Newt Gingrich for President!

#2
Regime change in Iran and North Korea, economic revival in Iraq and elimination of the Taliban should be the top priorities for the United States if it is to effectively deal with threats to its security, said Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a potential Republican party candidate for the 2008 presidential elections.
In Iran and North Korea, “we should make clear that our goal is to replace the regime,” Gingrich said Sept. 11 at the American Enterprise Institute, where he’s a senior fellow.
He repeated his calls to adopt a “Reaganite strategy of helping organize every dissident group in Iran, dramatically expanding our information campaign into the country, apply diplomatic economic pressure, but we cannot stop there. We have to be prepared to use military force if necessary, but only if these earlier efforts fail.”
Calling the fight against “Islamic fascists” an “emerging third world war,” Gingrich said its scope is comparable with the two World Wars and the U.S. Civil War. The military and political mobilization necessary to engage in the fight must be equal to those conflicts, he said.
Gingrich also issued a call for more military spending, a theme that has been sounded by several others.
“It would take an increase in national security spending equal to the entire 2001 national security budget just to get back to the 1949 share” of the gross domestic product that was spent on defense — 7.1 percent of the economy, he said. In contrast, “it is estimated we are spending only 3.8 percent of our GDP on national security, even though we have wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a global war on terror.”
Listing the failures of the past five years, Gingrich said, “We have not captured Bin Laden. We have not defeated the Taliban in its sanctuaries in northwest Pakistan. We have not stopped the recruitment of young fanatics into terrorism. We have not stopped either the Iranian or North Korean nuclear programs. We do not have a stable democratic Pakistan capable of securing its own nuclear weapons. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is stable and secure. ... We have vastly more to do than we have even begun to imagine.”
Comparing President George W. Bush’s challenge to that faced by President Abraham Lincoln 144 years ago, Gingrich said Bush’s “strategies are not wrong, but they are failing” because he has not defined the scale of the conflict adequately, hasn’t defined victory as the goal and hasn’t established clear “metrics of achievement.”
Sounds like a good bloke to have a pint with!
 
#4
Comparing President George W. Bush’s challenge to that faced by President Abraham Lincoln 144 years ago, Gingrich said Bush’s “strategies are not wrong, but they are failing” because he has not defined the scale of the conflict adequately, hasn’t defined victory as the goal and hasn’t established clear “metrics of achievement.”
Bush's trategies are not wrong, but they are failing. They're wrong then.

Is this the same Gingrich that said earlier this year "We need to turn over control to the Iraqi authorities now, and get out?"

This will be the same Gingrich that went ballistic over Clinton getting smoked by an intern, but getting nearly 3,000 US troops killed is just "a failing"

Just another blowhard . know nothing fool.

Sounds like a good bloke to have a pint with!
Only to tell him he's talking bollox.

I watched Newsnight this morning , courtesy of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5336232.stm

What a very excellent programme, and a very high powered panel. James Woolsey (ex-dir CIA) was right on the money. This war will last for decades. General Sir Rupert Smith made a very clear and simple analysis of how and why warfare has changed, and just why we are getting it wrong so far. Prince Hassan of Jordan made some extremely good points that needed listening to.

Highly recommended. Ignore the hippy Amis.
 
#5
A moron in the White House? It is not something new.
 
#6
Gingrich is hardly a moron. He has written a number of very good books. He was the architect of the Contract With America that brought the republicans control of the house. If he gets the nomination I would gladly vote for hime. Anybody but McCain.
 
#7
tomahawk6 said:
Gingrich is hardly a moron. He has written a number of very good books. He was the architect of the Contract With America that brought the republicans control of the house. If he gets the nomination I would gladly vote for hime. Anybody but McCain.
Would that include Hillary Clinton?

What have you got against McCain anyway? He seems capable and honest from where I'm sitting, which would make a change :)
 
#8
tomahawk6 said:
Gingrich is hardly a moron. He has written a number of very good books. He was the architect of the Contract With America that brought the republicans control of the house. If he gets the nomination I would gladly vote for hime. Anybody but McCain.
http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3565

IN IRAQ

The number one metric for stopping violent opposition is the number of unemployed young males. Our number one goal should be an all out effort to revitalize the Iraqi economy in the next six months. One step would be a White House conference on purchasing where very large corporations would be asked to begin purchasing modest amounts of light manufacturing from Iraq. This step alone could lead to a 20% improvement in the economy. A second step would be to create an Iraqi Civil Conservation Corps and an Iraqi Works Projects Administration and simply get young men working.
If mr.Gingrich is not a moron or idiot then he is likely an idioron (something between idiot and moron).

The Iraqi security forces—military and police—should be doubled in size. Every doctrine for counterinsurgency indicates we need a much larger forces–to-bad-guys ratio than we currently have planned. It is time to quit being cheap and prudent and to start drowning our enemies in resources and energy.
It seems to me that mr.Gingrich simply don't understand Iraqi realities.

I oppose a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities because I think it is inadequate. I am for achieving more than a military strike, not less than one. Our goal has to be to replace the current dictatorship.
So this idioron wants full-scale invasion (not only strikes) to replae the regime. I suspect that doctors in the nearest mad-house are waiting.

In the immediate future we should have an announced policy of stopping any North Korean ICBM from being launched. This would require a willingness to eliminate the missile on the launch pad while it is being fueled.
Probably I made a mistake. Mr.Gingrich likely just has been released from a mad-house (he probably was 'Napoleon' there).
 
#9
The number one metric for stopping violent opposition is the number of unemployed young males. Our number one goal should be an all out effort to revitalize the Iraqi economy in the next six months. One step would be a White House conference on purchasing where very large corporations would be asked to begin purchasing modest amounts of light manufacturing from Iraq. This step alone could lead to a 20% improvement in the economy. A second step would be to create an Iraqi Civil Conservation Corps and an Iraqi Works Projects Administration and simply get young men working.
I would suggest Mr. Gingrich is not only a fool, but a fool who reacts only when faced with unpalatable fact.

Mr. Gingrich , there were Arrse members saying these things years ago, why have you only just seen the light?

I would suggest there are Arrse members who would make a better fist of being President than Coco the Gingrich.
 
#10
PartTimePongo said:
I watched Newsnight this morning , courtesy of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5336232.stm

What a very excellent programme, and a very high powered panel. James Woolsey (ex-dir CIA) was right on the money. This war will last for decades. General Sir Rupert Smith made a very clear and simple analysis of how and why warfare has changed, and just why we are getting it wrong so far. Prince Hassan of Jordan made some extremely good points that needed listening to.

Highly recommended. Ignore the hippy Amis.
Seen. Not sure what Benazir Bhutto thought of Amis who seemed to think it was a general muslim problem despite the fact that she insisted the problem was with a small bunch of fanatics who don't represent the majority. Also his "multiculturalism is a polite fiction" statement may not have gone to well with her.
 
#11
tomahawk6 said:
Gingrich is hardly a moron. He has written a number of very good books. He was the architect of the Contract With America that brought the republicans control of the house. If he gets the nomination I would gladly vote for hime. Anybody but McCain.
He had ONE good election (1994) and the GOP hails him as a hero.

When it comes to actually governing, it's a different story:

Only three of the ten provisions of the Contract With America were passed into law- and the provisions were substantially weakened. (.333 might be ok in baseball, but not here). Where would Bush be now, T6, if Gingrich was able to pass his Balanced Budget Bill?

He also got forced out of his position by his own party (at which point he also resigned from Congress). His political gambit that shut down the Federal Government more or less guaranteed the re-election of Bill Clinton in 1996.

The public hated him a Speaker (approval ratings of 28%).

He was also fined $300,000 (about 2 1/2 years' salary for a Congressman at the time) for ethics violations.

He also handed his wife divorce papers while she was in a hospital bed, being treated for cancer. What a nice guy.

...but T6 likes his novels, so he must be fit to be President
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top