It's hard to imagine that anybody can actually have this many mutually-conflicting opinions on any one topic, but Newt Gingrich, once again, manages to impress.
Last night, he went on Fox News (where else) to talk to Greta Van Susteren and "clarify" his much talked about multiple stances on everything that Barack Obama is doing wrong in regards to Libya, and — in direct opposition to his statement two weeks ago, also to Greta Van Susteren, that "[W]e don’t have to send troops, all we have to do is suppress [Muammar Qaddafi's] air force, which we can do in minutes" — he said that…
"If they're serious about protecting civilians, you can't do that from the air. Qadaffi is going to use light infantry, he’s going to use his secret police. He’s going to be in the cities, he’s going to be inside buildings. You're not going to be able to do that with air power. This is a fundamental mistake. And I think is a typical politician's over-reliance on air power."
That's actually a valid argument. And his earlier argument was valid as well. They just happen to be completely at odds with one another and the sort of thing that should not come out of the same mouth within a fortnight of one another unless there was some sort of brain surgery that occurred in the middle time.
How does he explain away this cognitive oddity?
"I was responding in each case to changes in Obama’s position."
Yeah, we know that. That's kind of what everybody making fun of you for. Might as well have just said, "I was changing my opinion so as to continue criticizing the president when he unexpectedly did something for which I appeared to find no fault."
Tags: Barack Obama, Fox, Greta Van Susteren, Libya, Military, Muammar Qaddafi, Newt Gingrich