Thread: Newt's Take on the War on Terror
August 4th, 2007, 08:19 PM #1
Newt's Take on the War on Terror
Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
August 4th, 2007, 08:38 PM #2
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- inside the Beltway
- Blog Entries
Whatever Newt says, however reasonable or unreasonable, can automatically be discounted because of his own personal lack of credibility. He's a legend in his own mind, but nobody else can take him seriously.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
August 4th, 2007, 08:47 PM #3
Regardless of that, I'd like to think that we can all agree that the sooner we get off our Middle Eastern oil addiction, the better.
They (the big bad terrorists) aren't fighting a military war - they're fighting a fiscal war. They're trying - and succeeding - to drain us dry of money. First, by having us by the balls when it comes to oil prices, then by making us come over there and spend a boatload of money and resources in Iraq and other places. Not to mention all the money we have to spend domestically to attempt to ensure our safety at home.
Last edited by The Real Bingo; August 4th, 2007 at 08:51 PM.
August 4th, 2007, 08:49 PM #4
Last edited by zen; August 4th, 2007 at 09:18 PM.
August 5th, 2007, 01:15 PM #5
Yeah, what's your beef with Newt, Theo?
If you shut off debate, then you're in a dual-dictatorship, just hoping for your dictator to win. Sickening that debates aren't even real debates anymore. 30 second soundbyte answers to questions from a celebrity newsguy? Not a debate. Most of the time they don't even address what the other guy said.
This is another of Newt's points.
I really do wish he'd throw his hat in the ring! I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. I read his book "Winning the Future" - and he's an incredibly intelligent and articulate person. If he gets in the race, the democrats have a HUGE problem. They'll have someone who can blow them away in a debate.
The biggest problem is the democrats being anti-republican and the republicans being anti-democrat rather than both of them being pro-american. Most of them are, to a degree, but they spend too much time sniping each other and trying to make the other look bad rather than serving the people.Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress, but just terrible things.
August 7th, 2007, 01:28 PM #6
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
How can you take someone seriously when they make statements like,
"We're fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we don't have to fight them in the suburbs of Philadelphia."
August 7th, 2007, 03:36 PM #7
I happen to agree with what Newt said in that article. He knows that there is no future (for the country or his career) hanging onto the failed policies of the Bush Admin. The architect of the conservative revolution is essentially denouncing the most conservative president in the last 100 years as a failure.
Last edited by MTAtech; August 7th, 2007 at 03:45 PM.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
August 7th, 2007, 06:39 PM #8
August 7th, 2007, 07:38 PM #9
Too funny. The Speaker of the House can be a philanderer, but the President has a higher standard to adhere to. ROFL.
People everywhere in the world marvel at our stupidity on this. The Scarlet Letter tradition is alive and well in this society. And the funny thing is, a lot of it is due to the hypocritical evangelical preachers who weren't breast-fed long enough.
Reminds me of that Roger Waters lyric, "And when they go home at night, their fat and psychopathic wives thrash them within inches of their lives!"
August 7th, 2007, 08:39 PM #10
Pex, I always tried to make out those lyrics (The Wall). Yes, you're right. I'm not so bothered by the philandering as much as the hypocrisy.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
August 7th, 2007, 08:50 PM #11
August 7th, 2007, 10:07 PM #12
Wow TRB, disowning "the compassionate conservative," huh? Well, he aint one of ours. Anyone that based his 2004 re-election on anti gay marrage, anti-abortion and fear that Kerry would take away guns, isn't a liberal.
Although Bush has shown that he doesn't walk-the-walk, since he flew to Washington to sign a bill that would deny States rights and sanctions torture, he follows the conservative ideology believes. The major part of conservative ideology is the ingrained belief is hostility to government. As such, he cut taxes and increased spending in an attempt to starve the beast - a policy to deny funds for future programs.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
August 8th, 2007, 11:20 AM #13
Reagan was a lot more of a conservative than Bush. And the only reason you wouldn't want Newt running is because he can debate circles around any and all of the democrat candidates. And no, he doesn't sanction torture. That kind of rhetoric is what America hates about politics today. And those programs you mention - most are either pork, or a lame attempt at income redistribution.Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress, but just terrible things.
August 8th, 2007, 11:47 AM #14
No question that Newt is an intelligent, articulate guy, but he would not "debate circles around" Clinton, Obama, Biden, or Richardson.
August 8th, 2007, 11:51 AM #15
I'd like Newt to answer the following question, if you believe in lowering taxes, which specific programs would you cut to pay for them? Please be specific and don't just say, waste and pork.
August 8th, 2007, 11:57 AM #16
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Occupied Virginia
August 8th, 2007, 02:20 PM #17
August 8th, 2007, 02:24 PM #18
Hows about we settle it all @ the polls.
BUT Theo and I run together... He can be the VP.
From one extreme to the other... i think the ying yang thing would work great... we'd keep each other in check.He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves. One for his enemy, and one for himself.-- Lao Tzu
August 8th, 2007, 04:23 PM #19
Not a bad idea. Whoever wins the presidency should have to have a vp from the other party.The timing of death, like the ending of a story, gives a changed meaning to what preceded it. -Mary Catherine Bateson-
August 8th, 2007, 04:25 PM #20
Almost the way it should be... sometimes clashes of ideas produce the best results.He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves. One for his enemy, and one for himself.-- Lao Tzu
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By johnnycombat in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 2Last Post: September 21st, 2006, 09:41 PM
By Chuckiechan in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 76Last Post: April 12th, 2006, 09:38 AM
By Gomer in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 20Last Post: July 29th, 2005, 03:50 PM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 6Last Post: July 24th, 2005, 07:36 PM
By pickel in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 4Last Post: March 2nd, 2003, 02:49 PM