Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Sept, 10, 2007. Photo by Callista Gingrich.
by Frank James
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gave one of those lengthy Big Vision speeches yesterday that he's so good at, a talk that was greatly overshadowed by the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker about Iraq and probably would've gotten little attention regardless because Gingrich is out of power.
Gingrich's speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute was meant to shift the debate about U.S. national security interests from "Whither Iraq" to the larger question of the best way to fight the war on terror. "Think Different," the adverstising slogan Apple Computer used back in the 1990s, could easily serve to describe Gingrich's Big Idea.
Gingrich's asserted that the current Iraq debate is the wrong debate to be having because it's much to narrow. Not that he thinks Iraq is going poorly.
The real debate should be about what America is doing in the larger war against what he calls the "irreconcilable wing of Islam."
Gingrich said:
Iraq has to be analyzed as only one campaign in this larger war. It is a very important campaign and it deserves thorough consideration but it should not be confused with the larger war.
... If the American people will sustain this effort we will ultimately win. If the American politicians decide to legislate defeat, America will be defeated. Given that choice, we must support General Petraeus. Furthermore, the Pentagon, the State Department, the intelligence community, and the Office of Management and Budget should be instructed to help him win the campaign in Iraq by meeting his needs rather than weakening him through slow bureaucracy, the imposition of lesser priorities, and the restriction of resources. However, supporting General Petraeus in Iraq is not enough to win the larger war and it is to winning the larger war that this speech is dedicated.
In Gingrich's view, it's the bigger war against Islam's "irreconcilable wing" that must be waged along the lines of all the major wars America has ever fought, such has the Civil War and World War II, an all-out effort with every tool of U.S. power fully used, from public diplomacy to military to the sort of propaganda past presidents have used to inspire the American people to victory in past conflicts.
The larger war needs to be approached in this way, Gingrich said, because the stakes are so high being that the Islam's "irreconcilable wing" is hell-bent on using weapons of mass destruction to attack U.S. cities.
Gingrich then provides an alternative scenario to the what could've happened in the past six years if his recommended approach had been taken.
FIRST: Imagine that on the morning of September 12, 2001, the shocked national political leadership in both parties had understood the necessity to take a deep, long look at the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam. SECOND: Imagine that the President and Congressional leaders on a bipartisan basis had mandated a series of public hearings on the scale of the radical Wahhabist financing from sources in Saudi Arabia, the degree of Iranian and Syrian support for terrorism, the various propagandizing and recruiting efforts that were underway to attract terrorists at a rate faster than we could kill or imprison them. THIRD: Imagine that on September 12, 2001 the news media had begun a series of informative, in-depth explorations of the Iranian war against America (as Mark Bowden described it in Guests of the Ayatollah, his book about the 1979-80 hostage crisis,) and then went on to examine the goals of the various irreconcilable groups and the religious fervor with which they are willing to die for their beliefs. The Iranian dictatorship had been at war with America for 22 years before 9/11. The Iranian revolutionaries knew this and acted on it but we denied it and hid from it. But after 9/11, this explicit Iranian violence against Americans began to be outlined in the media and linked together into on continuous story of Iranian attacks and the deliberate self deception of the American elites. FOURTH: Imagine that the great bureaucracies of national security and homeland security had immediately begun to place defeating the enemy above protecting their normal routine systems. FIFTH: Imagine that the Office of Management and Budget had been instructed to set aside its peacetime formulas and attitudes and operate within a war footing to facilitate the mobilization and build up necessary to both win the war with the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam and preserve America’s military and intelligence capabilities on other fronts.
According to Gingrich, the problem is that the nation's political leadership, the media and a group he calls the "bureaucratic elite" have failed to explain the larger war and the need for maximum effort from the American people to defeat the enemy.
Gingrich said:
We need a strategy—not a campaign—to rationalize ends and means to achieve our objectives in this long war against our way of life.
The American people are fully capable of understanding the scale of the threat, the dangers to our lives, the threats to our very survival.
The American people showed enormous patience through the great agony of the Civil War.
The American people sustained the Cold War for 44 years until the Soviet Union disappeared.
The problem is not with the American people.
The problem is with our politicians, our news media and our bureaucratic elites.
They are afraid to tell the American people the truth.
They are afraid to explain the scale of the threat and the inevitable scale of the needed response.
Let them trust in Americans.
Gingrich, ironically, is making an argument made by some Democratic critics of the Iraq War and President Bush's conduct of the war on terror overall.
Many a Democratic critic has said the president has wanted to fight the greater war on terror on the cheap, that he hasn't asked of Americans the kinds of sacrifices prior presidents have -- pushing through tax cuts for instance during war-time.
In addition, Bush's critics have said the invasion of Iraq sidetracked the U.S. from the bigger picture in the fight against Islamic extremists, particularly al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan which was responsible for the carnage six years ago today.
Nevertheless, Gingrich is clearly trying to provoke an important national discussion about the larger U.S. strategy that hasn't received enough attention.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Short version:
Let's invade Iran too!
Spend even more money that we don't have!
Kill all the Muslims!
Posted by: Tony | September 11, 2007 12:59 PM
Newt - Imagine, imagine, Imagine, are you the new John Lennon? Where were you five years ago when the Republicans supported every policy and intervention the president wanted. We needed some strong debate from the party in power. Instead we received rhetoric and slogans. This Independant will have a togh time voting for another Republican.
Posted by: PD | September 11, 2007 1:10 PM
"Gingrich: Iraq Part of Larger, Poorly Fought War"
What is it with these disgraced former Republican "leaders" like Newty and Hammerhead Tom Delay?
SHUT UP and GO AWAY!
Posted by: John E | September 11, 2007 1:10 PM
In my view the problem we have with fighting the terrorists is not with our enemy but with the people in power, i.e. the media and the leaders of our government who are fearful of telling us the TRUTH!
Posted by: Robert J. Cusack | September 11, 2007 1:16 PM
So, Newt stopped engorging himself long enough to spew forth some more tripe. Phew! - something smells suspiciously like bile or a backed-up toilet.
Can't this guy just go away?
Posted by: snalg | September 11, 2007 1:35 PM
Great! Let the debates begin. Everyone in office will be too busy looking over their shoulder to speak freely. Newt is on his own and can say whatever he feels. Better yet, let him debate the current candidates on both sides (in a real debate) and watch them all fold.
Posted by: Michael Blake | September 11, 2007 1:57 PM
Newt's a wonderful chap, but he's quite hopeless. What a bunch of closely reasoned malarky! We have a new secret movement nobody has ever heard of, the "Irreconcilable Wing of Islam" (complete with capitals. I can just picture Newt scrawling a bunch of feverish notes with things like "IWI!!! Plot!") Wahhabists plotting with Iranians (don't they hate each other? No! That's what the IWI WANTS you to think!), and references to books nobody has ever read. The mention of the great bureaucracies of national security and homeland security is even weirder. What happened to small government? Poor Newt's really lost it.
Posted by: PaulG | September 11, 2007 3:00 PM
Wow...his thoughts are so profound. Newton Gingerich. Mr. Contract with America. Nothing but a hypocrite and a windbag who things he's real important. Another though talking Republican with zero military/ combat experience.
I thought you were going to run for President, Newton.
Posted by: Doug R. | September 11, 2007 3:48 PM
"Let's invade Iran too!"
"Kill all the Muslims!"
Posted by: Tony | September 11, 2007 12:59 PM
Even for you, that was an amazingly stupid comment. It was downright John E stupid!
Did you happen to read this in Frank James piece? --
"Gingrich, ironically, is making an argument made by some Democratic critics of the Iraq War and President Bush's conduct of the war on terror overall."
"Many a Democratic critic has said the president has wanted to fight the greater war on terror on the cheap, that he hasn't asked of Americans the kinds of sacrifices prior presidents have..."
Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:04 PM
"We need a strategy—not a campaign—to rationalize ends and means to achieve our objectives in this long war against our way of life."
He got part of it right. We need a strategy—not a campaign. I guess we'll have to wait until after the next election for that.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 11, 2007 4:18 PM
"Iraq has to be analyzed as only one campaign in this larger war. It is a very important campaign and it deserves thorough consideration but it should not be confused with the larger war."
"Think Different" huh? He seems to start out though with the same old, same old here.Something "Different" would be saying Iraq was a huge step backwards and a costly distraction from where the real fight is. But that might have upset the base, so Newt can't go there...
Posted by: kb | September 11, 2007 4:18 PM
Anonymous:
Did you happen to read these quotes from Gingrich?
"Imagine that on September 12, 2001 the news media had begun a series of informative, in-depth explorations of the Iranian war against America"
The man thinks 9/11 should have been used to justify a war with Iran.
"Imagine that the Office of Management and Budget had been instructed to set aside its peacetime formulas and attitudes and operate within a war footing to facilitate the mobilization and build up necessary to both win the war with the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam and preserve America’s military and intelligence capabilities on other fronts."
The man wants to fight a war with Islam. (Or the Irreconcilable wing
of Islam, however it is he defines that)
All of his "dreams" of what should have happened post 9/11 mention Iran and the "Irreconcialable wing Of Islam". He never mentions Afghanistan or Al Qaeda.
So I stand by what I said, because it is what Mr' Gingrich is promoting:
War with Iran.
War with Islam.
Posted by: Tony | September 11, 2007 4:59 PM
Notice how many of the left-wing posters here are ordering people who disagree with them to "shut up"?
While not agreeing with everything he says, Newt makes one excellent point--we must not lose sight of the fact that Iraq (or Afghanistan) is just part of the larger war radical Islamicists have launched against the world.
Posted by: Bruce | September 11, 2007 5:26 PM
Tony,
I'm mystified how you can discern a call to war against all of Islam from Gingrich's comments.
And are you suggesting that Iran (as well as Saudi Arabia and Syria) has not been promoting terrorism here and around the world? Seems like you are. In which case you don't know much at all about the world around you and what has been happening for the past 20-plus years.
Many people -- including Liberals and Democrats -- have said all along that Bush dropped the ball; that he never saw the larger picture of Islamism (not the religion, the political movement); that he should have asked the nation to prepare for sacrifices, and if he'd done so on 9/13 America would have been willing to liusten. That is all still true, in spite of Gingrich also saying it.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 6:13 PM
Anonymous-
When did I deny those countries involvement in terrorism?
However, I do not believe that declaring war on every country that has any involvement with terrorism is a wise or prudent policy for this country.
As to how I draw the conclusion that Mr. Gingrinch wants to go to war on all of Islam, well, it's because he says that.
"win the war with the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam"
Since he doesn't bother to in any way define what constitutes the "Irreconcilable Wing of Islam" as opposed to any other wing of Islam, It's a pretty broad call to war on a religion.
If you think war with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia is the proper policy for this country, by all mean support Mr. Gingrich. I personally think it's a road to disaster.
Posted by: Tony | September 11, 2007 6:32 PM
"Many people -- including Liberals and Democrats -- ..."
Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 6:13 PM
Congratulations. You're the only person who seems to have correctly noted there is a distinction between the two. Kudos.
Posted by: John W. | September 11, 2007 8:14 PM
As usual Newt hits the nail on the head.
We don't need tax increases to fund the war
Posted by: Terry | September 11, 2007 8:16 PM
The apocalypse is here. I actually agree with RNC Bruce for once.
Well at least on Afghanistan. A rare moment of clarity!!!
"we must not lose sight of the fact that Iraq (or Afghanistan) is just part of the larger war radical Islamicists have launched against the world."
Posted by: Bruce | September 11, 2007 5:26 PM
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 11, 2007 11:54 PM
Since he doesn't bother to in any way define what constitutes the "Irreconcilable Wing of Islam" as opposed to any other wing of Islam, It's a pretty broad call to war on a religion.
Posted by: Tony | September 11, 2007 6:32 PM
How about this, one ‘wing’ of Islam is composed of the 99.99% of Muslims that practice Islam as a religion of peace. The "Irreconcilable Wing of Islam" is the Islamic Fundamentalists that want to kill all Americans, like the ones that flew the planes into the WTC, Pentagon, and into the ground in Pennsylvania. Some might say they are the Muslims (like the ones from Iran) that are killing our soldiers RIGHT NOW.
Newt knows the difference; sadly you still don’t six years after 9/11.
It’s not a war on a religion. If you can’t tell the difference, you’re too stupid to participate in this discussion.
Posted by: military spouse | September 12, 2007 1:23 AM
It’s not a war on a religion. If you can’t tell the difference, you’re too stupid to participate in this discussion.
Posted by: military spouse | September 12, 2007 1:23 AM
I'm not the one who chose to define the war in religious terms, Newt is.
Tell me, ms, if 99.99% of the islamic people are good, does it make sense to got to war with all of the people of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria as Mr. Gingrich seems to support? Don't you think such action might tend to make more members of the IWI?
Posted by: Tony | September 12, 2007 11:03 AM
"I'm not the one who chose to define the war in religious terms, Newt is."
Nice try, but wrong as usual.
Newt isn't the one that defined the fight as a Jihad.
You and others bitch and moan because we haven't killed or captured Osama. At the same time you don’t want to do anything about the Iranian Islamic extremists that are killing Americans as we speak.
How many American soldiers has Osama killed in the past year?
If you say none, then you have to admit he’s not a threat at this time and it would waste resources to go after him. If you say he is responsible, then you have to admit our policy of fighting the terrorists where they are now (Iraq) is the right policy.
What do the Iranian people think about their government? What would they do if we took out high-value military targets and some of the leadership? What are we doing, right now, to help the Iranian resistance? If we cut and run, what will they think about the US and how much they can depend on us?
Iranian military personnel are killing US troops today. Reread what Newt said, he talks about using all means in the war on terror, not just the military option.
Iranians are building nukes, they’ve said they want to wipe the US and Israel off the map, they are committing acts of war against the US right now.
How do you suppose we get them to stop, ask them nicely?
Running away, as you would have us do, won’t keep us safe and will embolden the people that want to kill us.
Posted by: military spouse | September 12, 2007 11:44 AM
It’s funny how the two politicians most despised by the media are the only ones who are offering any ideas or making any attempt to figure out the truth for our it’s own sake.
Gingrich and Ron Paul are the only two political figures who have contributed in even the slightest meaningful way to the debate over what direction we need to take country and what the solutions are for getting there.
Here is what the rest have offered so far:
Fred Thompson:
Regan was actor and so I am. While Regan helped build and lead a country wide conservative movement before wining the presidency, I have always been the first out the door when 5:00 rolls around and its time go home after a long day of doing nothing in Senate. I have played a number of crooked politicians on TV; you should see me in distinguished gentleman with Eddie Murphy. If elected to the presidency I promise to play the part of that corrupt politician better than anyone else.
Mitt Romney: I am tall, I have a great smile, and most importantly I have the best hair of any politician in decades. Other than that I really don’t have much to offer. Though I am fully capable of reciting meaningless platitudes like “I am for success” and the ever powerful “I will support learning.” However I am a member of a cult, but even so, right wing religious types will still like me because my cult is very anti gay and anti abortion.
Rudy Giuliani: I am running for the republican nomination even though I favor many socialist big government solutions for governing. Republicans will still vote for me though because I am a hard core patriotic nationalist that promises to mercilessly hammer down on anyone perceived to be criminal and I will never hesitate to inject our military might around the world.
That reminds me, who was that guy again who ran for about 50 years ago. At the time the country was bitterly divided between the hard core communists on the left and ultra conservatives on the right. The guy won the nomination by scooping up all the votes from folks in the middle that happened to like his socialist ideas but also admired his strong nationalist willingness to fight and never bow down to the soviets like many on the left were doing. If I remember correctly now, his political party was called the Nationalist Socialist Party, yep that was it. Though I guess it was more popularly know by its acronym the Nazis. Oh yea hitler, how could I forget.
Hillary: vote for me because my husband was president once. (Even though he has not been real husband for 20 years and I hardly know the man. Monica or Jenifer flowers may have had more luck picking up his presidential traits)
Obama: I have no experience what so ever, but I can say the phrase “I am for change” a hundred times without offering any hint to what changes I would make. (Unless of course if you think changing the color of the president’s skin is the sole type of change that can solve every problem form terrorism, Iraq, to health care, to social security failure, to poverty and the economy.)
Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 12:05 PM
"If you say he is responsible, then you have to admit our policy of fighting the terrorists where they are now (Iraq) is the right policy."
No I don't. Fighting them on the ground of their choosing is a terrible strategy. Don't fight at the perifery, go for the throat.
I would think a military spouse like you would be concerned that the recent terrorist attempt on a US military base in Germany involved terrorists trained in Pakistan, and taking orders from Pakistan. Apparently you don't.
"What do the Iranian people think about their government? What would they do if we took out high-value military targets and some of the leadership?"
Let me guess, greet us with flowers and candy, just like the Iraqi's were going to right? Not likely. Not likely at all. Stop believing the neo-con fantasy.
"What are we doing, right now, to help the Iranian resistance?"
I don't know , do you? Is it OK for the US to support the Iranian resistance, but not ok for Iran to support the Iraqi resistance?
"Running away, as you would have us do, won’t keep us safe and will embolden the people that want to kill us."
Starting a war with Iran, as you would have us do, won't keep us safe, and will create a great many more people who want to kill us.
You know, military spouse, we've never talked before, yet you seem to make alot of staements about what I think, feel and believe. Why is that?
Posted by: Tony | September 12, 2007 12:34 PM
"Notice how many of the left-wing posters here are ordering people who disagree with them to "shut up"?
Posted by: Bruce | September 11, 2007 5:26 PM"
You were, I assume, making this statement with full realization of the times that right-wing posters say that Nancy Pelosi or Dick Durbin or any of several other Democrats ought to "shut up and go away" -- ?
I'd agree with you that telling somebody to "just shut up" is pretty crude, but it would make for a better stance of righteous indignation if your side didn't to egg-zackly the same thing.
Posted by: Op109 | September 12, 2007 1:59 PM
The only thing "different" about the Gingrich approach is that, after 9/11 he would have preferred to have retaliated against IraN which didn't attack us instead of IraQ which didn't attack us.
Though I disagree with both approaches, at least IraN was the bigger threat and therefore the one most in need of immediate attention.
A smarter different approach would have been to focus our attention on AFGHANISTAN, catch Bin Laden, rebuild the economy there, while simultaneously securing the ports and borders, increase interception of terrorist finance (this has been done to some effect) and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, create a worldwide outreach program for the supposed 99.9% of Muslims who aren't "irreconcilable" to create distance between the two groups.
Winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world: Does anyone think we would accomplish this by seeking random vengeance on Iraq or Iran? Does anyone think we did accomplish this by showing the world with the Iraq fiasco just how far from omnipotent and righteous we are?
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 12, 2007 2:17 PM
Serial adulterers should not be allowed to have public opinions.
Posted by: BC | September 12, 2007 3:04 PM
“No I don't. Fighting them on the ground of their choosing is a terrible strategy. Don't fight at the perifery, go for the throat.”
So, AlQaida told George Bush to send US troops to Iraq so they could fight us on the ground of their choosing? That doesn’t make sense.
“I would think a military spouse like you would be concerned that the recent terrorist attempt on a US military base in Germany involved terrorists trained in Pakistan, and taking orders from Pakistan. Apparently you don't.”
Now you want us to bomb Germany and Pakistan. That would be stupid, Tony.
“Let me guess, greet us with flowers and candy, just like the Iraqi's were going to right? Not likely. Not likely at all. Stop believing the neo-con fantasy.”
I said bomb, like with airplanes. I don’t think the Iranians can throw candy and flowers that high. But I do think many Iranians want their current government out of power and we should help them.
“I don't know , do you? Is it OK for the US to support the Iranian resistance, but not ok for Iran to support the Iraqi resistance?”
Now you are saying the Iranians that our killing our troops are the good guys, or are the same as US forces? HOLY CRAP Tony, whose side are you on?
“Starting a war with Iran, as you would have us do, won't keep us safe, and will create a great many more people who want to kill us.”
You’re right let’s ignore the people that are killing our soldiers and not fight back; we wouldn’t want to make them angry.
“You know, military spouse, we've never talked before, yet you seem to make alot of staements about what I think, feel and believe. Why is that?”
Because leftwing fools like you are all the same. Your message is always the same, - The US is bad and we deserve for the Islamic Extremists to hate us and want to kill us, and we shouldn't fight back because that will only make them hate us more.
I've got news for you, THEY ALREADY HATE US, that's why they are trying to kill us you fool.
Posted by: military spouse | September 12, 2007 4:39 PM
military spouse,
“I don't know , do you? Is it OK for the US to support the Iranian resistance, but not ok for Iran to support the Iraqi resistance?”
Now you are saying the Iranians that our killing our troops are the good guys, or are the same as US forces? HOLY CRAP Tony, whose side are you on?'
Umm, ma'am, you are simply using your preconceived notions and straw man arguments (that are among the most off-base that I have seen lately) to paint a completely inaccurate picture of what Tony is saying.
I am failing to see how pointing out the obvious: that we hold others to a higher and different standard than we hold ourselves, is calling the Iranians "good guys." Perhaps you could explain.
From this brief exchange, it is clear that you have internalized the Bush Doctrine: that those who do not support every aspect of the President's policy hate America and want it to lose. This is profound nonsense and highly damaging to the unity of this nation.
I'll repeat what I have said to many others just like you: We are all in this together. Everyone wants America to be successful. It is simply a matter of what actions are most likely to produce this success.
Take off your blinders and have a real conversation, trying to set aside your silly preconceived stereotypes and outrageous straw men.
65% of Americans now oppose the war. General Petraeus just admitted that he's unsure if the Iraq War has made us safer. It seems that in that context there is plenty of reason to argue about our overall strategic posture.
As for Iran, how do YOU know that they want their government overthrown, by force, with bombs from the United States? A lot of people don't like the leadership here but no one is asking China to come in and save us from it.
A highly likely outcome of a U.S. military campaign against Iran would be for a rallying of the nation behind their leaders, as no one, and I mean no one, wants a foreign army telling them what they should think, feel and do.
Do you remember 9/11? Even though many people (50% at the time) did not support the president before that event, nonetheless they overwhelmingly rallied around him, mistakingly trusting that he had the good sense to use that unity for a common cause: destroying the Al Qaeda network, first by decapitating the leadership based in Afghanistan.
Instead, Osama magically morphed into Saddam (whom President Bush had spoken about 64 times in 2001, 63 times more than he referenced Al Qaeda) and now we are refereeing a civil war between factions whose emnity goes back more than a millenium.
There is no good solution to Iraq, so I'm not saying I have the answer. But to suggest that asking the kind of TOUGH questions now in regards to Iran that were never asked before we invaded Iraq is unpatriotic is a complete and total misunderstanding of what it means to be an American and to love America first.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 12, 2007 5:19 PM
"So, AlQaida told George Bush to send US troops to Iraq so they could fight us on the ground of their choosing? That doesn’t make sense"
No, Al qaeda, which did not operate in Iraq prior to our invasion, decided that going to Iraq to fight us there was a good move for them. They chose that battlefield, not us.
"I said bomb, like with airplanes. I don’t think the Iranians can throw candy and flowers that high. But I do think many Iranians want their current government out of power and we should help them."
Even better, we bonb Iran. Don't you think that they might react in some way? Like against our overstretched troops in the country next door. Let's finish one war first, ok?
"Now you are saying the Iranians that our killing our troops are the good guys, or are the same as US forces? HOLY CRAP Tony, whose side are you on?"
No, MS, I'm saying that when you invade a country you shouldn't be surprised if the neighboring countries aid the resistance. I'm saying if you aid the internal resistance in a country, as you suggest, you shouldn't be shocked when they fight back.
MS if you are a military spouse, you of all people should understand that the US military is not omnipotent. You should understand we can't take on all of the mideast at the same time. No matter how good we are, there are real, finite limits. We are at those limits now.
"I've got news for you, THEY ALREADY HATE US, that's why they are trying to kill us you fool."
But wait, I thought 99.99% of the islamic people don't hate us. Isn't that what you said before? Now you say we shouldn't worry that bombing Iran will cause more muslims to hate us because thay hate us already. Make up your mind.
I hope your spouse has a greater grasp on strategy than you do ms. We're all in trouble if he/she doesn't.
Posted by: Tony | September 12, 2007 5:42 PM
Distrust and Verify,
I have nothing to explain, here are Tony’s own words, they speak for themselves.
“I don't know , do you? Is it OK for the US to support the Iranian resistance, but not ok for Iran to support the Iraqi resistance?”
Let me explain the big words for you. Tony is saying the US supporting the Iranian resistance against the Islamic Extremists running Iran is the same as the Iranians supporting the Iraqis that are trying to stop democracy in Iraq by killing unarmed civilians and US troops.
If I’d internalized the Bush doctrine, I wouldn’t have criticized the way the Bush administration has totally and completely F’d up this war for more than 4 years.
“… that those who do not support every aspect of the President's policy hate America and want it to lose. This is profound nonsense and highly damaging to the unity of this nation.”
What is damaging is Dems saying progress in the war would hurt them politically. How does that unify the nation?
“But to suggest that asking the kind of TOUGH questions now in regards to Iran that were never asked before we invaded Iraq is unpatriotic is a complete and total misunderstanding of what it means to be an American and to love America first.”
What tough questions did the Dems ask before they gave this Republican president the authority to go into Iraq? When they signed the authorization saying specifically that AlQaida was in Iraq, and AlQaida was linked to 9/11, and Saddam had WMD, what tough questions did they ask then. And you are stupid enough to trust those same fools now?
The Dems sent Patraeus to Iraq, now they don’t like that he is reporting progress. If he was such a lying bag of shit, and just a tool of the President, why did those losers in congress send him to lead our troops.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 5:55 PM
Tony,
All the Dems that signed the authorization for this war said AlQaida was in Iraq. If they had done their jobs, we might not be in this mess.
So, again your response to the Iranians killing our troops is to ask them nicely to stop??
I’m not surprised that an enemy country would support the Iraqi resistance, I’m surprised that you think it’s okay and we shouldn’t do anything to a country that is committing an act of war against our troops.
“But wait, I thought 99.99% of the islamic people don't hate us. Isn't that what you said before? “
Again you show your ignorance by your inability to distinguish between Islamic Fundamentalists and other Muslims. You can’t even tell who the enemy is. Too bad, that gives you zero credibility on this debate.
As far as my grasp of strategy, we don’t need to take on the entire Mideast at the same time. In fact, Iran isn’t an Arab nation and isn’t part of the Middle-East even though it has a great influence on what happens in the Mideast. Iran is part of Southwest Asia. Persians make up 51% of the population; Azerbaijanis, 24%; Kurds 7%, and Arabs 3%.
My grasp of strategy is fine, your grasp of geography and the facts seem to be lacking though. Keep trying sweetie, you’ll get better.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 6:22 PM
MS (now anoymous)-
I never said that Iran was an arab state, but thanks for the interesting statistics.
"All the Dems that signed the authorization for this war said AlQaida was in Iraq. If they had done their jobs, we might not be in this mess."
Yup, no doubt they screwed up in believing what the Bush Admiinistation told them. I'm glad most of them have gotten beyond that.
"I’m surprised that you think it’s okay and we shouldn’t do anything to a country that is committing an act of war against our troops. "
I never said it was ok. You get it backwards. I believe interefering in the affairs of other nations is generally a bad idea. I don't think the Iranians should do it, and I don't think we should. Acts of war work both ways.
Was it an act of war when we aided the muhajadeen in Afghanistan? (Were they part of the IWI?) Was it an act of war when we armed the contras? (Paid for by the Iranians, charter members of the IWI.)
My answer to both of those is in fact "yes". I also think both actions were really bad ideas that have had long term negative consequences.
So, babycakes, let's get back to the question here, shall we?
You want a war with Iran.
Are all Iranians fundementalists that hate us? Clearly not.
If we goto war with Iran,we will kill some Iranians (how do we only kill the ones that hate us?).
I would think that would tend to piss off other Iranians, including some of the ones who don't currently hate us.
I would also think that muslims in other countries who don't currently hate us, after watching us destroy a second state with primarily muslim people in it, might start hating us. Then they become the enemy.
It's an endless cycle.
And as much as you don't admit it, the fact of the matter is we simply do not have the military forces to keep that cycle going.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 6:57 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 6:22 PM
I (military spouse) posted this, not Anonymous. Not sure what happened, it wasn't intentional.
Posted by: military spouse | September 12, 2007 8:44 PM
Tony,
“I never said that Iran was an arab state, but thanks for the interesting statistics.”
You just said that Newt and I were calling for an all-out war in the Mid-East. They weren’t just interesting statistics, they were facts you were sadly lacking.
“I believe interefering in the affairs of other nations is generally a bad idea.”
So I guess you were against the 1st Gulf War when we helped liberate Kuwait.
“So, babycakes, let's get back to the question here, shall we? You want a war with Iran. “
Honeybunch, I want Iran’s ability to kill our troops and to arm those that kill innocent civilians to stop.
“Are all Iranians fundementalists that hate us? Clearly not. “
You answered your own stupid question, good boy!
If we goto war with Iran,we will kill some Iranians (how do we only kill the ones that hate us?).
You and I both know there will be collateral damage. I choose not to use that as an excuse to NOT defend our troops that are currently being killed by Iranians or Iranian supplied munitions.
“I would think that would tend to piss off other Iranians, including some of the ones who don't currently hate us.”
Doing nothing but talking about cutting and running, and talking about how progress in Iraq hurts Dems politically pisses off our troops and sends a message that is heard loud and clear by our friends and enemies alike.
military spouse
Posted by: military spouse | September 12, 2007 9:29 PM
"You just said that Newt and I were calling for an all-out war in the Mid-East."
Mid-east does not equal arab. It's a geographic term, not an ethnic one. Iran has traditionally been considered part of the middle east.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm
"So I guess you were against the 1st Gulf War when we helped liberate Kuwait."
Actually I did support it. The Iraqi interference in Kuwaiti affairs needed to be stopped. I did however agree with Dick Cheney that invading, occupying, and creating a new government in Iraq would be a very bad move.
"Honeybunch, I want Iran’s ability to kill our troops and to arm those that kill innocent civilians to stop."
So, sweetums, where do we get the troops for your attack on Iran? Are you ready to send your spouse over there for a 24 or 36 month tour of duty? How about for the "duration"? Or maybe you're going to sign up and do your part?
As I said, we have no troops for an Iranian adventure along with our current Iraq debacle. And then there's Syria to take out after Iran, Saudi Arabia,and on and on and on...yeah, if you have your way, your spouse may be gone for a while.
That's just the fact. If you don't like it , take it up with Bush, not me.
Posted by: Tony | September 12, 2007 10:02 PM
Wikipedia as a source is sad and pathetic.
You are and always will be a disappointment.
The planes used for an attack would be stationed in Iraq, Oman, or on carriers in the Gulf.
Why do you want to attack Saudi and Syria? What is it you have against all Muslims? Oh, that’s right; you can’t tell the difference between Islamic Fundamentalists and other Muslims so you want to kill them all. That’s not very nice Tony.
Wikipedia? You’re killing me.
Posted by: military spouse | September 12, 2007 11:19 PM
I just copied this off wikipedia. It is a real entry in the Middle East section.
"why is Tony such a douche?"
My appologies to wikipedia, I take back what I said before, wikipedia is a great source.
Posted by: military spouse | September 12, 2007 11:30 PM
Oh military spouse, don't take it so hard that I proved that everyone, including the BBC and geographers, knows Iran is part of the mid-east and thit has nothing to do with being arab.
Talk about sad and pathetic, resorting to name calling against facts. Are you always that childish when proven wrong? Time out for you!
Posted by: Tony | September 13, 2007 11:59 AM
Don't forget about your #1 source, Wikipedia.
You've proved nothing except how ignorant you are.
You can't debate the issues or facts I brought up before, so now you resort to a debate on the merits of wikipedia being proof of your vast intellectual prowess on all things relating to geography.
Besides, I didn't call you a name, it was in wikipedia, so it must be true.
Posted by: military spouse | September 13, 2007 2:04 PM