Newt Wins SC

[TimE]

Apb i think your memory fails you, unless you are stating that Saddam was harboring terrorists

[apb]

Apb i think your memory fails you, unless you are stating that Saddam was harboring terrorists

What part do you think is incorrect?

Andrew

[Tim_T]

Andrew brings up the things that make me worry about Newt. He plays party politics far too much for me.

As far as wife issues, I am done worrying about these things. I have decided that every single person on this planet has some type of issue, the question is can they overcome them and get the freeking job done.

I don't want Newt, but if it comes down to him and the current POTUS I expect Newt will get my vote.

[roadrunner]

Basically Geo, Newt is very divisive and polarizing. He has shown again and again that he puts party before country. As a classic example, while speaker of the house, Clinton ordered a missile strike on a terrorist camp. Newt was aware of the strike before hand and went along with it. Right afterwards he dismissed it as slapping mosquitoes or something to that affect. During this time he was also going after Clinton for the Monica scandal and lying to congress. The actions of Newt indicated to Clinton/Gore that they did not have the support of congress to continue to go after the terrorists, so they abdicated this to Bush/Cheney. This whole time Newt (the family value candidate) was banging one of his staffers while criticizing Clinton for doing the same (and Newt gets all pissy on Williams for mentioning this stuff during the debate). His dismissal of the missile strike meant that Al Qaeda had more time to plan the 911 attacks instead of getting their butts kicked. We all know what happened next. Newt, along with Clinton and Bush (more Clinton and Newt than Bush) bare a large part of the responsibility of the 911 attacks. If Newt had real issues with that first missile strike, he should have spoken up in advance. Instead, he decided to try and use this against Clinton as a means of derailing the dems. Add to this Newt's ethic violations in congress and his big mouth firing off when it should stay closed and you have a recipe for disaster. Newt is a certainly a bright guy and could bring some interesting ideas to the table. However, it?s the rest of the stuff that scares people away from him. America does not need a polarizing president; we need someone who can work between the two parties to get things done.

2004 was the dems race to lose, and they screwed the pooch with Kerry. 2012 is the repubs race to lose. Guess we'll see how they handle it soon.

Andrew

What Newt found out was Clinton did not attack a terrorist camp it turned out to be a joke it was an empty building and was used to take away from the Monica news

[GeoFisher]

Newt is very divisive and polarizing. He has shown again and again that he puts party before country.

I’m not too sure about that. There are a ton of examples of him actually going against his party and their wishes. The very reason he was ousted was due to him NOT TAKING the party line.

As a classic example, while speaker of the house, Clinton ordered a missile strike on a terrorist camp. Newt was aware of the strike before hand and went along with it. Right afterwards he dismissed it as slapping mosquitoes or something to that affect.

Everyone, even those on Clinton’s side of the fence said this was a WASTED opportunity. For you to lob a few cruise missiles at an ABANDONED site…….well.

This is not what I would call a great example of him towing the party line……you can do better.

During this time he was also going after Clinton for the Monica scandal and lying to congress.

Clinton LIED to congress, and went on NATIONAL TV and LIED to your face. I guess that is OK. I don’t care that he was BANGING her. Or flowers, or anyone Paula, or anyone else. He LIED about it. PERIOD.

The actions of Newt indicated to Clinton/Gore that they did not have the support of congress to continue to go after the terrorists, so they abdicated this to Bush/Cheney.

You’re KIDDING…..right??

This whole time Newt (the family value candidate) was banging one of his staffers while criticizing Clinton for doing the same (and Newt gets all pissy on Williams for mentioning this stuff during the debate).

Not sure he was the “family values candidate” at this time. Since then I think he has towed a different line. And I believe folks can actually find God and make amends for their past. I’d give Clinton a pass on this to……HAD he not lied and tried to LIE every time he had a chance.

Again, I don’t AGREE with his extra curricular actions, but I also don’t believe he’s lied to congress or anyone else about it. Again, I don’t know…….If there is more specific and credible evidence on this, I might change my mind.

His dismissal of the missile strike meant that Al Qaeda had more time to plan the 911 attacks instead of getting their butts kicked.

You have no argument so of course you BLAME pubs. Do you suppose the Defense CUTS under Clinton had anything to do with this?

And for the record, I blame all presidents past and present who FAILED to gather the correct and actionable intelligence.

We all know what happened next. Newt, along with Clinton and Bush (more Clinton and Newt than Bush) bare a large part of the responsibility of the 911 attacks.

One word…….********……………..Nice revisionism…….Clinton was President. He could have ordered a NUKE strike if he wanted to. Clinton had NO BALLS………

If Newt had real issues with that first missile strike, he should have spoken up in advance. Instead, he decided to try and use this against Clinton as a means of derailing the dems.

It is news to me that the speaker of the house has WAR POWERS capability. NEWS. Again, Clinton could have done whatever he wanted. He was too busy trying to figure out all of his scandals, and how he was going to protect his legacy.

Add to this Newt's ethic violations in congress and his big mouth firing off when it should stay closed and you have a recipe for disaster.

The ethics violations were a witch hunt. Not “real” violations. All but 1 were thrown out. The one that was not thrown out was related to campaign money being used to teach CONSERVATIVE ideas in his class. Not really worth dealing with, if you ask me. And the fine he paid was because it was not disclosed properly. I’ve read his assessment of it, and I’ve read the actual complaint.

There are MUCH bigger issues that that.

Newt is a certainly a bright guy and could bring some interesting ideas to the table. However, it?s the rest of the stuff that scares people away from him.

Glad you think so…….I think he tells it like it is…...

And hands down, he’s the smartest of the bunch……..Maybe that is what scares you. Actually, I think the ESTABLISHMENT is scared to death of Newt, and they bring up all this garbage because he will accomplish what he sets out to do. He will CHANGE Washington. He will CHANGE the established order, he will CHANGE healthcare, he will CHANGE our tax law, he will CHANGE our foreign policies.

CRAP will get done…….PERIOD…….

America does not need a polarizing president; we need someone who can work between the two parties to get things done.

Actually, He is the only one in the race that is willing to work across party lines. AND he is the only one up there who ever has……Including the current president.

2004 was the dems race to lose, and they screwed the pooch with Kerry. 2012 is the repubs race to lose. Guess we'll see how they handle it soon.

You are so right here…….and I will go one further. Had the MORONS on the hill in 2004-2008 actually accomplished something……..ANYTHING, then Obama would have never been elected.

I think you’re short changing republicans. I think they are going to come out in HUGE NUMBERS and vote to remove Obama. On top of that, I think Independents and quite a few Democrats are going to vote to remove Obama.

At least I hope so.

Later,

Geo

[GeoFisher]

Andrew brings up the things that make me worry about Newt. He plays party politics far too much for me.

As far as wife issues, I am done worrying about these things. I have decided that every single person on this planet has some type of issue, the question is can they overcome them and get the freeking job done.

I don't want Newt, but if it comes down to him and the current POTUS I expect Newt will get my vote.

Hopefully my post about Newt helps diffuse some of APB's responses. Not that he is wrong, but I thing his revisionist history is a common practice among liberals.

Later,

Geo

[Bobby Headrick]

Its a shame that all the repubs have to run is Newt or Mitt. That is sad, both would not be good for this country, Santorium would have been good, My personal fav would be Mike Huckebee, he seems like a good man that could maybe help the country, I trust him, he just seems like a good decent man. But he aint rich enough, gotta have the millions like Mitt and deception like Newt. Newt i snot good for the us, Im also not backing Obama, wish we had a real choice, Where are the real republicans. They no longer exist. never do True Dems. We have lost our country to tyranny. The same thing we left England for we have rebuilt here. Our found fathers are rolling in their graves. It is sad really, it is.

[Tim_T]

Hopefully my post about Newt helps diffuse some of APB's responses. Not that he is wrong, but I thing his revisionist history is a common practice among liberals.

Later,

Geo

Revisionist history is common practice among politicians in general George, and not just one party.

I am also not convinced Newt scares the establishment. I think he may be a part of the establishment.

[GeoFisher]

From a few years ago........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxYuc...ature=youtu.be

[apb]

Revisionist history, nope. 911 commision report. Their assessment of the situation.

Andrew

[GeoFisher]

Revisionist history, nope. 911 commision report. Their assessment of the situation.

Andrew

So, the 911 Commission report SPECIFICALLY states that Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are responsible for the actions of Terrorists that attacked our country.

I doubt that it is even implied.

THAT my friend, is exactly what you're implying......

Just checking.

And for the record......I will not beat around the bush. Bill Clinton and his willingness to destroy our military and our ABILITY to do more than a "pin prick" IS responsible for our inability to effectively fight the wars BUSH started in IRAQ and Afghanistan.

The "blitz" type war that Rummy suggested in IRAQ was a direct result of the loss of 500,000 troops, 20,000 Tanks, 20 or 30 air wings, and quite a bit more crap.

And guess what....we're in the process of dismantling our military again.......EXCELLENT.

Later,

Geo

[artcarney_agr]

I'm not sure how anyone can back Newt with his baggage...just asking for 4 more years of Obama IMO.

-Rich

...and Obama doesn't have baggage?!?!?!

There is so much we still don't know about Obama that the completely biased media refuses to report on....if all his baggage was exposed, he'd make Newt look like a saint!