Gingrich Impeached Clinton to Preserve Sanctity of Depositions
By Elspeth Reeve Monday, March 28, 2011 | 10:32 a.m.
Did Newt Gingrich feel even a tiny twinge of guilt when he was working so hard to impeach President Clinton over his affair with an intern while Gingrich himself was cheating on his wife with a congressional aide? No. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked the former House speaker and presidential candidate, "Isn?t that hypocrisy?" Gingrich countered that in 1998, he was taking a principled stand in defense of the deposition.
?Obviously, it?s complex and, obviously, I wasn?t doing things to be proud of. ... I had been in depositions. I had been in situations where you had to swear to tell the truth." Clinton, by contrast, had perjured himself by denying his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
But Wallace didn't let Gingrich get off easy, following-up: ?I?m going to ask you man to man: Did you ever think to yourself, ?I?m living in a really glass house. Maybe I shouldn?t be throwing stones??" Gingrich said would have resigned if he thought he were unable to do his job. Wallace then aired a clip of Gingrich explaining his affairs in a way that implied he cheated on his wife because he loved his country so much. The Republican had had a decade to come up with a good response to the question, Wallace said, ?and in all honesty there were a lot of people who thought the answer was kind of lame.?
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
March 7, when Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked what he would do about Gaddafi?s use of heavy weapons and deadly force against peaceful demonstrators.
?Exercise a no-fly zone this evening,? he replied. ?All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we?re intervening.?
____________________
His first somersault came on March 23, days after the U.N.-authorized military intervention had begun. You?d think he might applaud the operation ? enforcement of a no-fly zone and attacks on Gaddafi?s armored columns, all in an attempt to protect civilians from an impending massacre ? since that was what he had suggested. But you?d be wrong.
?I would not have intervened,? he told NBC?s Matt Lauer. ?I would not have used American and European forces, bombing Arabs and that country.?
____________________
But then on Saturday, at an appearance in Iowa, he spun to what looked suspiciously like his original position, arguing that the United States and its allies should ?defeat Gaddafi as rapidly as possible.?
____________________
Gingrich seems to be having a particularly heated argument with himself over the whole ?air power? thing. On March 7, pro-intervention Newt declared: ?We don?t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress [Gaddafi?s] air force, which we could do in minutes.? On March 24, anti-intervention Newt scoffed to Fox: ?If they?re serious about protecting civilians, you can?t do that from the air. . . . This is a fundamental mistake, and I think is a typical politician?s overreliance on air power.? On March 26, defeat-Gaddafi-rapidly Newt said that vanquishing the dictator should involve ?using all of Western air power as decisively as possible.?
___________________
In a rare understatement, Gingrich acknowledged Saturday that ?obviously there were contradictions? in his various statements. Typically, however, he defended them all.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Linear Mode
