felusiak, Newt Gingrich tez sie myli ?

11.04.06, 16:21
www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/NEWS/604110311/1001
    • felusiak1 Re: felusiak, Newt Gingrich tez sie myli ? 11.04.06, 21:12
      Nie tyle myli się co pieזdoli farmazony.
      Jakże wygodnie jest dzisiaj mówić o błędach sprzed 3 lat.
      Nie przypominam sobie aby Newt wypowiadał sie w podobnym tonie w 2003 roku.
      To trochę jak mówienie o błedach wypełniania kuponu totolotka kiedy zna sie
      rezultat i wie się, że rano trzeba iść do pracy.
      • imagiro Re: felusiak, Newt Gingrich tez sie myli ? 12.04.06, 15:45
        dla mnie to znaczy cos zupelnie innego, wedle zasady, ze tylko idiota nie
        zmienia zdania ... wedlug ciebie trzeba wiec brnac w kazde bagno, skoro kiedys
        sie zaczelo ?
      • explicit Re: felusiak, Newt Gingrich tez sie myli ? 12.04.06, 16:26
        Coz pamiec jest zawodna - Newt nie tylko byl przeciwny tej wojnie , ale duzo
        wczesniej ostrzegal przed ciagotkami neo-cons ,...

        uklony

        Nie przypominam sobie aby Newt wypowiadał sie w podobnym tonie w 2003 roku.

        ==============================================================================

        Dissent in the Bunker
        ======================================
        By John Barry and Evan Thomas Newsweek

        Dec. 15, 2003 issue - The military has been hitting hard lately in Iraq, using
        overwhelming firepower to kill the enemy in operations with videogame names
        like Iron Hammer and Ivy Cyclone II. But behind the scenes, some military
        experts, including high-ranking officers in U.S. Special Forces (Army Green
        Berets, Navy SEALs and the like), are beginning to complain that America’s
        strategy in Iraq is wrongheaded.

        “This is what Westmoreland was doing in Vietnam,” says a top Special Forces
        commander, referring to the firepower-heavy tactics favored by the military’s
        senior commander in Vietnam, Gen. William Westmoreland, who lost sight of
        America’s essential mission in that lost war: winning the hearts and minds of
        the people.

        One center of private concerns with America’s Iraq strategy is the Defense
        Policy Board, a collection of outside experts—mostly heavyweight conservatives—
        who regularly consult with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Disquiet in
        this quarter is particularly significant, since the DPB pushed from the outset
        for the invasion of Iraq. Last week one of the more colorful and outspoken
        members of the group, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, went public with his
        worries and ideas in an interview with NEWSWEEK. He was careful to say that he
        does not speak about the board’s deliberations “on or off the record,” but he
        proceeded to hold forth in his insightful, if mildly bombastic, way about the
        shortcomings of administration policy in Iraq.

        Sitting in his office in downtown Washington, Gingrich searched on his computer
        for the Web site of the Coalition Provisional Authority, set up in Baghdad to
        oversee the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq. “I’m told over there
        that CPA stands for ‘Can’t Produce Anything’,” says Gingrich. “Home page of the
        New Iraq,” he quotes. Then: “The opening quote is, of course, by [CPA chief
        Paul] Bremer. Next quote is by Bush. Next quote is by U.S. Ambassador Steve
        Mann.” He scrolls down. “Now this is a big breakthrough. They do have the new
        Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. On the front page. That is a breakthrough,” he
        repeats, adding, sotto voce, “I have been beating the crap out of them for two
        weeks on this.” His basic point: where are the Iraqi faces in the New
        Iraq? “Americans can’t win in Iraq,” he says. “Only Iraqis can win in Iraq.”

        Gingrich argues that the administration has been putting far too much emphasis
        on a military solution and slighting the political element. “The real key here
        is not how many enemy do I kill. The real key is how many allies do I grow,” he
        says. “And that is a very important metric that they just don’t get.” He
        contends that the civilian-run CPA is fairly isolated and powerless, hunkered
        down inside its bunker in Baghdad. The military has the money and the daily
        contact with the locals. But it’s using the same tactics in a guerrilla
        struggle that led to defeat in Vietnam.

        “The Army’s reaction to Vietnam was not to think about it,” he says. Rather
        than absorb the lessons of counterinsurgency, Gingrich says, the Army
        adopted “a deliberate strategy of amnesia because people didn’t want to ever do
        it again.” The Army rebuilt a superb fighting force for waging a conventional
        war. “I am very proud of what [Operation Iraqi Freedom commander Gen.] Tommy
        Franks did—up to the moment of deciding how to transfer power to the Iraqis.
        Then,” said Gingrich, “we go off a cliff.”

        In essence, the Americans never did transfer power. They disbanded the Iraqi
        Army and the government, realized that was a mistake, and quickly tried to
        cobble together an Iraqi police force and military. But the Iraqis in uniform
        today are seen by too many Iraqi citizens as American collaborators. Gingrich
        faults the Americans for not quickly establishing some sort of Iraqi
        government, however imperfect. “The idea that we are going to have a corruption-
        free, pristine, League of Women Voters government in Iraq on Tuesday is beyond
        naivete,” he scoffs. “It is a self-destructive fantasy.” (The White House
        insists that it is paying close attention to local politics and has speeded up
        the timetable to turn over power to the Iraqis.)

        The rumor mill in the Pentagon suggests that Bush’s “exit strategy” is to get
        American troops coming home in waves by next November’s election. Obliquely,
        Gingrich indicates that would be a huge mistake. The guerrillas cannot be
        allowed to believe that they only have to outlast the Americans to win. “The
        only exit strategy is victory,” Gingrich says. But not by brute American
        force. “We are not the enforcers. We are the reinforcers,” says Gingrich. “The
        distinction between these two words is central to the next year in Iraq.”
        Gingrich’s voice rang with his customary certainty. Hard to know if Rumsfeld
        and Bush are listening.



        • felusiak1 Dziennikarka jest wtórna analfabetką 12.04.06, 20:04
          Newt był za i nie ostrzegał przed zadnymi ciągotkami.
          Okazuje się, że Monica Labelle napisała w artykule zatytułowanym: "Gingrich at
          USD: Scale back to small force in Iraq" stek bzdur.
          Oto treść wypotu Moniki:
          "Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and
          faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should
          pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there"

          A tu mamy co Gingrich powiedział, a co Monika pokrętnie zinterpretowała:
          "The United States needs to train the Iraqis as rapidly as possible and "pull
          back" from the cities to bases and air fields and serve as reinforcers as
          opposed to occupiers".






          www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2921
          • gspnstr Re: Dziennikarka jest wtórna analfabetką 12.04.06, 20:18
            > A tu mamy co Gingrich powiedział, a co Monika pokrętnie zinterpretowała:
            > "The United States needs to train the Iraqis as rapidly as possible and "pull
            > back" from the cities to bases and air fields and serve as reinforcers as
            > opposed to occupiers".

            Cokolwiek sie zagalopowales w krytyce dziennikarki. Zinterpretowala to nie tyle
            pokretnie, ile mozna by powiedziec, ze wyciagnela logiczny wniosek. Bo jesli
            odda sie Irakijczykom miasta w opieke, wycofa do baz i ograniczy do roli
            'reinforcera', to po jaka cholere bedzie wtedy potrzeba trzymac tam tyle wojska
            ile jest teraz?

            Wiec moze to ty sie troche zapedziles w krytyce odmiennych pogladow?
          • explicit Re: Dziennikarka jest wtórna analfabetką 12.04.06, 22:03
            Ostrzegal w '88 , po liscie neo-cons do Clinton'a w ktorym naciskali ze czas
            sie zajac Saddam'em . Na net znajdziesz memo , poszukaj ,...
            ==============================================================================
            Newt był za i nie ostrzegał przed zadnymi ciągotkami.


            Nie pamietasz co pisales w poprzednim poscie - Cytuje na dole i podalem ci link
            ze sie wypowiadal i dosc zdecydowanie ,...
            ==============================================================================
            Nie przypominam sobie aby Newt wypowiadał sie w podobnym tonie w 2003 roku.


            Sens ten sam , podzielony na czworo , traci - Stary trick w debacie , znany juz
            w starozytnej Grecji ,...
            ==============================================================================
            Oto treść wypotu Moniki: "Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the
            House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that
            the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there"

            A tu mamy co Gingrich powiedział, a co Monika pokrętnie zinterpretowała:
            "The United States needs to train the Iraqis as rapidly as possible and "pull
            back" from the cities to bases and air fields and serve as reinforcers as
            opposed to occupiers".

            uklony



            • felusiak1 Okropna sieczka 13.04.06, 02:22
              Tak w '88 Newt ostrzegał Clintona wskazując na coś co nie istniało.
              A obok stał James Baker i szeptał Reaganowi do ucha.
              Juz mnie nie zaczepiaj.
              Zajmij sie pisaniem odezw do ludu Izraela czy jak to tam nazywasz.
              Oni z checią tę sieczkę czytają.
              PS. Tak naciskali w liście, że Clinton złamał sie i zrobił jak chcieli.
              Pewnie sa w zmowie z illuminati i z masonami na 120 Broadway.
              • explicit Re: Okropna sieczka 13.04.06, 10:16
                '98 , zwykle przejezyczenie , normalny czlowiek by sie domyslil , dla zakutego
                lba pretekst zeby sie przyczepic ,...
                ==============================================================================
                Tak w '88 Newt ostrzegał Clintona wskazując na coś co nie istniało.


                Podziwiam czujnosc :) Wyklikales mi ten post , przyznaj sie ,...
                ==============================================================================
                Zajmij sie pisaniem odezw do ludu Izraela czy jak to tam nazywasz.

                uklony

    • felusiak1 Gingrich zaprzecza jakoby był za wycoofaniem 13.04.06, 04:04
      W programie Hannity and Colmes Gingrich zaprzeczyl jakoby nawoływał do wycofania
      z Iraku i nie mógł nadziwić sie jak dziennikarka Monika doszla do podobnej
      konkluzji.
      • explicit Re: Gingrich zaprzecza jakoby był za wycoofaniem 13.04.06, 15:01
        Make up your mind felusiak , albo pie#doli farmazony albo zaprzecza ,...

        uklony

        "Nie tyle myli się co pieזdoli farmazony".

        ==============================================================================

        W programie Hannity and Colmes Gingrich zaprzeczyl jakoby nawoływał do wycofania
        z Iraku i nie mógł nadziwić sie jak dziennikarka Monika doszla do podobnej
        konkluzji.

        • felusiak1 Re: Gingrich zaprzecza jakoby był za wycoofaniem 13.04.06, 15:11
          sprawozdanie "dziennikarki" było fałszywe co stwierdził Gingrich.
          A zatem pie_doliby gdyby mówił jak twierdzi "dziennikarka" Monika ale ponieważ
          nie mówił to znaczy, że nie pie_rdoli.
          • explicit Re: Gingrich zaprzecza jakoby był za wycoofaniem 13.04.06, 17:35
            No to pospieszyles siem troche z tym pie#doleniem ,...

            A co na to Hannity and Colmes i FoxNews ???

            uklony

            ==============================================================================

            A zatem pie_doliby gdyby mówił jak twierdzi "dziennikarka" Monika ale ponieważ
            nie mówił to znaczy, że nie pie_rdoli.
    • wujcio44 Re: felusiak, Newt Gingrich tez sie myli ? 13.04.06, 15:51
      Czy ten Gingrich to jakiś działacz lewicowy? Nie może być inaczej, skoro jest
      nieomylny.
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja