← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 18648 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2005-06-13
2005-06-13 14:13 | User Profile
Monday, June 13, 2005 INVASION USA How Gingrich would secure border Former speaker opposes using military forces
é 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, considered a possible contender for the 2008 Republican presidential sweepstakes, says he opposes using U.S. military forces to secure the border with Mexico, though he favors "dramatically" increasing the size of the Border Patrol.
In a videotaped interview with Trey Jackson, Gingrich said: "I believe we should have as large a border patrol as we need to secure the border. I don't think you should use the military any place that puts it in close contact with civilians or puts it in close contact with money. Because you don't want to corrupt the military. You want the military to remain the defender of the Republic and if you get them too deeply involved in the border, there is a danger of corruption that is very dangerous to the long term future of the military."
"But I would dramatically increase the size of the border patrol," he added. "I would invest in technology to be able to have absolute control of both the borders and the coastline and I would have rules that would enable us to control the border."
Sounding more like a presidential candidate than ever before, Gingrich was asked about his recent efforts at working constructively with the likely 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
"Just because you plan to beat someone in a future election, doesn't mean you can't work with them now," Gingrich said.
In April, Gingrich called the situation at the border "absurd."
"I don't think we're stepping up to the plate on a whole series of big challenges, and [the border] is one of them," Gingrich said. "You can't have the director of central intelligence, Porter Goss, testify publicly to the Congress that he's genuinely afraid that a weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear weapon, is going to come across the border, and then do nothing about it. I think it's absurd."
Gingrich is urging people to contact federal lawmakers and urge them to take the matter seriously.
"It's not a Republican issue or Democrat issue," Gingrich said. "Everybody said after 9-11, 'Oh my gosh, why didn't they warn us?' Now you've had the director of central intelligence say as plainly and as clearly as anyone could say that a weapon could come across either the Canadian or Mexican border in a truck or a car, [which] could take out a good part of a city. I think we should be reacting to that. I think we should be making a national security investment in gaining control of our border."
The Republican from Georgia, who developed the Contract With America plan, said laws should be changed to deport people who are in the U.S. illegally within 72 hours. He also suggested a green card program for honest workers, involving some sort of biometric identifier such as an iris scan, and he expressed support for the Minuteman Project.
"I'm very sympathetic with the volunteers who are trying to help the Border Patrol. I think before anybody in government criticizes them, they ought to fund the Border Patrol strong enough and robust enough to have control of the border." [url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44738[/url] ============================================ Newt is playing coy when it comes to running for president, yet here he is making a few of the right noises about illegal immigration. This from a man who has never gave a rat's ass about it not only when he was House Speaker, but as a congressman as well. While in the past he has supported more Border Patrol agents he has refused to take action on related items such as reducing chain migration and eliminating the jackpot baby provision that provides instant citizenship to the child of any campesino who is able to sneak across the border and download a kid. He wishes to do next to nothing about interior enforcement. In the above article Gingrich is only concerned with controlling the border in regard to physical terrorism. He couldn't care less about the economic terrorism in reduced wages, disease, or the crime that illegals foster. [url]http://grades.betterimmigration.com/retired/testgrades.php3?District=GA06&VIPID=217[/url]
There are two reasons why Newt is making all these noises. (A)He wants to be president, (B) He has taken a pulse of the public and knows a lot of folks are mad as hell about this. If this clown were elected he would proceed to sabotage any meaningful reform as he did in the House to appease the plutocrats he is beholded to.
I suppose the reason why he doesn't want troops on the border where they are needed to support the Border Patrol innot only dealing with the horde that is crossing, but also to deal with the Mexican Army when it makes one of it forays is that he needs them for more "regime change" elsewhere.
2005-06-13 14:31 | User Profile
Gingrich is a neo-con a$$hole. Don't believe a word he says.
2005-06-14 04:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Gingrich is a neo-con a$$hole. Don't believe a word he says.[/QUOTE] Didn't he recently bend over and kow tow to the Hillary person on Universal Health Care? The dude is lost. And a philanderer.
2005-06-14 07:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Didn't he recently bend over and kow tow to the Hillary person on Universal Health Care? The dude is lost. And a philanderer.[/QUOTE]
Is there anyone who takes this puffed-up used car salesman seriously?
2005-06-14 10:16 | User Profile
T.D.,
Yes, Certain people within the GOP establishment. The same folks who succeeded in generating a "groundswell" of support for Bush back in 2000. Like you, I doubt he could be elected because of his sleazy personal life. Still, he has his supporters in the Neocon media. He has been getting alot of exposure, obstensibly to promote his book, where this is talked about. I know it's too early to be even talking about this except this is what the idiots on the radio want to do when they aren't hollering about Howard Dean. Some of the matches I've heard: George Allen and someone else, McCain and Jeb Bush, and, gawd help us, Newt and Condi. I think what we have here is the establishment once again giving us a hobson's choice for 2008. Gotta get that groundswell in early now!
AA,
Gingrich made a statement about being able to work with someone in the short term doesn't mean you don't intend to defeat them at a latter date. It was words to that effect. This was in regard to Hillary.
2005-06-14 13:32 | User Profile
That is exactly what putting the military on the border would accomplish! Gingrich doesn't get it.
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Monday, June 13, 2005 You want the military to remain the defender of the Republic...[/QUOTE]I can't help recalling Gingrich's involvement in the battles to reform immigration back in 1994-1995. Ten years later, the situation is even more dire.
2005-06-14 14:10 | User Profile
S,
The quote of the Newter you put up brings something else to mind. "Defender of the Republic". I would love to ask why repulsing a foreign invasion wouldn't fit his criteria. Newt loves to pass himself off as some sort of Liddell Hart or better yet, a modern day version of von Clausewitz, yet, he seems not to understand asymmetrical warfare, which is what Mexico is doing to us. The only thing he wishes to defend is the Judeo-plutocracy. He is an insufferable pompus ass of the first order.
2005-06-14 20:19 | User Profile
Alot of fuss over the borders, yet i see nobody getting any mention that intends to do anything about the millions of mexicans already here. Just plugging the hole isnt good enough. We need lots of "bilge pumps" to rid ourselves of the brakish water that we have taken on.
2005-06-14 23:27 | User Profile
Newt loves to pass himself off as some sort of Liddell Hart or better yet, a modern day version of von Clausewitz...
ROFL!
Clancy does this too, posing on tanks, subs and aircraft carriers with a scowl, aviator shades and a rakish tilt to whatever hat-with-a-ship-he-never-served-on* he happens to be wearing at the moment.
I'd give him some points if he wore a USS Liberty* hat on the back cover of his next tome, though.
2005-06-15 01:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]ROFL!
Clancy does this too, posing on tanks, subs and aircraft carriers with a scowl, aviator shades and a rakish tilt to whatever hat-with-a-ship-he-never-served-on* he happens to be wearing at the moment.
I'd give him some points if he wore a USS Liberty* hat on the back cover of his next tome, though.[/QUOTE] Hunt for Red October was a neat book. However, I think the guy reads his own newspaper clippings. And, his output has been shaped by quantity over quality ever since. (Cardinal of the Kremlin wasn't too bad.)
USS Liberty hat. What his publisher would think! Snort. Depends on if his publisher goes to Synagogue or Church.
Does Clancy have the balls? Probably not.
2005-06-15 02:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]S,Newt loves to pass himself off as some sort of Liddell Hart or better yet, a modern day version of von Clausewitz, yet, he seems not to understand asymmetrical warfare, which is what Mexico is doing to us. The only thing he wishes to defend is the Judeo-plutocracy. He is an insufferable pompus ass of the first order.[/QUOTE]Funny. That's how a friend of mine, a senior editor at a publishing firm, once described Gingrich when he was trying to get him to write a foreword to a book he was working on. He showed me the email correspondence, and it was pretty funny. Still, Gingrich has a PhD from Tulane...
2005-06-15 02:56 | User Profile
The Newtster is one of the most repulsive creatures to infest the body politic in recent years. This slimebag just can't bend over and grab his ankles fast enough whenever he hears those sweet whispers. "Oy, Oy, Vhat haf yu dun for Izzreeul Tuday?"
2005-06-15 04:59 | User Profile
AA,
NEW YORK ââ¬â A brand name author with many admirers in the military criticized the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, citing it as proof that "good men make mistakes."
That same writer said he almost "came to blows" with a leading war supporter, former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle (search).
The author is Tom Clancy (search).
The hawkish master of such million-selling thrillers as "Patriot Games" and "The Hunt for Red October" now finds himself adding to the criticism of the Iraq war, and not only through his own comments.
His latest book, "Battle Ready," is a collaboration with another war critic, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni (search). "Battle Ready" looks at Zinni's long military career, dating back to the Vietnam War, and includes harsh remarks by Zinni about the current conflict.
In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Clancy and Zinni sat side by side in a hotel conference room in midtown Manhattan, mutual admirers who said they agreed on most issues, despite "one or two" spirited "discussions" during the book's planning.
Zinni has openly attacked the war, but Clancy reluctantly acknowledged his own concerns. He declined repeatedly to comment on the war, before saying that it lacked a "casus belli," or suitable provocation.
"It troubles me greatly to say that, because I've met President Bush," Clancy said. "He's a good guy. ... I think he's well-grounded, both morally and philosophically. But good men make mistakes."
"Battle Ready" was published Monday with a first printing of 438,700. It is the fourth in Clancy's "Commanders" series, in which military leaders reflect on their careers and discuss military strategy.
"In the movies, military leaders are all drunken Nazis," said Clancy, who has worked on books about retired Gen. Chuck Horner, who led U.S. Central Command Air Forces during the Gulf War, and retired Gen. Carl Stiner, whose missions included the capture of Panama leader Manuel Noriega.
"In fact, these are very bright people who regard the soldiers and Marines under them as their own kids. I thought the people needed to know about that. These are good guys, and smart guys."
While the 57-year-old Clancy is tall and thin, with bony arms and round, sunken eyes, the 60-year-old Zinni has the short, stocky build of an ex-Marine. He served as commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000 and as a special Middle East envoy from 2001-2003.
But even as an envoy, Zinni spoke out against invading Iraq, regarding it as disastrous for Middle East peace and a distraction from the war against terrorism. On Monday, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not worth the price.
"He's a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go," Zinni said. "But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4,500 wounded ââ¬â some of them terribly ââ¬â $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and our reputation and our image in the world, particularly in that region, shattered."
In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.
"He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."
Both Clancy and Zinni praised President Bush but would not commit to voting for him. Clancy said that voting for Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive nominee, would be "a stretch for me," but wouldn't say that he was supporting Bush.
Zinni, a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, said he could not support the president's re-election "if the current strategists in the defense department are going to be carried over."
Zinni makes a point of answering all questions, just as he prides himself on speaking out against Iraq. He called it a lesson learned from Vietnam, when "we were all imprinted with the idea that we can't let this come about again."
Clancy, meanwhile, was more close-mouthed, and not only about his views on Iraq. When asked what Jack Ryan, the fictional hero of "Patriot Games" and other Clancy novels, would have thought of the war, the author offered an enigmatic smile.
"I don't like to comment on works in progress," he said. [url]http://fox-news.com/story/0,2933,120823,00.html[/url] ======================== This story surprised me when it happen at the time. Perle, no less.
S,
For one term the Newter was my Congressman. I went to a function he had at a park one time and met him. I told "no" gun control" and "no" to NAFTA. I could tell just by the way he looked at me that he was going to do whatever the hell he wanted and to hell with the rest of us.
2005-06-15 17:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]The Newtster is one of the most repulsive creatures to infest the body politic in recent years. This slimebag just can't bend over and grab his ankles fast enough whenever he hears those sweet whispers. "Oy, Oy, Vhat haf yu dun for Izzreeul Tuday?"[/QUOTE]I wrote about this creature in my book: [QUOTE]Newt Gingrich (Republican Majority Leader): Newt confessed his decision was one which would remain with him for the rest of his life. "Given every thing I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over. Vietnam was the right battlefield at the right time." By marrying a woman who was his mathematics teacher when he was in high school and almost ten years his senior, he gained needed mature support to bolster his ego when dodging the war in Vietnam. When she was sick in hospital, she received her just reward when Newt came in, sat on her bed, and then explained his divorce suit. Newt felt there was a bigger battle than Vietnam in Congress, but to this day he has believed in universal military training. Newt did concede he does not know if he made the right decision at a moral level[B].[1][/B] Since that period Newt has regained his composure and courage sufficiently to be elected from the new South and represent the new Republicans. In a laudatory article describing Mr. Newt as "The Warrior" Newsweek magazine recounted one of the highlights of his life. In 1987 in the Mojave desert dressed in fatigues ethically purchased by himself and carefully wired to determine if he had been killed with lasers, Mr. Newt had played war games with the United States Army. As a member of an attacking force, Mr. Newt had been permitted not only to play, but to enter the enemy camp and capture their leader. A companion of Mr. Gingrich described him as one happy man who was precisely where he wanted to be. At that time Mr. Gingrich was 44 years old and way past the time when adolescent fantasies had possessed the normal mind[B].[2][/B] Yet Mr. Gingrich was to climb even higher in public esteem. After the war in the Persian Gulf Newt demanded Democrats who voted against war to step forward and admit they made a mistake[B].[3][/B] One must add that Newt commented contemptuously that those who voted against the buildup and war would be "glad to show up at the parade[B]".[4][/B] His predecessor as leader of House Republicans, Bob Michel of Illinois, was so proud of his service in World War II that he wore his miniature combat infantryman's badge in his lapel[B].[5] [/B] The Newter could make no such gesture. 1. Wall Street Journal, p30, February 11, 1985 2. Newsweek, p29, Jan 9, 1995 3. Washington Post, pA23, Mar 28, 1991 4. Washington Post, pA2, Mar 5, 1991 5. NYT, pA24, Oct 5, 1993[/QUOTE]The time has long passed when thoughtful Americans can consider the elections of Gingrich and friends to be an aberation. Newt was elected from a part of the South that has prided itself on sending manly people to Washington to represent them. This tough-talking coward has failed completely. He is all we deserve.
2005-06-16 03:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AA,
He has more than one would think. Checkout this story from no less than Fox News: [/QUOTE] Nice to see him go after Perle, however, Clancy can't hold Zinni's jock, though Zinni probably has some work to do to write as Clancy does.
If Zinni, who used to be CENTCOM, was avidly against the war, people should listen. That guy is very sharp.