You are hereForums / Issues / International Affairs / Newt Gingrich Epic Flip Flops On Libya

Newt Gingrich Epic Flip Flops On Libya

By Misty - Posted on 23 March 2011

Had his big chance and blew it. He is about as appetizing as cold left-over plate of mashed potatoes.

Earlier this month, former Speaker of the House and current presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was hammering President Obama for not intervening in Libya. Asked, “what would you do about Libya?” Gingrich responded:

Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. Source: Think Progress

Misty... Misty... He has a perfectly LOGICAL explination... LOL

 The two statements are not a contradiction, Mr. Gingrich wrote on his Facebook page Thursday afternoon, after political bloggers began to accuse him of flip-flopping.

The former lawmaker used the occasion to suggest the problem lies with President Barack Obama.

The U.S. had a variety of nonmilitary tools to weaken Col. Moammar Gadhafi prior to Mr. Obama’s March 3 declaration that the Libyan leader should step down, Mr. Gingrich said. That is why, Mr. Gingrich writes, he told NBC this week that he would not have intervened with military force in Libya.

But once Mr. Obama said Gadhafi had to go, the nonmilitary option was no longer available, because the president had “put the prestige and authority of the United States on the line,” Mr. Gingrich wrote.

And that is why he had said on March 7, just after Mr. Obama’s statement, that the U.S. needed to get involved immediately.

Mr. Gingrich said his bottom line was this: He wishes the U.S. military hadn’t gotten involved militarily in Libya. But now that it has, “any result less than the removal of from power will be considered a defeat. For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through.”

Twitter comments:

Mitch Daniels has zero opinions about Libya. Newt Gingrich makes up for this by having two.

Newt Gingrich has met his first debate opponent of the 2012 campaign season: himself.

Gingrich changed his position on Libya because Obama changed his?

Why does this not surprise me

Newt Gingrich attempts to clarify his position on Libya (but, wow, so confusing!)

If anyone feels like testing their stomach, go to the link of Newt's Facebook page explanation and look at all of the comments kissing his ass. I don't see how any Christian Conservative can support that adulterer. It proves so much about these people because if he was a Democrat, they'd be enraged. 

From his Facebook page:

Matthew Santoro:
I'm just not one who believes you can explain away an obvious flip-flop with an excuse like this.

It doesn't take a genius to ascertain why the statements seem inconsistent: because they are.

The reason for the inconsistency is even MORE tran...
sparent: You have to disagree with Obama, always.

This is almost as bad as the time you went on Hannity to talk about how Reagan NEVER would have tried to reduce nuclear stockpiles (and implied Obama was making us less safe in doing so), even though anyone who either A. knows history, or B. was an adult in the 1980s knows that's not true.

It's OK to just be a contrarian. We get that Obama's your opponent. But stop trying to explain this away as anything other than rhetoric. You can't ret-con this into a consistent position, no matter what type of word salad you toss up.

It gets funnier (or more pathetic)

Ros-Lehtinen has backed up her demand for an explanation of the administration's policy by calling for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to testify before her committee.

Still, her public statements call into question the pledge she made in a March 18 interview with Congressional Quarterly to support the administration's Libya approach.

"Whatever the president decides, I will support what the president wants to do. I'm not going to Monday-morning-quarterback him," she said.

The only thing Ros-Lehtinen really cares about is U.S. Cuba policy. Anything else is window dressing for her.


Comment from TPM. I keep juggling back and forth with this as satire or the hard truth. It's funny one second and then thought provoking the next.

"Another consideration: she and Newt were arguing for intense American involvement at the beginning, when we would have been acting alone. Since our military is already overstretched, we would have had to depend on private contractors, and also, if successful, may have had first dibs on the Libyan oil. If you look at Ms. Ros-Lehtinen's and Newt's donors, I suspect you will find significant presence of military contracting and/or oil companies. Now that the US is going to be a minor part of this endeavor, profit possibilities for US companies are pretty much gone."


Gingrich: My Infidelities Helped Me Understand How To Impeach Clinton

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.