![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When Jeff Jacoby and I agree
Mar. 28th, 2011 11:58 pmIf you've been reading this blog for a while, you know I can't stand Jeff Jacoby, a conservative whose columns appear in the Boston Globe. He's pretty much wrong about everything and generally blind to the faults of conservatives. I was astonished to see that his column today criticized Newt Gingrich.
What was Newt's fault? On March 7 (before the US took action in Libya, Gingrich said, "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening... The idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept this administration is... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with...". Two weeks later, as the UN was voting on a no-fly zone, Newt said, "[The Obama White House] is maybe the most passive and out of touch presidency in modern American history".
After the cruise missile strikes on Libya, Newt bashed Obama for "opportunistic amateurism without planning or professionalism". On March 23, Gingrich claimed, "I would not have intervened... I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Khadafy".
Even Jeff Jacoby sees through Newt Gingrich here. Newt's got nothing. He's just against anything Obama does. Evidently the power-hungry little weasel thinks that being anti-Obama no matter will reward him more than intellectual consistency. Since Jacoby has noticed the hypocrisy and pointed it out, I think there's some hope Newt may be wrong.
What was Newt's fault? On March 7 (before the US took action in Libya, Gingrich said, "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening... The idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept this administration is... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with...". Two weeks later, as the UN was voting on a no-fly zone, Newt said, "[The Obama White House] is maybe the most passive and out of touch presidency in modern American history".
After the cruise missile strikes on Libya, Newt bashed Obama for "opportunistic amateurism without planning or professionalism". On March 23, Gingrich claimed, "I would not have intervened... I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Khadafy".
Even Jeff Jacoby sees through Newt Gingrich here. Newt's got nothing. He's just against anything Obama does. Evidently the power-hungry little weasel thinks that being anti-Obama no matter will reward him more than intellectual consistency. Since Jacoby has noticed the hypocrisy and pointed it out, I think there's some hope Newt may be wrong.
