Are We For Civilization or Appeasement?

Newt Gingrich discusses A Third World War:

... Some actions are clarifying because they force people - and nations - to choose sides. The increasing number of attacks, provocations, and plots of this Third World War similarly force us to make a decision. We must have a national debate -- indeed, a worldwide debate -- between those of us who believe we're in a war to defend civilization (and therefore must defeat terrorists and their state sponsors) and those who are made uncomfortable by the price of defeating terrorists and their state sponsors.

This is a fundamental choice upon which will hinge our future liberties and possibly our very lives. New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin described the war like this:

"While it is often a war of loose or no affiliation, and sometimes just amateur copycats, the similar goals of destruction add up to a threat against modern society. ... Islamic fascists are the driving force, but anti-American hatred is a global membership card for any and all who have a grievance and a gun."

So which are we for? Defending civilization and America? Or making excuses for those who threaten us and burying our heads in the sand? ...

Another great Newt quote over the weekend:

"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."

More background on his calling a spade a spade... here.

Newt is working on a new Contract with America. He's speaking the truth about what's going on right now in the Middle East.

He is the best "big picture" guy on the conservative side of the isle right now. He'll make an outstanding V.P. candidate in '08. If no one else steps up, he should be on top.

-Home-