Newt Gingrich Flip Flops on Iraq

Newt Gingrich Flip Flops on Iraq

Newt and the flip flopping Republicans are dancing as fast as they can. They want out of Iraq, so they're following Democrats who actually have a plan.

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,
just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.

“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy
that country after June of 2003,” Gingrich said during a question-and-answer
session at the school. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize
it.”

Gingrich
at USD: Pull out of Iraq (via Think Progress)

Everyone is deserting our Leaker in Chief's Iraq plan. Newt is
just the latest. Think
Progress puts it together. Matt
Stoller gets it just right. But there's more to the story.

Republicans are now running as fast as they can away from George
W. Bush. Flip flopping on Iraq because it's now become a civil war. But we need
to remember what the Republicans like Newt said a long time ago.

And instead of applauding this deliberate
effort to minimize American casualties and to strengthen the Iraqis, we have
some of our friends here at home who want it both ways. They want to complain
that we're not winning fast enough, and they want to complain if we take any
casualties. You can't have it both ways. [Fox, Hannity & Colmes,
9/27/04]

Newt criticized Democrats in 2004, but now he's parroting Jack
Murtha, with a little John Kerry on the side.

He's also paving the way for what the president intends. Newt's
murmur is going to be a ripple that begins the new Republican mantra on Iraq, made especially
for an election year.

Republicans aren't leaders. They don't find solutions. They get
us into messes and can't get out.

But “pull back” is a lot different from withdrawing
from Iraq. Look closely and see the long-term
bases we've already constructing. I've written about it before. In fact,
I talked about it in my Washington Journal appearance, but Rick Moran took issue
with my statements, saying there was no evidence we were going to have “permanent”
bases like what we have in Oman.

It's semantics. You've got to watch and listen to exactly what
Republicans say. “Permanent” bases versus “long-term” bases
is the issue, but we're staying in Iraq, according to a plan put in place a
long time ago.

Like Joe Biden said this past weekend on “Real Time”
with Bill Maher, we've already drawn down 30,000 troops. But what was the impetus
for the draw down? Iraq continues to get worse. The drawn down is not attached to any gain
by the Iraqis. Instead, it's attached to an election year gradual withdrawal
that will get the U.S. military out of the cities, with smaller bases closing,
while large long-term bases remain and so will we.

Don't be fooled. The plan is what Democrats started pushing for
last October,
which Murtha and Feingold took up, with Kerry
being the latest to present a plan for strategic withdrawal, which has been
the Democrats idea from the start.

Once again, Republicans are too weak to lead, find solutions and make corections when needed. They have to follow Democrats who take the heat for stepping forward, because Republicans don't have the ideas or the spine to find solutions.

Now about the long-term bases, will our Leaker in Chief leak the truth about
them?