World War III and Partisan Politics

There's no question that we're in World War III; the issue is, Are we going to take a hard look at how we came to be in World War III, and who got us into World War III; and look for solutions grounded in a sense of responsibility and a firm sense of who we are as a people? Or are we going to use "World War III" as a deliberately chosen propaganda tool to fan the flames of nationalism and turn the drumbeat for war into an ear-splitting cacaphony, a savage cry for nuclear war and mass murder?

It's clear which path Newt Gingrich has chosen.

Joe Gandelman:

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.

All emphasis is Joe's.

Joe links to Robert Hahn at Red State, who writes approvingly:

Gingrich wants Bush to "connect the dots" for Americans by explaining how the bomb attacks in India, the 'insurgency' in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, terrorist arrests from Miami to Canada, and nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, are all of a piece.

Can the condescension, Robert. Americans don't need Newt Gingrich to "connect the dots" for them. We can connect the dots quite well for ourselves, thank you very much. They start here and end here. And here. And here. And here.

"Emperor Darth Misha" thinks this is World War IV:

And Newt: Get the numbering right. It's WW IV, not WW III. We won WW III. It's called "the Cold One." I was there and so, I know, were you. Doesn't mean that the rest of your point isn't exactly correct, because it is, but I'm given to picking nits. Well, consider that one picked.

Yo, brother. I was there for the Cold War, too. And we did not win it. We survived it -- and in doing so, planted the seeds for World War IV, as you would have it.