Even a super savvy politico like Newt Gingrich can’t always be right. On the other hand, an experienced, former Speaker of the House of Congress, like Gingrich, can’t always be wrong. But name me anyone on the Washington political scene who can do a Houdini and be both right and wrong at the same time?  And get away with it?

That’s easy. The same guy, Newt Gingrich.

From a transcript of a section of a his speech given in New Hampshire, Gingrich lays out in his bellicose style his concern with the “genuine” danger of terrorism, and to suggest forcefully and with great conviction what we in America ought to do about it. 

“I want to suggest to you,” Gingrich said, “that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervisors that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of (terrorist) threat.”

Right you are, Newt.

“This is a serious long term war,” Gingrich reminds us, “and it will inevitably lead us to want to know and what is said in every suspect place in the country, and that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous.”

Right again, Newt. It sounds drastic but we have to save the country.

“Before we lose a city,” Gingrich warns us, “or if we are truly stupid, after we lose one we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity; to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us, and stop them.”

Right on, once more, Newt.

“This is a serious problem.” avers Gingrich. “that will lead to a serious debate about the First Amendment. But I think that losing an American city to a nuclear weapon is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rule of engagement.”

Good thinking, Newt, right once more.

“Further,” Gingrich expounds, “we should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism which makes it clear that those who fight outside the law are subject to a different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”

Right as rain, Newt. That’s why it’s hard to understand why this section of your speech in New Hampshire is causing quite a “firestorm.” Is it possible that everything you said, which sounded right, was wrong, and people knew it?

Everything you said, Mr. Gingrich, was right in essence but wrong in real terms. For three reasons:  it was too late because it was after the fact; it was long on platitudes and rhetoric but short on any solutions; and it had all the earmarks of locking the cage after the bird gets out---in other words, too little, too late.

The best solution to combat terrorism is elementary. Why? Because we forgot (or ignored) what our Founding Fathers taught us: first and foremost, it starts right here at home, which this President doesn’t seem to give a damn about. He would rather combat it on foreign shores and to hell with the homeland; let it shift for itself.

What we should do immediately—which is critical because, for an unknown reason, Bush has opted for side-stepping it---is to, first, fortify ourselves. We should do this in a number of ways, which have been fluffed off as of now.

One, we should put a hiatus on all “questionable” immigration to the United States until further notice. Since the government seems to have no idea how many aliens, legal or illegal, come into this country at any given time, temporarily stemming the flow of immigrants is of prime importance.

Two, we should make a national commitment to physically seal off our Southwest border, regardless of what methods it takes.  If we are convinced that fencing works, we should allocate the necessary funds and put fencing up wherever it is needed and will be most effective. And do it now!

Three, we should use the National Guard for what it was commissioned to do: guarding our nation by protecting our shores; not backing up our Army now fighting on foreign shores. In short, the National Guard should “stand guard” wherever our borders are in danger of being breached, and act accordingly.

Four, we should halt the planning (and further construction) of the super highway that would run through our midsection, tying the U.S. to Mexico and Canada. Bush’s presumed rationale for this 3-nation highway is to facilitate commerce between countries.  It would, unfortunately, also be an ideal transit facility for “undesirables” to enter the United States, have free reign to our towns and cities, and access to our most “sensitive” areas and facilities. With no one watching.

Five, we should begin a systematic drawdown of all our troops in places they don’t belong and use them to defend our shores. American troops are stationed in some 130 countries around the world. Japan, German and Italy were defeated in the 1940’s---why do we have many thousands of soldiers still over there? Protecting our embassies is a legitimate reason; “occupying” half the world is not.

Six, we should renounce our stupidity in interfering in other countries’ business by putting an immediate stop to it. Unbelievably, we began this hegemonic insanity only 25 years after our Founders warned us about this dangerous activity. In the Tripolitan War of 1805, General William Eaton fought the Muslims across the desert, which was the first land engagement outside the American continent. And it’s continued until today. Interfering in foreign entanglements was wrong then, and it’s been wrong ever since.

Seven, we should seriously challenge President Bush’s motives in bringing America into the New World Order. If we determine that this will threaten America’s sovereignty, diminish our freedoms, negate our Constitution, and weaken our Bill of Rights, we should demand that Congress “force” the President to belay his global plans and concentrate on preserving and protecting America’s principles, values and interests above all else, or resign the presidency.

Eight, we should insist that Bush begin these changes in American foreign policy first, and at once. If domestic policies can be improved at the same time, fine. If not, foreign policy should have the priority. There’s an indisputable reason for this; If this nation goes down because of a disastrous foreign policy, it will be too late to worry about the domestic condition of America. 

Nobody can convince me that Newt Gingrich---and the Bush administration-- doesn’t already know this.

James T. Moore
http://jamestmoore.us/