Gingrich reverses stand on Libya

[M&K's Retrievers]

Potential '12 candidate criticizes Obama for not being more forceful, then does an about-face

By PHILIP ELLIOTT
The Associated Press
updated 3/24/2011 8:16:37 AM ET 2011-03-24T12:16:37

WASHINGTON — Likely Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has met his first debate opponent of the 2012 campaign season: himself.

The former House speaker was quick to criticize President Barack Obama two weeks ago for not being more forceful in leading an international campaign to destroy Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses and save rebels from impending defeat. Gingrich said the United States should tell Gadhafi "that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening."
On Wednesday, he did an about-face.
"I would not have intervened," he said in an interview with NBC News in the morning. "I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Gadhafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region that we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42246674...decision_2012/


Talk about waffling--- he is as bad as McCain

Hey, RP, have you ever changed your mind about anything or is there anything up there to change?

[dnf777]

Hey, RP, have you ever changed your mind about anything or is there anything up there to change?

I think the point here, at least to me, is that republicans wait until Obama takes a stand on any matter, then takes the opposite by default. In this case, Newt spoke a little too soon. You gotta admit, it looks pretty hypocritical and petty. It would be petty, if the matter wasn't so serious.

Personally, I think I'm with Stan on this one, and we should get the hell out after our 100 tomahawks. Probably never should have gotten into it, but ok, take out his ADA, so anyone else who cares to foot the bill can establish a NFZ. We're DONE.

Also, Obama should have had his a$$ on AFOne back to Washington for an emergency 3am meeting with bipartisan congressional leaders. Yes, he acted within the letter of the law, but I think a late-nite call to session would have been the better thing to do, than teleconference from SA.

Someone did make a good point though. In handling it this way, he told Khadaffi, hey, I can wax your sorry butt without breaking a vacation! Don't F with us!

Anyway, I think Newt is hurting himself to all but his core constituency by acting this way. I don't think he can run a serious bid for the whitehouse at this point. If "dithering" and "indecisiveness" are bad traits for a POTUS, well, he just defined himself.

[code3retrievers]

Anyway, I think Newt is hurting himself to all but his core constituency by acting this way. I don't think he can run a serious bid for the whitehouse at this point. If "dithering" and "indecisiveness" are bad traits for a POTUS, well, he just defined himself.

I'm just glad Obama can make a tough decision, of course he had to get permission from the UN before he made it. Perhaps he just had Clinton vote present at the meeting and just went along with what the Arab League told him to do.

This guy refused to encourage revolt in Iran but has now done so in Egypt and Libya. Who's next Saudi Arabia, Israel?

[Buzz]

I think the point here, at least to me, is that republicans wait until Obama takes a stand on any matter, then takes the opposite by default. In this case, Newt spoke a little too soon. You gotta admit, it looks pretty hypocritical and petty. It would be petty, if the matter wasn't so serious.

Like they say, a picture is worth 1000 words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiXPLmbrefI

[dnf777]

I'm just glad Obama can make a tough decision, of course he had to get permission from the UN before he made it. Perhaps he just had Clinton vote present at the meeting and just went along with what the Arab League told him to do.

This guy refused to encourage revolt in Iran but has now done so in Egypt and Libya. Who's next Saudi Arabia, Israel?

so how do you feel? You seem to indicate he waited too long (for UN permission), but then appear to criticize him in your next comment?

The message I got from the OP, is that republicans will trash obama NO MATTER WHAT. Even when they agree with him!

And he "encouraged" these revolts? I thought we promoted peace and democracy, even at the end of smart bombs, when necessary?

[dnf777]

Like they say, a picture is worth 1000 words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiXPLmbrefI

Thanks, that's it.


I would like to issue a challenge:


Could ONE republican come forward and say that Newt flip-flopped, and demonstrated severe hypocrisy, based upon HIS OWN VIDEO EVIDENCE???

Just one, and I'll shut up.

[road kill]

Please, oh knowledgable ones, describe what the mission is and what Obama's position is.

One that won't change 3 times in the next 24 hours.

NEWT FLIP FLOPPED!!!
(although don't follow Newt much, seriously)

Now----STFU!!!!


Brown nosing state Republicans in Madison??
(at least I am doing something about what I beleive in, hows about you????)

Better than brown nosing dnf & Roger!!!!



RK

[Franco]

Did anyone really take Newt for a serious GOP candidate?

Ever read any of his factually inaccurate books?

[BHB]

Republican approach to every issue.

If Obama is for it, they're against it. If Obama is against it, they're for it.

I wouldn't call that true. I'm an R and I think Obama has done some good things... trying to think of some... still trying... oh yeah, he gave a good speech in Arizona once!

BHB

[code3retrievers]

so how do you feel? You seem to indicate he waited too long (for UN permission), but then appear to criticize him in your next comment?

The message I got from the OP, is that republicans will trash obama NO MATTER WHAT. Even when they agree with him!

And he "encouraged" these revolts? I thought we promoted peace and democracy, even at the end of smart bombs, when necessary?

Its called sarcasm! I do not agree with us using force in Libya but I will not fault him for making the decision (at least he made one). Were our national interests a stake? No. Perhaps, France / Italy's but not ours. Were we threatened? No again. The only way I would have supported bombing them was to retaliate for the Lockerbie bombing and that was not the case. I just can't figure out this guy out. He is all over the map. He won't say a mean word to the most dangerous leader out there (Iran) but will use force in Libya who is not threat to us and meddle in Egypt's internal affairs.

I just don't think he is a leader. He has not had one innovative idea of his own. He would be happy to follow what ever the UN told him to do.

We are doing the Muslim radicals bidding right now. We have no idea who these rebels are just as we have not a clue who will come to power in Egypt.