Some random thoughts on an incredible display of terrible taste, as I wrestle to keep my cranium from blowing…
1. Why in the world would Newt do this? How could he, or anyone, not understand that this would be hurtful to many, and appreciated by none? Has he decided to compete with Donald Trump for most Reckless Twitter-User? Is he trying to make Trump look responsible by comparison? Why, Newt? Why?
2. Perhaps this is the beginning of regular laudatory tweets from Newt in appreciation of other geniuses that did Americans harm.
March 6: “Today we celebrate Santa Anna’s brilliantly executed surprise dawn raid on the Alamo, and his efficient slaughter of more than 200 Texans in 1836”
April 14: “A date for all Americans to commemorate John Wilkes Booth’s superb planning and marksmanship, confounding President Lincoln’s security to shoot him in the head with flair in 1865!”
August 8: “Let us not fail to admire surgical precision with which the dedicated follower of Charles Manson carried out their slaughter of five people in 1968”
September 11…well, you get the idea.
3. What’s truly nauseating is that poor, insecure Newt is so desperate for affirmation that he will use, of all things, the tragedy of the attack on Pearl Harbor to make himself appear, (he thinks), worldly, cerebral and analytical. All he really accomplished is to reaffirm what most cognizant Americans have known for decades…
4. …that Newt is about as big a jerk as this society has ever produced.
69 thoughts on “From The “When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring” Files: Newt Gingrich’s December 7th Tweet”
Watching Newt’s re-emergence a few years ago was like a nightmare, or watching Darth Vader return after his ship was sent sailing at the end of A New Hope. Despite how deeply I don’t like him, and how low my opinion is of him. sometimes I think I’d rather have Newt as the President than Trump.
I don’t think I’ll be able to do that going forward. I’m glad Newt has rolled his way into Irrelevance City with Michael Moore and all the other people there that I’ve forgotten because they’re so irrelevant.
You and me both.
Wow, just wow! I might forgive him if he does the Alamo/Santa Anna bit though; after all you can’t help but admire the guy who exhumes and then buries his amputated leg with full military honors during his sixth term as president.
He was a typical Latin American strong man dictator. I’ve been reading “Almonte’s Texas” as we’ll as several articles generally discussing the collapse of the Spanish Empire and the Napoleonic Wars.
I actually feel sorry to a degree for 1820s Mexico and it’s Federalists. They had a relatively good vision for the country until upstarts like Arredondo and Santa Anna and other strong men had to ruin it.
The break away of Texas cannot be fully understood without reviewing the overall Break Up of the whole Spanish empire. Taken in context, the Mexican loss of Texas was nothing more than the fracturing of the Spanish Empire alongside a Mexican civil war… the real miracle was that Mexico didn’t lose more provinces.
But he brought (possibly) chiclets to America!
Agreed. Texas leaving was the least of Mexico’s problems at the time. At the time many were more worried about the Southeast breaking away rather than the North (until “surprise!”) Then again that cultural rift with the Southeast persists until today, reaching a peak with the guerrillas that raised their heads in the ’90s.
Mexican history is fascinating: become independent, crown an emperor, overthrow and exile him, fight the Spanish, fight the French, have the emperor come back to help, execute him when he sets foot in the country, fight the Americans, fight the French (again), fight the Catholic Church, bring an Austrian prince and crown him emperor (and he adopts the kids from the previous one, just for fun – today there’s still a Mexican Royal Family, living in Australia), have a civil war over the rift with the Catholic Church (and try to get help from the US while they’re fighting their civil war), fight the French (yeah, that thing about insanity…), fight the US, have another Civil War, have another religious war, and then finally in the 1940s get to a relative period of peace.
I guess one the reasons I love reading Jack is that he’s a history buff and that’s one way I can learn about the country I know call home.
Some would say that Mexican political will always be a pendulum swinging between a strong central core dominating periphery and the periphery running roughshod during times the core is weak.
The modern rise of the cartels would be just another manifestation of that pendulum.
Could he be trying to use sarcasm? It sounds like things the left say in reference to radical Muslims and other enemies they approve of.
Along this line, I’ll guess a burlesque on recent tweets eulogizing Fidel Castro.
As thoroughly historically knowledgeable as Newt is, he can be a real idiot sometimes. He’s known for sometimes opening his mouth before he engages his brain, this is clearly another one of those times; I’m gonna guess he’ll try to rationalize it away.
Could it be that Newt is a very good example of the difference between knowledge and understanding?
I think Newt is a good example of the difference between a decent human being and a narcissistic dick.
Yup, that’s another way of putting it.
Sam asked, “Could it be that Newt is a very good example of the difference between knowledge and understanding?”
Nope. I think Newt has both knowledge and understanding he has a sincere lack of tact. It doesn’t matter if he thought he was stating something that he considered as historically factual, he didn’t have the tact not to state it.
If you see his series of 3 tweets, his intent becomes apparent. That doesn’t however alleviate that one must make sure each tweet, as a standalone, isn’t a patently dumb thing to say.
I was born 40 years and a few weeks after Pearl Harbor and I can’t watch either Tora Tora Tora or that Ben Affleck/Josh Harnett collaboration without actually getting angry at the Japanese.
The hell was Newt thinking?
Evidence would suggest he wasn’t.
What a moronic way to express conciliation.
Hell I still get mad about the HMS Jersey. The bastards.
Surely he knows Pearl Harbor still stings.
And he’s not even right! The boobs didn’t coordinate properly and did exactly what they didn’t want to do: have the attack come before the official ultimatum.
Attacking before the official ultimatum was the least of their mistakes.
They attacked on Sunday when most of the crews were ashore and not on board. If they had attacked during the week they would have killed over 30,000 not just the 2,400 they did that day.
They didn’t attack and destroy the fuel storage faculty which held all the fuel for the pacific fleet.
They also left the dry docks intact which allowed the damaged ships to repaired quickly and put back into action.
And mainly they attacked when the aircraft carriers were out to sea. Battleships were a dying breed and were of no great loss but the aircraft carriers would win the war.
Over all it was a horribly executed attack that did little to no real damage to the tactical and logistical abilities of the American military and just pissed us off.
THE Bill said, “They attacked on Sunday when most of the crews were ashore and not on board. If they had attacked during the week they would have killed over 30,000 not just the 2,400 they did that day.”
If the Japanese had attacked when the ships were full their attack would NOT have been nearly as successful due to the fact that there would have been a LOT more military personnel to actively shoot back. A ship is of no use in a battle without someone to man the guns, targeting the relatively unmanned ships and airfields was a valid strategy.
THE Bill said, “They didn’t attack and destroy the fuel storage faculty which held all the fuel for the pacific fleet.”, “They also left the dry docks intact which allowed the damaged ships to repaired quickly and put back into action.”
You can look at this with all the modern day hindsight as you want; however, something you’re not thinking about is the fact that you use your limited fighting resources to destroy the things that have the capability to shoot back first and foremost, then you focus on the infrastructure that “feeds” the military machine. The Japanese concentrated their limited fighting force on one specific mission, destroy as much of the physical tools of war – the fighting machines – as they could in one attack.
THE Bill said, “And mainly they attacked when the aircraft carriers were out to sea.”
The Japanese military leaders did not know exactly what would physically be in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack, they didn’t have modern day instant gratification technology to to feed them intelligence for their mission. Human intelligence was still rather slow at that time.
THE Bill said, “Battleships were a dying breed and were of no great loss but the aircraft carriers would win the war.”
Battleships may have been a dying breed but that was not known at the time and they certainly were not dead yet, they were a serious lethal force in that time period and they destroyed or damaged many many things in the war.
Japan wanted to deliver a blow to America’s ability to mobilize its forces in the Pacific, Pearl Harbor was the central focus from which America’s Pacific forces were mobilized and battleships were chosen as the main targets, since they were the prestige ships of any navy at the time.
Overall; stop thinking in the mindset of 2016 and think in the mindset of 1944 Japan and the very limited capabilities of air power at that time. I’m sure if Japan had had unlimited capabilities to do more, they most certainly would have.
THE Bill said, “Over all it was a horribly executed attack that did little to no real damage to the tactical and logistical abilities of the American military and just pissed us off.”
The attack was a really bad decision of the Japanese government, they were terrible judges of the resolve of the American people. The attack, as it was executed by the military was a “success”, it achieved it’s short term military objectives. Did the attack have the desired overall effect, NO, and that was the chance that the government of Japan was willing to take. Every military action has a consequence; Admiral Yamamoto knew what he had unleashed and I believe he knew what the eventual conclusion would be.
“think in the mindset of 1944 Japan”
ok: “Crap crap crap crap crap, we really shouldn’t have started this thing”
texagg04 said, “think in the mindset of 1944 Japan” ok: “Crap crap crap crap crap, we really shouldn’t have started this thing””
Yup, you got that right!!
The biggest mistake was the Japanese actually *limited* their attack, hoping that Americans wouldn’t want to fight back. When in reality, the only sensible option, once committed to a knock out blow of the Pacific Fleet, is to follow on with an immediate: and I mean like the next day immediate or even that afternoon immediate: ground invasion of the Hawaiian islands, exploiting the surprise and disarray of the military.
Force America to retake the Pacific FROM San Francisco…as opposed to being able to retake the Pacific from Hawaii.
They couldn’t have supported a ground invasion let along the occupation of Hawaii, as they didn’t have the logistical abilities to do so.
THE Bill said, “They couldn’t have supported a ground invasion let along the occupation of Hawaii, as they didn’t have the logistical abilities to do so.”
Couldn’t have? Nonsense. Japan occupied islands all over the pacific. If they had planned a while longer and put the plan into motion, as they did in other places, they could have easily occupied Hawaii for a period of time. If they had, it would have taken some MAJOR battles to retake the Islands, remember these were fanatical fighters and absolutely ruthless as an occupying force.
As this essay explains, Zoltar, the goal of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was twofold: A. To demolish forces and morale , preferrably enough that , after a bit, we would go for a negotiated peace leaving Japan at least some of the necessary parts of its Empire and B. Seize the Pacific’s oil. The whole reason Japan was fighting in the wider Pacific and made its bid for Empire was that, as an Island nation with few natural resources -esp oil – it needed to get resources for its growing economy and population.
But, it only had so much merchant shipping. It only had so many transport ships and it only had so many trained (and by our standards ILL EQUIPPED) Divisions with which to do this. Basically, it couldn’t give up hardly anything else it conqueored to free resources for Hawaii. And, if it tried to build up more forces, we had about ten times the productive capability and could have done it faster. So the essay concludes it would have been near impossible for the Japanese to have taken Hawaii, and, if they had (say by invading within 24 hours of their attack when our defenses were still unorganized ) holding it for any length of time was probably beyond their abilities.
All my points were taken from the writings of Admiral Nimitz who made them while inspecting Pearl Harbor.
Ill take his opinion over yours any day.
THE Bill said, “All my points were taken from the writings of Admiral Nimitz who made them while inspecting Pearl Harbor.”
So Admiral Nimitz wrote these things while inspecting Pear Harbor? Did you bother to read that statement in conjunction with what you wrote above? I think not.
So Admiral Nimitz said that “battleships were a dying breed and were of no great loss but the aircraft carriers would win the war.”
Who knew that Admiral Nimitz while inspecting Pearl Harbor said that the battleships were of no great loss.
Please quote your information source so I can verify your claim that he publicly said all those things while inspecting Pearl Harbor after the attack.
So you’re really not going to back up your claim that Admiral Nimitz said/wrote the things you said while he was inspecting Pearl Harbor?
I’m shocked; absolutely shocked.
I said, “think in the mindset of 1944 Japan”
Of course that should have been 1941 not 1944. Stupid fat finger typo on the keypad.
Rather, I would say that it was a horrible attack, brilliantly planned and executed — for what they were trying to accomplish.
Also keep in mind that this attack was in the tradition of the Japanese military — total surprise to start a war and a great gamble to achieve great results.
Remember the start of the 1905 war against Russian. The Japanese opening with a surprise attack on the Russian naval base at Port Arthur and the Russians never recovered.
They attacked on a Sunday because their observations over time had revealed that the Americans had fallen into a pattern (often a Bad Thing in military affairs) of being in harbor every Sunday. Their thinking was that it would do no good to attack Pearl if there were no capital warships there to sink. As well, the planners considered total surprise to be absolutely essential to the success of the strike.
The Japanese planners were just focused on the U.S. fleet — carriers, their primary target and battleships a secondary but important targets — and not the American ground installations, logistical support, and supply trains.
Genda, the architect of the Pearl Harbor plan, originally wanted to invade and occupy Hawaii. However, that part of the plan was discarded. The Japanese felt they did not have enough assets to simultaneously invade Hawaii and carry out their southern operations (Southeast Asia/Philippines).
Had Yamamoto been the on the scene commander, it is possible the Japanese would have stuck around and tried to locate and attack the American carriers that they knew had to be in the vicinity. In the event, the admiral in charge felt they had accomplished their mission. He was both concerned about the risk of attack by those American carriers and the likely need for the Japanese carriers to support operations elsewhere.
They were disappointed that the American carriers hadn’t been in Pearl Harbor, but still considered it a major victory.
They make such damn fine cameras.
I can’t watch that Ben Affleck/Josh Harnett collaboration without actually getting angry at Michael Bay, but that’s neither here nor there.
I think people like to trash talk Pearl Harbor because our generation loves trash talking just about anything.
It’s not really a bad movie. About the only truly awkward bit that really doesn’t jive with the flow of the movie is the clunky insistence on giving Doris Miller some recognition. Got it, he contributed, make a separate movie about him alone…
Tora Tora is on AMC tonight. 8 pm EST.
It was on TMC last night…and without the commercials.
Crap. I messed up. It was on last night. I hope my hubby DVR’ed it.
I’ll pass. I don’t want to have to get angry at the Japanese.
March 6: “Today we celebrate Santa Anna’s brilliantly executed surprise dawn raid on the Alamo, and his efficient slaughter of more than 200 Texans in 1836”
More than 200? Still open for debate.
I find the case for about 220 pretty compelling.
I find all the arguments for numbers between 180 and 250 to have pretty much equal merit and equal criticism.
Can’t wait for a knee jerk right winger to come to Newt’s defense.
Bet I’ll be waiting awhile.
I thought the tweet didn’t make much sense. Not passing judgment on his character but I think the full context matters. You can always make an ass out of yourself in a 140 characters.
1. December 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned.
2. 75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines
3. Japanese planning and trainng let them also carry out surprise attacks in Hong Kong and Malaysia.It was widest surprise attack in history
No doubt the contents of the tweet are accurate. That an attack is successful and bold and daring doesn’t make it ok to praise it when it was also unwarranted and treacherous.
Yes. Those additional tweets add context. Not sure it alleviates the tone or execution of the 2nd tweet by much though.
Why is it, when a left-winger is called out for an unethical quote, you can use a stop-watch to time the record-breaking speed at which left-wingers spin, lie and rationalize a defense for the critiqued individual….
But when right-wingers are called out on unethical quotes, it seems like right-wingers tend to acknowledge the unethical comments?
I can tell when you write fast…Lincoln lives another 100 years.
There’s always the poorly thought out JFK memorial.
Which I’m still trying to figure out if it’s real or photoshop…
I just now got that, Tex. I need to stop now and “target” my weekend!
Newt does that to me. Thanks. Fixed.
Wtf???!!!? Face palms. How utterly stupid and asinine. Seems pretentious and contrived and soooooo out in left field I can’t even fathom a motive. Idiot.
If he’s trying to be Trump he failed. Trump is authentically brash. Even though I hate it in context it’s him. Newt has no excuse.
No wonder Trump isn’t giving him a position.
Early days yet, SecState still isn’t filled. This tweet may be an attempt to increase the odds.
zoebrain said, “Early days yet, SecState still isn’t filled.”
Newt has vast historical knowledge that would be helpful for the job of Secretary of State but he doesn’t know when not to open his mouth; he’s the wrong man for the job.
Newt is one of those kind of politicians that EVERY President needs to have in the back room as a trusted adviser providing relevant historical facts and how those past events can relate to current political events so the President understands all his options and what those options could possibly mean in both national politics and the politics of international relations.
I have long felt the Gingrich found his niche with William Forstchen, writing historical (alternate) fiction. In my opinion, their work is first rate and I think he should stick to that.
Bite your tongue!
Newt has his moments, but SecState is above his pay grade
Haven’t you seen the other cabinet nominations? Newt as SecState would be of a piece with the rest.
My first thought when I read that… Newt is encouraging Donald to mount a surprise attack… on somebody.
How does anything Newt Gingrich believe or says matter anymore? He has almost no political clout and he’s made a career of saying controversial things (although this one is definitely a new turn for him).
“March 6: “Today we celebrate Santa Anna’s brilliantly executed surprise dawn raid on the Alamo, and his efficient slaughter of more than 200 Texans in 1836””
Why not? I agree it’s a callous and (from a U.S. perspective) incorrect interpretation of the facts, but it’s not unethical to have an unpopular opinion. After all. the American settlers lost the Alamo, they’re all now dead, and so is anyone and everyone who ever knew them. Whose left to care?
If you’re the type of person to get worked up over someone else’s opinion of history, you’re focusing too much on the past and not enough on the present.
July 4th celebrates traitorous aristocrats who brought about the murder of thousands of soldiers and countless innocent civilians to start a war for the sole purpose of protecting their economic interests.
I don’t really believe that, but (I’m also a nobody — like Newt is now) would you really care if I did?
Who said I’m worked up? Gingrich is still a national figure. He was starring in Crossfire on CNN just last year. He was a guest on many news shows this campaign. Go ahead, finish a 9-11 equivalent. Do you think public figures, on a day of reflection, mourning and respect, should be praising the people who killed the victims? Should the family of a victim have to see and hear a high-place public figure praising his killers? On the anniversary of the killing?
NO ethical system supports this gratuitous action.
By the way, if a Japanese Newt tweeted a similar sentiment about the great US achievement in dropping the bomb on August 6, what would be the reaction?
This isn’t rocket science ethics, it’s simple decency. Being a dick just to be a smarty-pants is unethical, as in WRONG. It makes the world a nastier place.
Welcome to the age of Trump. It’s unethical, it’s WRONG, but it’s been very successful, hasn’t it?
Newt’s jerkness has kept him from staying Speaker, made his Presidential aspirations dust, and ended his political career.
No but don’t you get it! Now that Trump won, people will start being unethical in politics.
Start being that way. All because Trump was elected.
A lot of unethical people who had limits placed on their malefactions based on the idea that they’d suffer penalties for being blatantly unethical now realise that they won’t suffer at all. There’s no longer any downside.
This was true to some degree, and getting worse, under the DNC. But now the sky’s the limit. I’m not sure the problem is fixable through gentle evolutionary change, as it probably was, no guarantees, in the past.
I don’t think he realises what the consequences will, not could, be. There are always undesirable side effects to this utopian philosophy.
I think this is just hysteria.
Republicans are lousy schemers, Zoe. For scheming, see: the Cntons.
So the candidate you opposed didn’t win and now you notice unethical behavior that leads to positive results for the unethical actor?
You are cripplingly non-self-aware. You and 97% of the Left.
This is a problem.
Age of Trump… guffaw.
You have no idea how grateful I would be to be wrong here.
If it had been HRC vs, say, Mitt Romney, my view would be quite different. That you don’t get that means I have a lot of communicating to do.
“If it had been HRC vs, say, Mitt Romney, my view would be quite different
Would it be?
“If it had been HRC vs, say, Mitt Romney, my view would be quite different.”
You know, charlesgreen once said something similar, that when faced with a choice between Clinton and Trump, he would have to begrudgingly throw his support to Clinton, because Trump was just a bit more awful — that given any other Republican candidate, he’d then have pause and consider the Republican candidates as better options. Only, when pressed, it turned out charles still believed Clinton to be a far better option than any of the other ETHICAL and COMPETENT Republican options.
I think this is all just lip service that is safe to say because it will NEVER be tested.