http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1153030025.shtml

Will The Term "World War III" Become A Political Tool?

by Joe Gandelman

Is the term "World War III" to become a new political tool to
accentuate differences between the political parties?

Newt Gingrich says this:
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/archives/2006/07/gingrich_says_its_world_war_iii.html


Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War
III and President Bush should say so.

In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should
call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk
about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been
heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a
city,' " Gingrich said.

He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for
military strategy and political strategy.

Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republican's facing fall
elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the
elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic
agenda rather than about President Bush's record.


You can't get more blunt than that.

It is not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement of George Bush's term in
office, is it?

And then there's this other quote from the Seattle Times piece:


There is a public relations value, too.

Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the
language" of World War III.

The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war,
which side do you think should win?"


Read that again.

So rather than try to shore up American resolve and unify the country
in the face of mounting turmoil abroad if we're indeed in a new era
that is World War III, Gingrich seems to be suggesting that it be used
to somehow put Democrats on the defensive...at the very least by
implication.

_________________________________________________________

Good ole Nootie. I missed his stupidity.

Harry