Some of the more glaring parts of the speech have been corrected with facts. Newt's words are in italics. References are hyper-linked.
Newt sets up a contrasting alternative as being weak, for the purpose of using the remainder of the speech to act strong. Chamberlain had a very clear vision of the world, and he was very ruthless domestically. And they believed so deeply in avoiding war with Germany that as late as the spring of 1940, when they are six months or seven months into they war, they are dropping leaflets instead of bombs on the Rohr, and they are urging the British news media not to publish anti-German stories because they don't want to offend the German people.
Describe how current political policies are not effective, and open a door for a saving politician (himself). You have an administration whose policy is inadequate being opposed by a political Left whose policy is worse, and you have nobody prepared to talk about the policy we need.
And I know of no case historically where you defeat a guerrilla movement if it has a sanctuary. This statement on Afghanistan can be applied to all such movements, including al Qaeda. Newt is therefore admitting al Qaeda can not be completely defeated and therefore needs to set up a state as the next enemy (Iran).
Claims $428,000 was spent on polling. When asked whether or not al Qaeda is a threat, 89% of the country says yes. The next sentence is NOT part of the polling, though Newt tries to present it as part of the polling results. And they think you have to defeat it, you can't negotiate with it. This was simply Newt's opinion, and was not part of the polling.
What's the primary source of money for al Qaeda? It's you, re-circulated through Saudi Arabia. The majority of funding and people involved in 9/11 were from Saudia Arabia and Egypt. We agree the enemy was sponsored and recruited in Saudia Arabia and Egypt, so why are we occupying Iraq instead of Saudia Arabia and Egypt? Saudi Arabia “was a place where Al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals and through charities” and indicates that “charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship” may have diverted funding to Al Qaeda. U.S. officials remain concerned that Saudis continue to fund Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. (CRS Report for Congress, Saudi Arabia: Terrorist Financing Issues)
It could be useful to understand why those Saudia Arabians were hostile toward America. Ongoing American presence in their holy land was indicated as a contributing factor by the 9/11 commission report.
So then you look at Saudi Arabia. The fact that we tolerate a country saying no Christian and no Jew can go to Mecca ,,, Saudi Arabia is not a state of the USA, so Saudia Arabia can do whatever they like with religion. Newt and America have no authority to dictate Saudi Arabia's internal religious affairs. Regardless of our dislike of Saudia Arabia's religious preferences, it is their country.
And you have Gen. Petraeus come to the U.S. Congress and say publicly in an open session, "The Iranians are waging a proxy war against Americans in Iraq." Suppose America overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government to protect American access to Iranian oil. Would this cause Iran to dislike America? Is there anything America and Britain can do now to restore trust and respect with Iran? In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the United Kingdom and the United States orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power.
You can support the grassroots by visiting the following. Thank you.