Newton Leroy McPherson Gingrich has always stood in stark repudiation of every action he has ever taken. He had been in the House of Representatives for fifteen years when he wrote the "Contract
The man who served his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital for cancer surgery is now trumpeting the importance of "traditional marriage"; the man who was just quoted as saying "If you don't start with values, the rest of it doesn't matter," was the first Speaker of the House ever disciplined for ethics violations (for which he was fined $300,000).
But more recently, on February 22, he went on Fox & Friends to say:
I wish the administration — the Obama administration was as enthusiastic about democracy in ... as it was in Egypt, which was our ally.When asked by Greta van Susteren on March 7, “what would you do about Libya?” he said:
Qadhafi’s been our enemy for years. This is an opportunity to replace that dictatorship, and I think the United States ought to be firmly on the side of the Libyan people in replacing this administration.“
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening... We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. 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. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.But when Obama did exactly that, on March 23, Newt went on the Today Show to say:
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.So, not a complete reversal. He still wouldn’t have used the Europeans.
He’s offered several explanations for this, and they all contradict each other, too. On Twitter, for example:
So maybe he would use the Europeans, after all.
And then he went on Facebook to explain:
On March 3rd, President Obama said publicly that “it’s time for Gadaffi to go.”So, no Europeans again, but now no Americans either. And now the president shouldn’t have opposed Qaddaffi.
Prior to this statement, there were options to be indirect and subtle to achieve this result without United States military forces. I made this point on The Today Show this morning, saying “I would not have intervened…there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi…I would not have used American and European forces.”
The president, however, took those options off the table with his public statement.
At first, I thought that it was possible that there were no contradiction: Newt has always had one primary, overriding concern in all this. He is firmly opposed to whatever Obama does.
But now, it turns out that this is some kind of mental aberration in Gingrich’s brain: he has to contradict himself on every subject, and those contradictions are coming closer and closer together. On Sunday, this twice-divorced Catholic went to an evangelical Protestant church to explain that:
"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."He didn’t bother to explain where we would find these radical atheist Islamists, but I’m sure it made sense to him at the time.
Newtie needs a doctor before it’s too late. Before he accidentally says that he's happy to be alive, and his brain simply shuts down in stolid opposition to this idea.