Reply
Sun 23 Jul, 2006 08:52 am
Sorry, Newtie, we can't call it World War III until France surrenders. ---BBB
Gingrich: ?'This Is, In Fact, World War III' And The U.S. ?'Ought To Be Helping'
7/21/06
This morning on Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich argued we have entered World War III and that the United States ought to engage the effort by "helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force." Watch it:
As Matt Stoller points out, Gingrich was also quoted today suggesting that President Bush should be framing the current violence as World War III for the benefit of the fall elections.
Full transcript:
GINGRICH: We're in the early stages of what I would describe as the third World War and, frankly, our bureaucracy's not responding fast enough and we don't have the right attitude. And this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel and, frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon, and the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force ?- not as a political force in the parliament ?- but as a military force in south Lebanon.
RUSSERT: This is World War III?
GINGRICH: I believe if you take all the countries I just listed that you've been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you have to say to yourself: this is, in fact, World War III.
Sweet neocon wishful thinking.
BBB
Could you give me a link on this.
Gingrich put forth the same argument a week earlier (July 15) in an interview:
With a Seeattle Times Reporter
Pretty disgusting to make the WWIII claim in order to foster the Christian Right votes for his party, IMO.
Cheney is already using the Isreal / Lebanon killings to boost votes as well.
Cheney needs to tread water in the lake of fire right next to Napoleon, Alexander. Hitler, the whole bunch. IMHO. Of course, that's not for me to decide. more's the luck for him.
I think the WW3 idea is over the top, since there is still one to be fought with China, but I do like this part of the interview with the Newt:
Quote:"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."
It's actually simple, isn't it?
paull wrote:I think the WW3 idea is over the top, since there is still one to be fought with China, but I do like this part of the interview with the Newt:
Quote:"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."
It's actually simple, isn't it?
Well, no, not really. But the rest of us can sympathize if you get all jelly-in-the-knees juggling one ball.