genius. BUT he's a ticking bomb - that's part of his genius. It's not if he'll blow-up but when he'll blow-up.
Hillary (or Barack Obama) could say that she thought Hitler was a swell guy and barbequed baby was just dandy with spicy mustard and nothing would happen. Newt could make one of his patented offhand Giraffes In Foxholes comments (or whatever that strange comment was) and it would be 24/7 negative coverage.
and it's pointless to say never when we don't know the circumstances in early 2008. I've softened by tone on Hillary to the extent that at one point, I argued that she could not win even the Dem nomination. It terms of network and organization, she'll be difficult to beat for the nomination, especially if her folks can project a background theme of Clinton (Bill) vs. Bush (G.W.). The Dems can rally to that.
If the mass perception of the war in Iraq alters, if it is seen by the masses as worthwhile, it won't matter who the Dems run. There's plenty of time for that to happen, and hoping for it to happen is not partisan; rather, it's hoping that Iraq becomes a recognized positive.
All of it, every single bit of it. And I don't fault you, Mark, for reporting it all to us. But right now it's all an incredible contradictory pile of smelly old crud and electioneering. None of them know the first thing about what to do.
Buy ammo. ;)
buy ammo anyway.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
You are correct about the buy ammo part. I disagree that the notion of a US foreign policy instead of a Republican foreign policy or a Democrat foreign policy is foolish or impossible. When the enemy does come here and attack us again they won't be attacking just Republicans or just Democrats. They will attack us all.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
For such an information packed and entertaining interview, I highly suggest watching Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press on MSNBC's website, which can be found here.
One of the, and only not the because I need to think about more to make that claim, best interviews I've ever seen.
Why do we keep talking about we're losing the war or about to lose? That's horribly demoralizing and emboldens our enemies.
We invaded Iraq, we overthrew the government. By any military definition that I think matters, that means we won and we should be shouting that out.
For the war on terror, we're winning that too. There hasn't been a single attack on the U.S. since 9/11.
What we're left with is out attempt to rebuild Iraq. For that we 1) helped set up an interim government, 2) turned over sovereignty to that government 3) oversaw free elections, 4) helped them create a new constitution.
Again, big huge wins.
So what is all this talk about losing for? Even if we just packed up and said "good luck losers" and left, we still have "won." Iraq is no longer a threat and we've proven that if anyone wants to mess with us, we'll crush them.
What we can't win is bringing peace between the Sunni and Shia. They've been at war with each other for over a thousand years. Our fine military folks need to fight wars, not be a local police department to prevent two groups of what is basically glorified gangs from killing each other.
What I wish Bush would point out to our enemies is that, before 9/11 we had a small military presence in Saudi Arabia which drove Bin Laden mad. What did his little 9/11 gamble get him? We now have permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish Bush would just say "You blew it sucker, and if you're smart, you better quit while you're behind."
So can we please stop saying we are losing, or about to lose? We won. If the Iraqi people can't learn to live with each other in peace, THEY are the losers, not us.