Gingrich criticizes State Dept.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/gingrich.powell/index.html

donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

score one for Rummy

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

utterly infuriating.

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

also:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7581-2003Apr21.html

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

almost as disgusting (but not as scary) is the Bush teams campaign against Voinovich in Ohio (he's against the taxcut). They're running ads with lines like ' like America's so called allies who turned their back on us during the war, Voinovic is a so called Republican who is turning his back on the President's tax cut.', comparing him to Chirac, etc.

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Obviously Gingrich is firmly in favour of regime change in the US, since current leadership is "broken". Obviously this current administration's diplomatic skills are a weapon of mass destruction! They must be removed!

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

sean - are you aware of what you're saying?

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

this is not true, how?

jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Gingrich is arguing the current administration's diplomatic arm must be changed, but he's arguing for a tilt toward Rummy (who's been acting as the de facto head of the state dept. for awhile now anyway)

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

sean - are you aware of what you're saying?
Sadly, yes. Replace one fascist with another, even nastier one, as in pretty much all other cases of US-sponsored ter...uh, intervention.

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

rhetorical judo from some stater:

The official suggested that Gingrich, who he said has a history of attacking the State Department, was using Powell as a foil to attack Bush. "If he has a problem with Powell, he has a problem with George Bush because what Powell has done is what Bush wants."

but this is the thing that must be melting the glasses off powell's face:

Gingrich, in an interview, said, "The story of diplomatic defeat is a bigger and more profound story" than the U.S. military victory. Among other things, he cited the failure to win Turkey's approval to accept U.S. troops, the French campaign against the war and the inability to win a U.N. resolution authorizing force.

he's blaming the effects of the bush/rumsfeld belligerence on the dept responsible for cleaing it up! and the charge that the state dept is 'broken' pretty much comes down to their fundamental selfish arrogance toward all diplomacy, period.

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess nuking the ragheads would be Gingrich's idea of diplomatic success.

Kris (aqueduct), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 17:10 (twenty-two years ago)

The state of Georgia told Newt what they thought of his ideas, that says quite a bit. It seems strange that anyone would even care, but politicians these days are like game show hosts, they never truly go away.

earlnash, Wednesday, 23 April 2003 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

The thing is, it's hard to take this as simply a Gingrich opinion when Gingrich is currently advising Rumsfeld: no matter how much the White House disavows the statement, there's an obvious implication that one wing of the administration is ready to start taking shots at Powell. I don't think Gingrich's comments were at all a proxy criticism of Bush -- their ridiculous implication seemed to be that Powell and the State Department were single-handedly fouling up an otherwise successful enterprise!

That's why I find this whole thing so galling and dishonest, especially because, like Geoff points out, the comments were slanted to imply to the casual listener that Powell is somehow responsible for the U.S. alientating its allies -- this when Powell's impossible task all along was to make any attempt whatsoever at preventing that from happening. "Diplomatic failure and military success," Gingrich says -- what possible logic could there be to this except to make Powell the fall-guy for exactly the things he, of everyone in the administration, put the most work into preventing?

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Look on the bright side: maybe all this civilian bluster at the DoD will lead to a military coup!

hstencil, Wednesday, 23 April 2003 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

My fantasy scenario is that during the presidential campaign, Powell announces that he will not serve through a second term, publicly proclaims that he cooperated with the White House mainly so that he could serve as a brake and a voice-of-reason, and proceeds to make hugely critical statements about Bush. I understand this is not going to happen.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 19:29 (twenty-two years ago)

...and then he declares his own intention to run for the nomination in '04?

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

his wife doesn't want him to run, she thinks he'll get assasinated.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 19:37 (twenty-two years ago)

earlnash - Gingrich was not voted out of office and would still be there today if he had any interested in being a 'mere' congressman. The man who got his seat - Johnny Isakson - is more than likely going to be yet another republican senator, replacing a democrat (though the democrat's Zell Miller, so it really won't affect the balance of power), and you can be pretty sure a republican will end up winning Isakson's ne Gingrich's seat. Powell will be pushed out before he leaves, and considering how much of a hit the Bush team would take for pushing him out I don't see it happening, instead his influence will just continue to diminish, although it is smart of Rummy et al. to set Powell up for the blame if they don't 'win the peace'. There is no way in hell anyone besides Bush will be the Republican nominee in 2004, Powell on the Dem ticket might be interesting but that ship has sailed.

James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

but politicians these days are like game show hosts, they never truly go away.
No, if they're conservative Republicans, they all end up in the AEI, it seems.

Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 19:46 (twenty-two years ago)

That comment is untrue and offensive. Plenty of them wind up at the Manhattan and Cato Institutes.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 19:52 (twenty-two years ago)

My dad, to a waitress in a DC restaurant, on the patio across the street from the Heritage Foundation offices: "Say, heh heh, isn't that building leaning a little to the right?"

Waitress, blanching: "um, sir, staff are really not allowed to talk politics."

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

hahahhahaha

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 20:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay, here's why Powell was able to take a line counter to the administration's on the issues of pursuing a UN resolution and the Michigan SC case - They Can't Fire Him. No matter what. Dumping Powell, like dumping Greenspan, would make Dubya et al. look like such utter idiot shitheads (in that special, irrefutable, 'you just fired the only person I liked' way) that they would drop 10-15% in the polls straightaway.

I agree with nabisco that somebody in the administration is ready to start taking potshots at Powell. That person, as established, is Rummy. He's shitting golden eggs right now, because his war plan went so well, and he seems to think that we all really love him. By getting a disposable mouth like Gingrich to come out and say the things he can't say on TV, he doesn't risk his own 'good name' with the press and the public. The trick here is that Rummy's arrogance is about to get the best of him if he doesn't shut up and realize he has to play ball like everyone else. He can still get fired, because most Americans don't know who the hell he is, and his main demographic is the guy who decided to stop buying French's mustard after he saw that photo with the weasels sitting in the UNSC meeting.

Anyway. Gingrich was and is a shitpipe who doesn't now and never did know thing one about foreign policy, or domestic policy for that matter, besides attack politics. Rumsfeld's smart but his ego is a little bigger than his influence, and that remains the case. Eventually he's going to piss off the wrong people, and with any luck Dubya will decide to go down in flames with him.

Seditionist Millar (Millar), Wednesday, 23 April 2003 22:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I love how you have Gingrich saying State is broken and acts like it knows better, then you have all these yahoos saying Gingrich doesn't know what he's talking about, and finally at the end of that CNN piece you have a Powell aide saying Powell "stands in the way of reckless foreign policy" (aka "State knows better").

Stuart (Stuart), Thursday, 24 April 2003 02:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah yes here's stuart with the realness.

Well, in matters of regional politics, history and diplomacy, State does know better, because they're, y'know, the State Department. Yeah yeah yeah all us liberals looove us some moderate Powell, but the problem here is that the Rumsfeld end will take their policies, regardless if facts support them or not. They'd rather have their own myths than someone else's expertise, and they'll meddle in Powell's soup to boot:

Just days before a meeting this week in Beijing between U.S. and North Korean officials, for instance, the Defense Department pressed to have James A. Kelly, the head of the delegation and Powell's chief Asian expert, replaced by Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, a Rumsfeld ally on North Korea. Powell rejected the suggestion.

That's the galling thing. As far as anyone can tell from the press, the Powell camp has only ever said: "noone will agree to this shit, unless we are prepared give something up or at least ask nicely, and even then, probably not." To which the hard right said "ASK!? WHAT!?" And NOW they have this has-been up on a podium saying "those nabobs at state didn't get way-way-anti-war Europe to love war or get Turkey to help us bomb other muslims. It's practically treason!!" Little cheeky, no?

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Thursday, 24 April 2003 03:06 (twenty-two years ago)

It's frightening that people listen to Gingrich. He just needs to go back to reading his Tofler books to scare himself some more.

Cub, Thursday, 24 April 2003 04:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, that didn't work.

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld circulated a memorandum proposing that China and the United States try to bring down the government of Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader.

crazy crazy crazy crazy crazy crazy crazy crazy crazy crazy crazy

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Donald Rumsfeld stars in "Pearl's Girl".

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Kim Jong Il is crazy crazy crazy, you mean?

Stuart (Stuart), Thursday, 24 April 2003 19:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Saying that Kim Jong Il is crazy does not automatically mean that Donald Rumsfeld is not crazy, you know.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 April 2003 20:17 (twenty-two years ago)

there's enough crazies in that statement to spread over rummy and kim jong il

Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 April 2003 20:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Donald Rumsfeld stars in "Pearl's Girl".

Co-starring Kim Jong Il as Reverend Al Green.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 April 2003 20:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Top US State department official calls Gingrich an "idiot"

mookieproof (mookieproof), Thursday, 24 April 2003 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

four years pass...

L.H. Carter: "The important thing you have to understand about Newt Gingrich is that he is amoral... There isn't any right or wrong, there isn't any conservative or liberal. There's only what will work best for Newt Gingrich. He's probably one of the most dangerous people for the future of this country that you can possibly imagine. He's Richard Nixon, glib. It doesn't matter how much good I do the rest of my life, I can't ever outweigh the evil that I've caused by helping him be elected to Congress."

and what, Friday, 28 December 2007 16:54 (seventeen years ago)

He's Richard Nixon, glib.

Best damn four-word summary I've ever read, I think.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 28 December 2007 16:55 (seventeen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.