Newt Gingrich gives the perfect example of what happens when you’re reflexively anti-Obama.
Earlier this month, former Speaker of the House and current presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was hammering President Obama for not intervening in Libya. Asked, “what would you do about Libya?” Gingrich responded:
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.
On yesterday’s Today Show, he had a new position.
GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. … The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.
Newt Gingrich has a really good shot at becoming the GOP presidential nominee. He benefits from a reputation as a supposed conservative intellectual and 90s nostalgia, despite being completely ridiculous. That says a lot about the weakness of the GOP field.
Newt keeps trying to clarify but his position is about as clear as mud.