MTP - Dodd and Newt
Well, I hate this format. Like there are 2 sides to this conflict. Newt Gingrich is a smart but awful man. He is a master of deception. New said -
“But notice, there are two things there. First of all, even if you accept that this is a civil war, people have won civil wars. I devoted three novels about winning the American Civil War. And the fact is, civil wars are hard. But we also—I just did a novel on Pearl Harbor and the Second World War. The Second World War was hard. Guadalcanal was hard. If we’d had today’s Congress during Guadalcanal, the number of people who had said beating the Japanese is too hard, let’s find a negotiated peace, would have been amazing.”
Horse manure. We were attacked by the Japanese. We weren’t attacked by Iraq. So, there is no basis for the comparison but Newt persists. He sets up his illogical comparison by clearly stating that he is has written 3 historical novels. So, the viewer will assume that he is an expert. Therefore, his comparison must be right because he is an expert. That’s classic Newt Gingrich.
The bottom-line is that it doesn’t matter whether Iraq is easy or hard. From a moral standpoint we shouldn’t be there. The other thing is that everyone talks about an all or nothing strategy. In fact we have neither. We aren’t all in now. If we were all in there would be a draft. Americans would be asked to make sacrifices. Our number 1 priority would be renewing equipment and getting the best equipment to the troops. We aren’t doing that. The other side is talking about a complete withdrawal. That’s not realistic either. We will have to keep some forces in the area that can respond to crisis situations.
I’ll have video of what can be loosely called a debate.
