July 16, 2006

World War III and the November Elections

This from The Seattle Times,

Gingrich said in an interview Saturday that Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city," Gingrich said.

Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly and to the administration from his seat on the Defense Policy Board about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.

But Newt Gingrich is talking election politics not world politics.

There is a political element to his talk of World War III. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is, "OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republicans facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.

Well, I wouldn't want to run on the President's record either. In fact, the President's record on the wars we now have is clearly abysmal. Why would Gingrich think that declaring World War III would keep Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The short answer, "fear." The long answer, "fear." If you can't run on the record, run on fear. Remember his words from the first part of the article I quoted above, "We're not going to lose a city." There is a clear double message in these words, losing a city to the Democrats is the same as losing a city to the terrorists.

An irrelevant after thought: As best as I can remember, it was a liberal Democrat who lead us the last time we had a world war. But that was a real world war and not a make believe world war. Yeah, Yeah, I know that terrorism represents a worldwide phenomenon and that there are really bad guys running Iran and North Korea. My concern is that we bring greater competence and less rhetoric to the problems facing the world and at this point in our history, the Republicans have clearly shown that they are long on rhetoric and short on competence. Will the Democrats be better? I'm not sure. It's hard to believe they could do worse. But we do need to do something different and World War III rhetoric is not the answer.

Via Raw Story

Posted by DuaneSmith at July 16, 2006 03:53 PM | Read more on Current Events |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Post a comment

Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.


Email Address:


Remember Me?


The following HTML tags are allowed in comments:

and no others.