Newt was for intervention in Libya before he was against it

[danny]

you can read the transcripts here.

And, to be fair, here is Newt's defence in which he claims that they have it backwards and he was actually against before he was for it.

[feeblepizza]

Gingrich/Kerry 2012

[Inmate Trump]

....I'm no fan of Newt, and I'm not trying to defend him here.....

But so what?

Obama was against Iraq but he's for Libya when there's really very little difference in the reasoning behind each conflict.  At least the reasoning for Iraq was more fleshed out than the one behind Libya has been so far.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

He was against it before he was for it.......but nice try

[Oakvale]

Newt Gingrich on Libya, March 7th:

"Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. I mean, the idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept this administration is."

Newt Gingrich on Libya, a couple of weeks later:

"Let me draw the distinction. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces."

Seems like your standard shameless flip-flop to me.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

....I'm no fan of Newt, and I'm not trying to defend him here.....

But so what?

Obama was against Iraq but he's for Libya when there's really very little difference in the reasoning behind each conflict.  At least the reasoning for Iraq was more fleshed out than the one behind Libya has been so far.

I think there can be a distinction drawn from the level of involvement. Iraq was a full-scale invasion, whereas Libya is being restricted to airstrikes. It's a much lower risk to American forces and is probably going to end up being a lot cheaper than invading a country. If Obama were to propose sending troops into Libya, I think you would see a lot more opposition than there currently is.

[Bull Moose Base]

In Obama's 2002 speech opposing Iraq War he outlines his fears that it will inflame the Arab world (he was right / Libya is different), that we don't know how long it will last or how much it will cost (it has cost us hundreds of billions.) While Libya is a question mark, it seems inconceivable we'd ever let that happen.  We might awkwardly bail on it in a sloppy way but we won't ever spend the lives and money we did in Iraq.

[Brittain33]

Libya and Iraq are two different countries and events. You can draw parallels between them, and maybe they'd be valid, but at least they are two distinct events.

Gingrich advocated the exact opposite policy for the same event in the same place within two weeks. The only difference was that Obama's policy changed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Libya and Iraq are two different countries and events. You can draw parallels between them, and maybe they'd be valid, but at least they are two distinct events.

Gingrich advocated the exact opposite policy for the same event in the same place within two weeks. The only difference was that Obama's policy changed.

a lot can happen in two weeks - the rebel forces had been severely weakened, so that a intervention would have to be more intense to have any success.  I don't know if that was part of Newt's reasoning, but it's not unreasonable to change one's opinion of what should be done in that amount of time.

[Bull Moose Base]

Libya and Iraq are two different countries and events. You can draw parallels between them, and maybe they'd be valid, but at least they are two distinct events.

Gingrich advocated the exact opposite policy for the same event in the same place within two weeks. The only difference was that Obama's policy changed.

a lot can happen in two weeks - the rebel forces had been severely weakened, so that a intervention would have to be more intense to have any success.  I don't know if that was part of Newt's reasoning, but it's not unreasonable to change one's opinion of what should be done in that amount of time.

fair enough but his argument was not we should have intervened 2 weeks earlier or not at all.  It was: we should intervene now.  2 weeks later it became... I would never have intervened period.

Setting policy aside, politically, I think it reveals Gingrich is possibly far more unprepared for the intense scrutiny of a presidential campaign than everyone realized.  Maybe some of the historic success of runners-up in the GOP primary isn't just voter familiarity but also those people are more experienced as national candidates and make fewer mistakes.  Romney's poll numbers are higher because of name rec, and that gives him a head start, but he also seems to be a more disciplined candidate than he was in 08.  Which is not to say he doesn't have gaffes ahead of him as the campaign gets going.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Setting policy aside, politically, I think it reveals Gingrich is possibly far more unprepared for the intense scrutiny of a presidential campaign than everyone realized. 

I wouldn't  underestimate him that much, Joe

[Brittain33]

Libya and Iraq are two different countries and events. You can draw parallels between them, and maybe they'd be valid, but at least they are two distinct events.

Gingrich advocated the exact opposite policy for the same event in the same place within two weeks. The only difference was that Obama's policy changed.

a lot can happen in two weeks - the rebel forces had been severely weakened, so that a intervention would have to be more intense to have any success.  I don't know if that was part of Newt's reasoning, but it's not unreasonable to change one's opinion of what should be done in that amount of time.

You really have to look at what he said and his justification. One can construct plausible explanations for a hypothetical, but for Newt, it's really quite black and white. He was criticizing Obama and didn't catch the contradiction.

[Badger]

Libya and Iraq are two different countries and events. You can draw parallels between them, and maybe they'd be valid, but at least they are two distinct events.

Gingrich advocated the exact opposite policy for the same event in the same place within two weeks. The only difference was that Obama's policy changed.

Bingo. The GOP's attitude towards Obama is so poisonous and confrontational, they couldn't provide bipartisan support if the President said puppies are cute.

[California8429]

If you noticed, Gingrich had very different comments before and after Obama made a decision to intervene. Obviously if we're helping bomb Libya, the situation is now changed, and so now he's saying what he'd do now instead of pre-world focus on Libya's revolution when he wanted to use Reagan's policy of funding and supporting the rebels and getting extremely involved without having to send in our own military, like Afghanistan vs the Soviets.

[Likely Voter]

Gingrich is consistent - he is against Obama. He knows that you get points in the base and with primary voters by attacking Obama so that is what he does. If Obama came out in favor of puppies, he would be all for kittens. Its just politics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Guys, Gingrich is unstoppable now. He has the support of Zell Miller, author of "A national party no more". No one has better political instincts than Zell Miller.

[patrick1]

Gingrich is consistent - he is against Obama. He knows that you get points in the base and with primary voters by attacking Obama so that is what he does. If Obama came out in favor of puppies, he would be all for kittens. Its just politics.

It is unprincipled and crass politics.

[tpfkaw]

Gingrich is consistent - he is against Obama. He knows that you get points in the base and with primary voters by attacking Obama so that is what he does. If Obama came out in favor of puppies, he would be all for kittens. Its just politics.

Of course, and the corollary is that is if Obama supported consistent policies then so would Gingrich.

[Brittain33]

Gingrich is consistent - he is against Obama. He knows that you get points in the base and with primary voters by attacking Obama so that is what he does. If Obama came out in favor of puppies, he would be all for kittens. Its just politics.

Of course, and the corollary is that is if Obama supported consistent policies then so would Gingrich.

I would hope a President could adapt his policies to a changing situation, day by day, especially when he's working to assemble support behind the scenes. "How should we deal with Libya" is not a postulate of political views.

That said, I think Obama's turn in favor of intervening here to hopefully prevent a massacre is a minor repudiation of what he ran on, but bothers me much less than his full embrace of Bush's policies on surveillance and prisoner detention, which was both foreseeable and a much bigger betrayal of his supports' hopes. His treatment of Bradley Manning--that's a flip-flop that liberals find vile.