Newt Gingrich: The Only Real Option is to Whine.

[McCamy Taylor]

We all remember Newt. He was a West Georgia State College teacher who noticed that it was time for Congress to go through one of its perdiodic shifts in party control. So, he pretended that he was orchestrating what was going to happen anyway, and everyone was fooled into thinking that he was some kind of savy politician. Would a savy politician engineer the federal government shutdown of 1996? Would he get caught in a book deal like the one used to oust Speaker Jim Wright? Would he almost get ousted in an internal GOP coup? Would he ignore the polls and lead the massively unpopular impeachment of Clinton that lead his party to lose seats in 1998, the election which I fondly dubbed beforehand "The GOP Takes Aim at Both Feet"? Would he commit adultery, a sex scandal in a party that smears with sex?

Like something that crawls under a rock, Newt refuses to die. He is trying to position himself for something. I am not sure what. I think maybe he wants to be W.'s sucessor. Here he tries to make a case for war with Iran. If you take away the words with more than two syllables, it sounds like something the Chimp might come up with:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001311.html?sub=AR

What is wrong with Newt's latest essay? The main problem is it only works if you have never heard of Pakistan, which is a bit of a stretch for the usual reader of the Washington Post. I guess Newt got used to teaching a lower level of students back at in west Georgia.

Newt gloats about '"an emerging third world war" -- a long-running conflict whose latest manifestation was brought home to Americans yesterday with the disclosure in London of yet another ghastly terrorist plot -- this one intended to destroy a number of airliners en route to America.'

What does the Liquid Terrorist threat in Great Britain have to do with a diatribe against Iran? The Liquid Terrorists are citizens of Great Britain, so if any country contributed to their terrorist upbringing it is England or maybe their country of origin, Pakistan---which already has nuclear weapons, has had them for some time, and (surprise, surprise) has not attempted to nuke Israel out of existence with them.

Pakistan is the thorn in the side of any argument about the dangers of nuclear arms in the hands of an islamic country. Pakistan is the home country of many terrorists. If we are to believe Newt and people like him, muslims have a gene which forces them to lob projectiles at Jews. Yet, Pakistan has never aimed a nuclear weapon at the state of Israel, something anyone reading Newt's essay in the WaPo knows.

How exactly is Iran different from Pakistan? Note that Newt is wily enough never to actually say the P word. His whole argument would fall apart if he did. However, it is there, behind every reference to Iran. When he complains that Iran finances Hezbollah which attacks Israel, the WaPo reader remembers that Pakistan finances the rebels who attack our democratic allies in India. Why is Pakistan our ally and Iran our enemy? Newt's essay might have more force if he actually addressed this question. No fair saying that the difference is because W. calls Pakistan our ally and Iran our enemy. That kind of answer might satisfy the viewers at Fox News, but the readers of the WaPo will feel insulted. Fox News viewers might let him get away with calling Iran "Nazis", too. People who read their news instead of getting it handed to them on a 26 inch screen know that when the word "Nazi" is injected into a discussion it usually means that one side has run out of arguments.

The other side says "containing the violence must be Washington's first priority." Newt tells us that this is the wrong goal. I will give him points for not using the word "peace" as in "peace is the wrong goal". But then he spoils it all by closing with another mention of the Liquid Terrorists and their plan to blow up airplanes. If these British-Pakistanis are "our enemies" as he claims, then why is he so gung ho on starting a war with Iran?

Oh, I almost forgot to mention the gratuitous inclusion of Hugo Chavez, who stands charged with visiting Iran. Funny that a major member of OPEC would visit another country that is also a major member of OPEC. Do you think that these oil giants might have some common economic interests? When W. visits with leaders of China, I always assume that they are talking business and not Communist Party ideology.

[shain from kane]

1. He's also an historical revisionist who fantasized that the South won

at Gettysburg.