With Newt Gingrich being given a slot on CNN’s reboot of the once popular show Crossfire, you just had to know that it wouldn’t take long before the former House Speaker and Republican presidential candidate made the news for saying something stupid.
Well, you can add Gingrich to the list of Republicans who seem to be going out of their way to try to make Obama look weak following the compromise on Syria, while praising the “strength” of Putin.
Gingrich said that Putin was playing a game of chess while Obama was playing a “very lucky game of tic-tac-toe.”
Because that makes sense, right?
After all, it was Putin who took the lead in Syria, right? Oh, wait—no, that was actually President Obama when he stunned the world a couple of weeks ago by saying he would ask Congress to approve limited military strikes. This following the numerous reports that Syria had recently used chemical weapons to kill over 1,000 Syrians. Chemical weapons that Syria, until just very recently, denied even having.
I’m sure had President Obama not made his public comments a few weeks ago, this deal would have still been agreed upon, right? If you believe that, you’re delusional.
Gingrich then goes on to insinuate that Putin made the United States stand down and agree to Russia’s terms, and by doing so has now increased Russia’s influence in the Middle East.
He claims, “Putin stepped in to maximize Russian influence in the Middle East. That is strategically a defeat for the United States.”
I guess Gingrich would rather have Obama scoff at diplomacy and opt for nothing short of a third United States war in the Middle East?
That’s essentially what he’s saying. Because we didn’t go in there and bomb Syria, we somehow came out looking weak.
So let’s see. President Obama calls for military action, forcing Russia to come up with a response, which then leads to Russia more or less forcing Syria to agree to hand over its chemical weapons to be destroyed—and somehow that’s a victory for Russia?
If President Obama hadn’t done what he did, Syria would still probably be using these weapons—and they sure as heck wouldn’t be giving them over to international authorities to be destroyed. Obama got exactly what he wanted.
But then Gingrich’s words become even more idiotic when he talks about war. “People are sick of the violence. They are sick of the Middle East. They are sick of where we are as a country right now,” Gingrich said.
So wait, which is it? Are people sick of the violence and the Middle East or should they be “ashamed” that Obama chose democracy over war?
The bottom line is, Gingrich basically gives two contradicting viewpoints. That by choosing diplomacy over war, Obama looks weak and Putin looks strong—yet people are sick of war and the Middle East, implying that war shouldn’t have been an option.
It’s just more of the same from Republicans as it relates to the issue in Syria and their pathetic attempts to somehow disagree with whatever President Obama does. If he does nothing, he should be doing something. When he calls on the United States to do something, he shouldn’t be getting involved or what he’s calling for isn’t enough. When he calls for more war, he’s being a warmonger. When he uses diplomacy to avoid war, he’s weak and “let the Russians win.”
The behavior by many of these Republicans as it relates to Syria has been so pathetic it’s almost unfathomable. I’ve never seen an entire political party essentially not know how to respond, because no matter what they did it could somehow get used against them in a primary race down the road.
Many Republicans were simultaneously trying to support and oppose war at the same time. They were trying to call for “more debate for alternative solutions” while basically hoping that no other alternative solutions would be found.
In short, as it relates to Syria, Republicans are still completely lost. They really don’t know what the heck to say or what side of the issue to stand on.
And a prime example of that is seen in these ignorant comments by Newt Gingrich.
A man who praises the Russian president for his diplomacy (while condemning our president for his), all while condemning war and further U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.
Something President Obama masterfully avoided.
So what do Republicans like Newt Gingrich support? They seem to oppose diplomacy but didn’t support military action. Oh, I know what that means. If President Obama had left Syria up to these Republicans, they would have opposed war and opposed diplomacy.
In other words, they would have done nothing.
And doing nothing is exactly what Republicans are good at.
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- John Kelly Has Disgraced Himself, this Country and Our Military - October 21, 2017
- New Disgusting Report Exposes Fox News as the ‘Harvey Weinstein’ of Cable News - October 21, 2017
- For the Second Time, Trump Accuses Family of Fallen Hero Sgt. La David Johnson of Lying - October 20, 2017