On 9/11, I Nominate Newt Gingrich for Dogcatcher

I forgot why I didn't like Newt Gingrich. Well, all he had to do is open his mouth. Now I remember.


Mr. Gingrich spoke to the American Enterprise Institute today. Before his speech, he apparently didn't read up on American foreign policy and how its implementation over the past half century has pissed off nearly everyone else in the world. But, you see, it's all radical Islam's fault, according to Newt. Because of the Radical Islamic bogeyman, we must create even greater restrictions on your freedom. According to cnsnews.com:

"America needs a more realistic and more powerful solution to the challenges of our enemies," said Gingrich. "Beyond the Petraeus Report, we need a report on the larger war with the irreconcilable wing of Islam."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized supporters and opponents of the Iraq progress report for not seeing the bigger picture.Gingrich called for "a debate about a vision of victory for the larger war in which we are engaged and the strategies needed to achieve that vision. We need a debate about the genuine risks to America of losing cities to nuclear attack or losing millions of Americans to engineered biological attacks."

So now our enemy is not just Iraq. It's not even just al Qaeda. According to Newt Gingrich, our enemy is anyone who doesn't agree with the predestination of events declared by the American establishment. I nominate Newt Gingrich for dogcatcher.

America is despised by nearly 90% of Indonesians for being primarily responsible for their economic crisis in 1997. America is despised by most of the Islamic world because what is good for us (free elections) is something that we haven't really allowed them to do (unless Iraq counts) for the last 60 years. Many people in South America hate our guts. Many people in Europe think we got what we deserve on September 11, 2001. After all, how many military bases does Italy, Indonesia, or Iraq have on our soil?

So on this 9/11, six years after the fact, I suggest that we resolve to get to the root of the problem. Let's get the heck out of other peoples' business. Let's stop playing their leaders against each other, and placing sanctions on them that only hurt the civilian populace, and propping up the erstwhile strongman dictator as a political time bomb waiting to crap all over us as well as fodder for the next Tom Clancy novel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez are dime-store dictators, but the actions of the United States are primarily responsible for the fact that loons like this are now taken seriously.

I agree with Congressman Ron Paul. We shouldn't be forcing everyone everywhere to accept American democracy. We should set an example such that everyone around the world would clamor for what we have of their own volition. But what we have now, complete with its multinational bankers, politicians, and agents provocateur, is no democracy to emulate. Fewer and fewer people want it. But Newt seems to think we have to force them to have it and to like it.

Newt Gingrich's authoritarian view says we're not into enough peoples' business. According to him, because now supposedly anyone can be the enemy, we must compel everyone, including hapless Americans, to conform to the ideal that the American establishment has decreed.

This is a recipe for disaster.

Newt is fully aware of the shipwreck that has been American foreign policy since about 1950. Come to think of it, I don't think Newt would even make a good dogcatcher.

Comments

  1. I would second the nomination, but having just become the proud parent of a new puppy, I'm not sure if I want someone with that narrow of a mind telling me what I can allow my puppy to do.

    For a country that was founded on the principles of freedom, we've made a very definite about face on how we interact with other nations. While I don't condone radical Islam, you have to wonder if 9/11 would have happened if we hadn't been meddling in the middle east, or even if we had been taking care of our borders. My suspicion is probably not.

    What we need is a return to the principles that made this country great when it was in it's infancy. We need politicians who believe is a government that exists only for the good of the people and not to ensure it's own existence.

    I can think of only 1 man capable, and if Immigration would hurry up with my Citizenship application, he'll be getting 100% of my support and my vote for 2008.

    You have to admire a man like congressman Paul who can live amongst the scum in Washington and yet still maintain his integrity. Although from what I read, he spends most of his time listening to his constituents and ensuring he does the right thing... Now there's a novel concept!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your comments. I agree. It's interesting to see how other countries see Americans as very audacious. I didn't realize until recently how much negativity our US military bases around the world have on the local populaces.

    P.S. I'm voting for the same guy as you for president!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's a thought: let's mkae Newt president... of IRAQ! That solves several issues all at once... Go Newt- an equal opportunity offender!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like your blog, but I reject your argument that radical Islam would leave everyone alone if America became isolationist. Radical Islam is not just directed at America; it's directed at Africa, Asia, and Europe as well. Their goal is not to be left alone; it's global caliphate. Jihadis have a list of grievances that's a mile long; the Crusades, Muhammed cartoons, global warming (according to Osama's new video), Israel, Western culture, etc., etc. These grievances are merely excuses. To ignore this fact, as much of Europe is doing now, is very dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Craig,

    Thanks for your comment. You do raise a good point. I actually don't think radical Islam would leave us alone if we isolated ourselves, although I probably didn't do a very good job of explaining that in this article. (Please see here and here on my Serving Iraq blog for more details on this point of view in which I agree with you.) Two of my favorite books are from Walid Phares, who makes very strong points that the Islamist variety of Muslim will never be placated.

    What I'm trying to illustrate in this post is that there are a plethora of non-Radical Muslims (and Japanese and Nicaraguans and Koreans) that are simply fed up with the overweeningness of American foreign policy. If America would respect other nations as we should, the vast majority of Muslims would have no problem with America.

    However, you are correct. There would remain the residual scum that is hell-bent on re-establishing the Islamist Caliphate. I guess I am sort of advocating Counter-Insurgency tactics on a global scale--to clearly identify the enemy and treat everyone else as the friends they deserve to be.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

How LDS Censorship May Have Led to Less LDS Faithfulness: The Ronald E Poelman Conference Talk of 1984

Changing the Narrative of the LDS Church: 35 Years Later

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs