Newt is baffled by the reaction and defends himself as one who will speak the truth. Aside from the correctness of his statement, telling the truth is a virtue, but sometimes silence is golden. It is a matter of discretion which is a questionable issue with Newt. Newt is a man who is not afraid to say something, letting the chips fall where they may.
Romney is a man who is afraid to make a mistake. Certainly we don’t want a president who is prone to mistakes. Not again. We also don’t want a president who is perpetually guarded and uncertain. Romney’s guardedness is not a strategy to win an election, it is the man.
I think this exchange makes the difference between the two men clear. Romney is concerned about Newt’s ‘incendiary words’ making the situation worse for Israel. Newt points out that Israel is already being hit by rockets on a daily basis. Romney goes on to say that before he uttered a statement such as Newt did he would call Netanyahu and ask him if it was OK to say it, what would he like me to do?
Romney: If I’m president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability and make sure that in a setting like this, anything I say that can affect a place with rockets going in, with people dying, I don’t do anything that would harm that process. Therefore, before I made a statement of that nature, I get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say, would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do? Let’s work together because we’re partners. I’m not a bomb thrower, rhetorically or literally.
Does Romney understand how incendiary those words may be to Arab ears? They sound wise and deliberative to Romney.
Gingrich: I will tell the truth even if it’s at the risk of causing some confusion some time with the timid.
Pompous truth-telling without regard to consequences often leads to unnecessary trouble. So does paralyzing caution and a penchant to please. Our choice, a mouth or a mouse.
This was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon on 4.28.2010.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”
Newt Gingrich has his flaws, but, he is not a fool.
I’d rather have the truth.
What I like about Newt’s mouth is that he won’t hold back when using it against Barack Obama. Mitt will just pussyfoot around. First things first, we need boldness to get rid of the DB.
Aren’t we asking for the truth no matter what? Haven’t we been saying “we can handle the truth”!! We either can or we can’t. I prefer to stand in the truth, in other words, stand on Gods side. I know others who think differently and the *Christians* are silly, well we aren’t and it’s written in that *book* if we do, they will fall to their demise. Look what is happening to the liars and thieves, some call it *Karma* some call it *divine intervention*, sometimes I call it both and it’s happening right in front of my eyes.
Great comment Jeaneeinabottle! Thanks!
Mitt told bold truth as well: that he buys into the mythical “peace-partner-Palestinians” pushed by the egomaniacal Clinton administration; and that he has no idea what his own policy towards Israel would be – that it would essentially be to defer to the Israeli PM. A much as I love Israel and love Netanyahu, I don’t think an American President should defer to anyone on matters of principle. So I see this as truth-versus-truth: Newt speaks the truth about the Middle East, and Mitt speaks the truth about his own fecklessness.
I strongly reject the suggestion that Newt’s comments were reckless. Successive US administrations have acted to undermine Israel’s security and bully them into concession after concession with little or nothing in return except more dead and maimed bodies. The United States continues to maintain the myth that land for peace with terrorists or a two state solution are viable strategies, with the Obama administration raising the stakes. Israel was browbeaten into freezing development before, not as a point to be discussed during, negotiations and told they would have to accept a return to pre-1967 borders. Sorry if the terrorists are using Newt’s words as another excuse to threaten more bloody tantrums. They have never been at a loss to find excuses for violence. Newt happens to be right and the Israelis know he is right. C’mon, who are we kidding? Advising Newt to stay silent is the same as calling terrorist freedom fighters; labeling the war on terror as an overseas contingency operation; and, not admitting that terrorists fit a common profile. The Israelis will celebrate if Newt becomes President. The truth about this Mideast conflict has never been told by the US government and it has never been needed more. A viable solution cannot be built upon falsehoods.
Here here!!
To Newt, to thine own self be true (tell it like it is). We’ve had enough of these mealy mouthed mice afraid of their own shadows in this government. The world thinks of us as a paper tiger (or more correctly a pussy cat). It’s time to unsheathe the tiger’s steel claws.
We had the “mouse” campaign last time with McCain. Personally, I want somebody who won’t kiss Obama’s ring while campaigning against him.
Pat has focused on a vital question that has no easy answer. Sure, truth is good, but there’s a time for tact. When a gal asks her man, “Does this dress make me look fat?”…well, maybe Newt would tell the blunt truth, and maybe that’s why he’s on his third wife.
But back to the Middle East…we struggle here because we have a sense of the gravity of the situation. It’s a flashpoint that could lead to a war that would rock the world. We’re expecting that war any minute; we’re slightly surprised it hasn’t happened already. So we all want and need resolution. And yet it seems there can be no resolution no matter what anyone does. Over the years, tact and compromise has been applied, and the tension continues. Wars have come, but the aftermath has left the big picture unchanged. So we have a sense that we’re doomed to frustration, and eventual catastrophe is inevitable. If we do it Romney’s way, nothing will change. If we do it Newt’s way, nothing will change. So the argument we’re having here is both supremely important and moot at the same time. Or at least that’s the feeling I get. I’d like to be wrong about that, of course.
Given the scenario I describe, I do tilt towards Newt for this reason: Unless I can project that some real-world good would come out of mealy-mouthed equivocating, I’d rather be open and straightforward. Romney’s approach — or for that matter, Obama’s grovelling apologies — might be appropriate if they actually saved the nation and the world. If that were the case, then my objections would be based upon vanity and pride, and I should swallow them. Otherwise, I’d go with honesty. The path of “tact” tends to embolden the bad guys and weaken the resolve of the good guys. We must remember why we’re on the side we are.
But I’m speaking with uncertainty. This is a question to struggle with.
Lincoln had something of a similar problem during the Civil War. Of course it was the issue of slavery that fissioned the nation. The South seceded upon the ascendancy of an abolitionist president. But Lincoln fought the war under the banner of preserving the union, not abolishing slavery. As a technical point, the Emancipation Proclamation (which applied only to rebel states) was a measure designed to deprive the South of manpower that was being used in their war effort. The freeing of the slaves was a side effect. Of course, everybody knew the war was about slavery. Many took glory from the angle of moral supremacy. But there was an element of tact. You could, if you wanted, look at it as a war to preserve the union.
As far as the level of tact, it depends on the situation. As decades go by and successive administrations play PC with the PLO and get no change, then it is far over due to confront them directly like the corrupt nuts they are. If we had a guy like Armitage to spell it out for them behind the scenes, while Newt rallies political support, the bastards in Fatah just might be forced to come back to the table.
From there, we could cut off all funding to the PLO. We, The US, could fly drones 24 seven over Gaza and the West bank and take out anyone launching a rocket. Sending billions to Israel each year is just stalling things as well, as there is a big industry and vested interests keeping the status quo. Surely their politicians are just as corrupt as ours. We need to take the stand for our US national security and say that it is not longer a good policy to send billions to Israel to buy jets and bombs back from us, while they do a half assed job of defending themselves. (For example, the last Lebanon war) We need to tell Hamas, and Fatah, that if you launch rockets at Israel then it will be our bombs that will rain down on you and your leadership. Then while the US is taking out their militants from the air. Israel needs to go door to door, and find every rifle, every tunnel, and hold all ground, while building up new residential buildings and infrastructure with aid from the international community. They would need to keep a close eye on who and what they let in. After 15 to 20 years perhaps more Palisintians would like to live in the new peaceful walled (gated community) section of Gaza/West Bank instead of these desolate theocratic nightmare neighborhoods they live in now. As these sections grow over time, the people living there will finally be exposed to alternative views and education. We need to divide the peaceful arabs from the militant ones. Right now the meek ones are left to rot in refugee camps and are harassed by Hamas and Fatah. Hamas became popular in Gaza because they were more ideological then the corrupt Fatah. They got food and medicine to the local poor. Surely this could work for Israel to a degree, now that they kicked out all of the settlers from Gaza for example. I dont know, just some ideas. Newt has inspired me to think of something new instead of just following what the talking heads are saying we should do. I have to credit him for that.
I appreciate your commentary, Prince of Heft. Israel is a sovereign nation but she also happens to be the nerve center of the entire Mideast conflict. The argument can be made that if the US supported Israel to take care of business at the the first outbreak of terrorism, the cancer would not have spread to its current death bed status. Instead, the US has not played honest broker. Israel has been bullied into one loser agreement after another. While Israeli administrations have been complicit, it is important to bear in mind that the US has played deadly hardball. The result has been the following, as shared with me — off the record –on successive trips to Israel by members of the IDF. They are under strict orders to use restraint when dealing with Palestinian terrorism. In this context, Newt’s words take on much greater significance. He has signaled that his presidency would represent a dramatic departure from the PC approach to Arab terrorism that has dominated American foreign policy, namely, the infamous bowing to Arab leaders, terroist appeasement and Muslim Brotherhood boosting of the Obama administration; the cozying up to Saudi oil punctuated by Saudi shiek PDAs which characterized both Bush administrations; and, the White House hosting and toasting of corrupt, murderous creature, hands dripping with the blood of innocent children, Arafat by the Clintons. (No surprise that Hillary reprises her role as pro-Arabist policy maker under Obama.) A weak Israel does not serve the goal of winning the war on terror or preventing Iran from going nuclear. Disrespectful treatment of our important ally would no longer acceptable. Netanyahu will not have to enter the White House through the laundry shoot and we won’t have to hear the rantings of a Napoleon-complex afflicted Leon Panetta sputtering: “Get to the damn negotiating table!” I think it is important to know that Newt is prepared to deal with the issue of terrorism in a direct, honest, courageous manner. It signals to me that a US with Newt as President will be safer and that our foreign policy will be be much more effective. It also informs me that Newt has a keen understanding of Israel and the dynamics of winning the war on terror while Romney doesn’t have a clue.
I must totally agree with your assessment. Thanks for your informative insight:) The Tammy blog is truly grand.
I have always admired Newt Gingrich since he attended & was a speaker at A Night To Honor Israel in Washington D.C. a few years ago. He has alway been a big supporter of the Jewish People & that is definitely one of the most decisive reasons why I would vote for a candidate.
Conservative silence has become VERY golden for the Left. I literally cheered out loud after Newt’s answer during the debate.
Oh, Lord Tinker! ME TOO! Stand in the truth…and as Beck would say, the truth has no agenda.
LOL! Basti, I clapped really loud and scared the cats!