richard holmbrooke was slammed today by newt gingrich today on the today show heres a recap:
Quote:
GINGRICH: Senator Kerry misses deliberately, as a campaign device, a whole series of events. Libya has given up its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and admitted, by the way, that it was lying to the world for years, which our CIA reported accurately was the case. Iran has now admitted that for 18 years it lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is a multinational effort the United States is participating in. Five countries, the United States, Russia, China, ***an, and South Korea, are pressuring North Korea in a multilateral effort, precisely the kind of things, by the way, that Senator Kerry says he favors. Iraq no longer has a dictator trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, something which, by the way, the British, Italian, and French intelligence agencies ten days ago reported once again that they were trying to buy uranium from Niger while Saddam was dictator, something which had been disputed by some people. And A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist who was the leading proliferator in the private sector worldwide, has now been stopped from that proliferation, and the Pakistani government has clamped down. The world is still dangerous. There are real steps that have been taken.
Katie says, "Newt, you think the administration would do it differently if it had to do it all over again?" This is North Korea and this sort of thing. Here's what Newt has to say about that.
Quote:
GINGRICH: This is like complaining about Abraham Lincoln in 1863 or complaining about Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1942. Let's look at the facts. It is a fact that George W. Bush had the guts to go into Afghanistan, something Clinton never did. It is a fact that while both Richard and I favored replacing Saddam Hussein it is George W. Bush who had the guts to replace him. What's Kerry saying, is Kerry saying he would invade North Korea? What is his complaint? I want to talk here, Richard, but what would you do in North Korea? If you're not willing to invade Iraq, if you don't think invading Afghanistan was right, what would do you in North Korea? Not talk about, what would you do against the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet?
HOLBROOKE: Newt, North Korea actually has weapons of mass destruction.
GINGRICH: Right and got them under the Clinton administration.
HOLBROOKE: No, they got them before the Clinton administration.
even so what did the clinton admn. do about it? jack diddly!
Quote:
HOLBROOKE: I would continue the six-part talks but make an all-out effort to put more pressure directly on North Korea.
GINGRICH: And how would you do that?
HOLBROOKE: The administration's refusal to talk directly to North Korea even though the South Koreans and the Chinese have said go ahead and do it is an inexplicable triumph of ideology over substance.
GINGRICH: So you would put pressure by talking with them, you'd put pressure by meeting with them, this is pressure?
HOLBROOKE: No, it's a complete -- you know it's a complete package.
GINGRICH: No. Are you prepared to invade North Korea sore is this just more rhetoric without any substantive action?
Good show by Gingrich! Exposing the statist garbage for what it is... Attacking President Bush & the effort to eradicate terrorism in a flaccid attempt to get power back!
Newt has it right.
For years we have tried to "make peace" in the Arab world. We have done it by negotiating and talking. It has failed because of the hate there. Bush has done something about it.
For me, that is the difference between Kerry and Bush.
Kerry talks and Bush acts.
The trouble with liberals and Democrats today is this:Their foreign policies have been dismal failures for a generation...and they are scared to death that Bush's policies might succeed.
I agree, oldelkhunter. I think Newt is among the best debaters in the world, and have NEVER seen a liberal come close to winning a debate with him. When someone asks for a reason why "x," he lists two or three.
fireworks on today show!
