|
Gingrich joins call for Iraq pullback
TOP Republican Newt Gingrich says the US should pull most of its forces out of Iraq and calls the occupation a "big mistake". Mr Gingrich, who was Republican speaker of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, and still commands national attention, told students at the University of South Dakota this week that the US should simply have a small reactive force stationed in Iraq. "It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Mr Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the university reported in South Dakotan newspaper the Argus Leader. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognise it." While public opposition from Democrats to the war is now common, Mr Gingrich is just one of a number of Republicans and retired senior military officers expressing serious reservations about the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. There are now regular calls for the resignation of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the latest coming this week from retired Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, who until 2002 served as one of the country's top military operations officers. He called on President George W.Bush to replace Mr Rumsfeld and noted that the Iraq invasion "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results". This prompted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, to offer a spirited defence of Mr Rumsfeld at a joint press conference at the Pentagon yesterday. "As far as Pete Pace is concerned, this country is exceptionally well served by the man standing on my left," General Pace said. "Nobody, nobody, works harder than he does to take care of the PFCs (private first class) and lance corporals and lieutenants and the captains. "He does his homework. He works weekends, he works nights. People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld."
COLMES: And Mr. Speaker, here's what you said yesterday in your speech. You said: "It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003." You said this to, according to the Argue Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota: "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it." Have you had a change in thinking? GINGRICH: No, if you go to www.Newt.org and look at the entire text, or if you go to the University of South Dakota Web site and look at it, what I said was two different things, Alan. I said, first of all, that in June of 203, Ambassador Bremer made a huge mistake by failing to try to develop an Iraqi interim government at that time and continue the process of liberating the country. And I have said that as early as December of 2003, long before the presidential election. I think that this was a mistake. We were much better off in Afghanistan, where we developed a government with President Karzai, and we had Afghans from day one helping run their own country. I also said something which I think secretary Rumsfeld and General Abizaid and General Casey have all said, and that is that as rapidly as we can train Iraqi police and soldiers, that we should pull out of the cities and pull back to bases that allow the Iraqis to do the policing every day and allow us to be reinforcers rather than enforcers. But I think that's actually the administration plan and is not a contradiction with their position. COLMES: You said on "Hannity & Colmes," if we pull back, you referred to it as cut and running. We can't do that. It would be showing the world we are afraid and have no courage. Yesterday you said we have to pull back; we have to recognize it. Very much like what John Kerry said last week. He came up with certain dates but he actually came up with a plan about pulling back, just like you suggested. GINGRICH: Wait. But no, if you read what I actually said, Alan, I said we may have well have troops there for a very, very long time because of the direct threat from Iran and the danger of Iranians developing nuclear weapons and the kind of things that Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, has been saying about defeating the U.S. and destroying Israel. So I actually am the opposite of John Kerry. All I want to do is exactly what General Abizaid is doing, which is maximize the rate of training of Iraqi forces and minimize the direct exposure of Americans in trying to police the country. I am not for any precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and I think Senator Kerry was advocating a policy of absolute defeat when he suggested he would set a date, which I think he said could be as early as May. SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Good to see you in New Hampshire, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to get to that in just a second. Don't think you're getting off the hook. I actually spent the time, and I actually listened to the speech. It's almost reckless to the extent that which has been reported and taken out of context, your remarks. Because they were a much broader way delivered. And you're talking from a very philosophical, historical standpoint. And then you went on to support the current plan and the way it's going and everything else, which is a stark difference. It was only reported negatively in one place. There are a bunch of other media there. They did not report it the same way there, because they actually listened to the whole speech. GINGRICH: Well, I think actually the one headline writer, unfortunately, for that one newspaper, just was wrong in how he interpreted the report. That, however, it's interesting to note, was the thing that got picked up by other newspapers that apparently didn't check the speech itself even though in the age of the Internet you can. Posted by: Oztralian 2006-04-13 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=148263 |