MyDD :: Voting Against World War III

Voting Against World War III

by Matt Stoller, Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 10:35:53 AM EST

Via lapin at Daily Kos I'm reading this extremely disturbing set of statements from Newt Gingrich.

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.

Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republican's facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.

Shorter Newt: It's important to start World War III, otherwise the Democrats will win the midterms in 2006 and the Republican Congress will not be able to prevent America from losing a city.

Tags: Newt Gingrich, Republicans (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

2000 (3.00 / 2)

America's biggest loss in the 2000 election decision was the end of rational leadership in this country.

Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor: I hope you're proud of yourselves.

Enjoy your taxcuts.

by Master Jack on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 10:43:53 AM EST

Re: Voting Against World War III (none / 0)

Gingrich just said the same thing -- minus the explicit political considerations -- on Russert's Meet the Press.

by howardpark on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 10:48:39 AM EST

Re: Voting Against World War III (none / 0)

Well of course he didn't say the stuff about it being politically necessary. That would be an outrageous politicization of war and of the sacrifices that our brave men and women have made! Republicans would never do that. Right?

by adamterando on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 10:59:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voting Against World War III (none / 0)

Well of course he didn't say the stuff about it being politically necessary.

When Russert interviews Democrats, his much vaunted research team always digs up quotes like that to throw in their faces.

Reeps always get a free pass though. That's why I don't waste my time on MTP and the other GOP talking point shows.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 12:46:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice of MTP... (none / 0)

...to give Gingrich's fat ass a free infomerical.

Does a Dem other than Dianne Feinstein get to rebut?

by Master Jack on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 10:51:59 AM EST

biden was on (none / 0)

he was actually more astute and on-topic than he's been in a long time. Repeatedly said, explicitly "There is no chance of North Korea destroying an American city"

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 12:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice of MTP... (none / 0)

NeoDem Feinstein rebut NeoCon Gingrich???
That belongs in the funny papers!!!

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 12:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing an American City (none / 0)

We already have. New Orleans. And these jerks don't realize it because they are living in their own ideological cocoon. One of the first duties of the US government was to build and maintain levees along the Mississippi. Robert E. Lee designed and built St. Louis' levees in the 1840s for God sakes. These assholes have rewritten American history in a startling and negative way.

So after losing an American city what's next? Blaming the victims of course.

Yes Newt we are fighting World War III. Our liberties, furture and life style are at stake. And W and his corps of sadistic cheapskate apologists for the rich and hapless are the enemy.

by David Kowalski on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:00:47 AM EST

Re: Losing an American City (none / 0)

I was just about to say the same thing

by who threw da cat on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:40:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing an American City (none / 0)

Republican logic:

Losing major American city through act of aggression by foreign country: Not okay.

Losing major American (Democratic/African-American) city through sheer neglect, apathy, lack of preparation and lack of leadership: A-Okay. In fact, Fine and Dandy. New Orleans? ... That's so 2005. Move along. Nothing to see nor rebuild here.

by Oregonian on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 02:49:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Democrats' response... (none / 0)

...should be to shove these inflammatory comments down Newt Gingrich's bloated esophagus, in clear, unequivocal, and uncompromising terms. Scream from the rooftops that Newt Gingrich is endangering the country (which he is).

The generals have our back. Except for a couple of Bush toadies, they don't want any more of this shit themselves.

Meekly nodding and agreeing at GOP warmongering like in 2002 didn't exactly result in a sweeping Dem takeover of Congress. Of course, you mention that to the DLC crowd and they get mad and throw things at you and stuff...

by Master Jack on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:06:55 AM EST

Re: Voting Against World War III (none / 0)

2002. Rinse. Recycle. Repeat.

by bruh21 on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:09:56 AM EST

Yep... (none / 0)

...up to the point of (a) Democrats enabling everything in the Republicans' agenda, and (b) Democrats getting destroyed in the midterms.

Our party's leadership will never, ever, ever learn. We need to re-take the party ourselves.

Get on your local Dem Central Committee if you have the opportunity. I am. Change starts from the ground up.

I just hope we still have a country when we're ready to take control.

by Master Jack on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:18:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Shorter Newt: HELP!!!! (none / 0)

Newt Gingrich is the Johann Sebastian Bach of liars. Endless, filligreed recyclings of the same old interwoven themes and variations, upside down and backwards more often than not.

But really, he lacks the mastery or discipline to do anything tightly or well. He's sloppy and off-the-cuff.

I apologize to the old man. Newt's more like the PDQ Bach of liars.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:16:30 AM EST

Re: really nuts (3.00 / 1)

Do Americans really want WW III? I don't think so. No one, except Bush's hardcore base even wants the war in Iraq anymore. And the GOP wants more wars?
That is a losing political strategy.

The pols may be addicted to Israeli (read AIPAC) money, but their constituents aren't. There are not that many Americans that want to die or have their children, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, etc, die for a war the Israelis may not technically have started but are responsible for escalating. I'd venture to say there aren't that many Americans ready to die either to keep Iran from acquiring nukes especially when diplomacy could accomplish the same goal.

by phillydem on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:43:30 AM EST

Re: really nuts (3.00 / 1)

want and do something about it are two different things. frankly, I think progressive have too much faith that the American peo will do or understand what is the right thing. As I said- 2002- rinse, recycle, repeat. it may not work only because we have just gone through a wrenching war. which my friend, a conservative, but realistic (I know rare these days) has said what did the american peo think was going to happen in iraq? he thinks by previous war standards that the number of dead there is low. he has added that they, the public, thought that we were going to go over there and win without casualities or any injuries is the winning out of the hollywood/video game version of what happens in war. in other words, its the rambo effect. this time around- we have a public whiich is maybe a bit more sober about the realities of war, and therefore, not willing to fall for it.

by bruh21 on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:51:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really nuts (3.00 / 2)

I worked in military logistics and even though I've been out of the game for a few years, I know the US
industrial base cannot keep pace with the requirements of another war. They can hardly keep pace with the needs in Iraq now. It's not like WWII. We don't have thousands of planes, tanks, etc, and, if you recall the story about troops being low on ammo, that very basic military industry is stretched almost to capacity. Our helicopters are taking a beating. The depot at Cherry Point, NC, had to take a mothballed CH-46 out of the dessert and rebuild it because that fleet was so decimated and thin. Things are that bad. And, the H46 is a workhorse transport.

What is scary is that engaging in another war, then, means "tactical nukes" because our conventional forces are spent. The generals in the Pentagon know this, that's why they are so frantic
to stop the neo-con nuts.

That is the reality. If Democrats explained and framed the discussion that way, then the question becomes not WW III, but do we want to start a nuclear war. The answer to that would be a resounding NO.

by phillydem on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 12:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really nuts (3.00 / 1)

Even though bush/Cheney and the NeoCons don't have the military resources to launch another ground war, they do have the media resources to create war and fear in the minds of the public.

If DCDemocrats don't debunk this new GOP "WWIII" myth IMMEDIATELY they'll get their heads handed to them a la 2002.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 12:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really nuts (none / 0)

This "war" isn't meant to be fought using a lot of machinery. But depleted uranium, that kills the next generation. It's impossible (or at least impractical) to kill 30 million people with bullets. Spray depleted uranium around, and there won't be a next generation. A much more permanent way to fight a decisive long war. The troops are a diversion, they hold guard, Du does the real trick. After all the crop making fields are shot up with DU, there won't be any crops. Large scale starvation will follow, and at the same time only babies with 2 heads are born, if any. Then after like 50 years, there are no iraqis. So, the only reason the troops are there is to watch that the iraqis don't interfere with their fields beeing messed with.That's why there isnt a big investment on troop security, they're there on a low importance job (watchdog). All the IDE's an al-qaeda action get the news but the real story is completely elsewhere.

by 4thReich on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:46:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really nuts (3.00 / 1)

Of course the public thought that, because Rumsfeld told them that, and the press repeated it to them, over and over.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 12:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really nuts (3.00 / 1)

look I am all for putting down Bush and Cheney, but peo get the leadership they want. I am done absolving the American people of their responsibility here. They are as culpable as Bush/Cheney b/c they (andby they I mean we) allow them to do these things. I can't believe I am bout to say this- but I agree with George will- there is a problem is this society about understanding hte nature of shared sacrifice or common good. THere is no excuse for americans thinking that we could go over an have a video game war in Iraq

by bruh21 on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 02:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voting Against World War III (none / 0)

Newt Gingrich:

We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.

So this is another Republican "Big Idea."

Here are some of my big ideas:

1) Establish decentralized, juried, computer- free election methods.

2) Get all U.S. troops out of the middle East NOW!

2) Sever all diplomatic relations with the current Israeli junta and demand that they dismantle their weapons of mass destruction.

3) Buy up and recycle all used automotive alternators, and use them to build radar- transparent (stealth) windmills in less- than- scenic locations NOW!

4) Rebuild our productive industries and vital infrastructures, away from vulnerable cities.

5) Nationalize all our old railroad beds, and rebuild the rail trackage.

6) Establish realistic, affordable, and sustainable government health care; and mandate equal care for all U.S. residents.

8) Limit wealth bondage, so that when U.S. tycoons try to hide assets over $10 million dollars here or in foreign lands, that money gets instantly forfeited, and they get prosecuted.

7) Convince the Mexicans and others to do likewise.

by blues on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:50:27 AM EST

Re: Voting Against World War III (3.00 / 1)

Lost a city? We have a). Had a city destroyed and not yet rebuilt due to the "terrorist called nature" and b). Lost the equivalent of a small town with the number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If Newt and "W", and their neo-con pals, want to declare WW3 then it will be time for impeachment as former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft has publically stated, "If Bush attacks another country then it will be time to call for impeachment."

If Bush declares WW3 then look at the history of any aggressor nation-state that attacks a much larger enemy. The calculas of such a provocative statement would surely mean that Pakistan would not side with Bush. The EU could go "neutral" with Britain siding with the Bush camp. Russia and the former Soviet states would not side with Bush, nor would the South East Asian countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, et.al. China would not align with the Bush declaration.

What is a much more serious foreign policy shift is that Mr. Bush is aligning our interests with that of Isreali interests in the M.E. As President George Washington knew it to be in the interest of the fledgling nation not to be entangled with the affairs of other nations but Mr. Bush seems historically illiterate in how our national interest is not identical to any other nation. More to the point, any other nation's leader would never make such a ridiculous statement as Mr. Bush has made in "defense" of the nation of Isreal.

Many other more knowledgeable people have already said that Mr. Bush has no foreign policy as of now because of the past policy of "pre-emptive war" against other nations that may have future intentions of harming "our homeland" and of the illegal acts of aggression with Afghanistan and Iraq. Those acts of aggression, which is the hallmark of aggressor nations in the past like Germany, Italy, and Japan, have tied down our military.

Couple the above with the policy of Mr. Bush to unilaterally aborgate treaties, conventions, and accords with the international community and the hubris of "America the exceptional" ideology/theology has shown the community of nations that Mr. Bush is the exact opposite of the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

Within a few short years, like the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Republican Party and its head, George W. Bush, has ruined the reputation and standing of the United States of America in the community of nations because of acts of illegal aggression and transgression of basic human rights for individuals around the world.

by therebis on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 12:22:06 PM EST

Re: Voting Against World War III (3.00 / 1)

BUSH HAS ALREADY LOST AN AMERICAN CITY should on the tongue of every Democrat who goes before a camera.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 12:57:57 PM EST

Re: Voting Against World War III (none / 0)

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 02:36:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gingrich says...In an interview in Bellevue ... (none / 0)

Meet the Press is broadcasting Gingrich while he's hospitalized?

How appropriate.

[/snark]