By I think former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich must have saw the recent results from this Rasmussen Poll and has jumped on the attack North Korea bandwagon:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Sunday criticized U.S. President Barack Obama‘s foreign policy, saying his stance on nuclear weapons is unrealistic.
In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” the Georgia Republican said the White House ought to take decisive action against North Korea, which has defied international pressures and launched a long-range rocket Sunday.
He said for years officials have all but begged North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, but no administration has taken decisive action against Pyongyang.
“And one morning, just like 9/11, there’s going to be a disaster, and people are going to look around and say, ‘Gosh, why didn’t anyone think of that?’ Well, I’m telling you the time to think about it’s before the disaster, not afterward,” Gingrich said.
He said Obama should have ordered pre-emptive action to prevent North Korea from making its launch.
“He has some wonderful fantasy idea that we’re going to have a great meeting next year,” Gingrich said, referring to his desire to resume talks with the communist nation. “I just think it’s very dangerous to have a fantasy foreign policy.” [UPI]
You can watch the complete video of the exchange with Speaker Gingrich on Fox News Sunday below:
Gingrich makes some good points in the interview in regards to useless UN resolutions, but as I have stated before attacking North Korea is not a good idea for a variety of reasons. Making such a recommendation clearly shows how Gingrich either does not follow North Korea closely or just sees a good chance to take a populist stance to differentiate himself from President Obama. Gingrich claims President Obama has a “fantasy foreign policy”, but to think you can attack North Korea without them responding is just as equally a “fantasy foreign policy”.
If Speaker Gingrich is looking for some ideas on how to respond to North Korea’s brinkmanship he would do well to read the recommendations of Joshua Stanton who has laid out the best response I have seen yet to North Korea’s recent actions:
Designate the North Korean government to be an “entity of special concern” for money laundering, under Section 311 of the PATRIOT Act.
- Expand the use of Executive Order 13,382, a tool that the President could use to sanction and freeze the assets of persons or companies that aid WMD proliferation. Ideally, a more aggressive interpretation of 13,382 would also reach companies, including banks, that provide funds used for North Korea’s WMD programs.
- Welcome South Korea’s offer to join the Proliferation Security Initiative, and expand the use of the PSI to intercept North Korean shipments in violation of U.N. resolutions.
- Restore North Korea to the list of state sponsors of terrorism, from which it was stricken as a reward for a series of broken promises to disarm.
There is much more so make sure you read his full list, which does not dwell into “fantasy foreign policy” ideas such as bombing North Korea or that UN resolutions will change the regime’s behavior.
2:21 am on April 6th, 2009 1
Why did Newt Gingrich "fade" away in the highlight of his career as a politician.
Toilet paper is more useful than this guys opinion. Its more useful than mine, I know…
4:25 am on April 6th, 2009 2
Blowhard. Mr. Gingrich needs to go away. However smart or intelligent he is, he suffers from a shortage of personal ethics that completely discredits whatever public standing he hopes to maintain. He ran the Clinton impeachment bandstand while keeping an extramarital affair of his own. If he wants to talk about attacking North Korea, he should go home and continue writing his alternate-history sci-fi novels.
4:31 am on April 6th, 2009 3
I have asked myself the same questions as to why did he leave. I've read the given reasons, but none seem to add up to leaving.
Reguardless his take as to what would be approprate is very good and should be looked into. I do not believe military intervention is very smart tho.
On the other hand Obama could sent Madeline Albrite to NK and not let her return until Kim gives in.
4:37 am on April 6th, 2009 4
LOL, "personal ethics", if we did away with everyone in congress with "personal ethics " issues, who would be left to run the country?
"he led the 'Clinton" impeachment bandstand" ROTFL, wow, thats a 'low blow' isn't it?
5:51 am on April 6th, 2009 5
Sometimes you have to go to war. The only issue here should be if now is the time or to wait longer, when, presumably, North Korea will be weaker.
While NK can launch an attack on civilian centers of South Korea, any anti-Americanism will be drown out by the impact of civilian and SK military casualties.
The end result of course will be a NK collapse, the only question being how long it will take.
Without Red Chinese troops, the NK Army will collapse, sonner or later, just as it did during the Korean War after the Inchon landings.
6:09 am on April 6th, 2009 6
It would be immoral to attack a country that is not a direct threat to the US or has not attacked another country we are helping defend. Iraq is a prime example.
And yes, the world would be in an uproar if we were to do so. So would I.
If and when NK does attack South Korea, then would be the time for action. Not before.
In the interum, lets have Hillory go to visit NK and come back and tell us she's enterered into a new treaty with the NKs that will eliminate nukes for sure this time. Only we just need to give the NKs some aide first
9:19 am on April 6th, 2009 7
The KN's are starving to death, they are virtually imprisoned in their own country, and they have no hope. How is anything Newt Gingrich proposes going to make it worse for them?
9:37 am on April 6th, 2009 8
Kim Il Jong is not interested in the North Korean peoples welfare, so anything done would have to affect the ruling elite. That means foriegn bank accounts, companies outside of NK that still do business with NK as well a relisting NK as a state sponsor of terrorism. (Kim wants to be seen as a nice guy.)
However I think in the long run you are right, as NK will muddle on as long as it can and there is little Obama, Hillory, or Pamala Anderson can do about it. (But, I do enjoy the rhetoric 'North Korea will become more isolated', like Kim really cares what anyone says.)
10:30 am on April 6th, 2009 9
I'm all for attacking and collapsing North Korea. As long as Americans will help paying to feed the North Korean people and rebuilding North and South Korea.
1:06 pm on April 6th, 2009 10
Anything is possible, but I give some credit to his stated reason for leaving – that he had become a distraction for the party. He had. The media went after him was as much venom and bloodlust as they did Palin but they kept it up even longer with Gingrich. So, I can buy that he left for that reason just like Rumsfeld fell on his sword when the reconstruction of Iraq went so poorly and the attacks on him by the press and opposition cut more deeply.
1:08 pm on April 6th, 2009 11
I don't remember Gingrich lying under oath in a sexual harassment law suit and having his secretary retrieve love gifts and obstructing justice….but that's just me….
1:18 pm on April 6th, 2009 12
I think there is a military option on limited scale that the US could carry out effectively.
Regime survival is one of the defining motives of Pyongyang's actions (or inaction). It has more room to act up as a rogue regime than the US does in its global position, but the North would still have a measured response to anything we did to it.
It would be a delicate and deadly serious game, but it is one we should consider.
I think interdicting North Korean shipping is one possibility:
We have to show the North that we're willing to contemplate battle with it – even war – if it took a step too far.
Interdicting its shipping would do several things — it would really put a financial pain on the regime. It would also provide routine evidence to parade before the cameras showing the illicit stuff the North does as a matter of routine.
Doing it against the wishes of China and Russia, and thus the UN, would also show them that we have the resolve to square off with the North. We need to convince especially China that we will stand for something. A military confrontation is probably one of the only ways we'll get China to put on the kind of pressure we want.
— The main point is — we can't just keep doing what we've been doing:
North Korea helping Syria build a nuclear bomb-grade making facility should have been a green light…
…if everything we've caught the North doing to proliferate nukes and long range missiles isn't enough of a green light, what the bleep will be?
The dangers of getting into a hot war with the North are real and unimaginable, but if we keep going like we have been, letting the North see clearly we don't have the stomach to engage with it militarily on any level, they will eventually get a nuclear device into the hands of some anti-US group or regime who will eventually use it.
1:49 pm on April 6th, 2009 13
"_the main point is- we can't just keep doing what we have been doing". Agreed, so why not try doing nothing? No aid, no talks, no oil, just ignor them and work with their neighbors. Let China, Japan, South Korea as well as Russia deal with North Korea. No need for the US to play big negotiator, when its the others who are in the most peril.
If a blockade is needed let the South Koreans or Chinese do it. Oh, but they won't says you. Fine, then they risk the consequenses.
Our satellites and SM-2 or SM-3 missles are more than adequate to take out any missles fired by NK at the US.
The solution is simple, but politicians can't let it go.