Live Thread: Gingrich-Huntsman Debate Starts at 4:00 PM ET Today

This is disgusting. I expected the war propaganda and lies about Iran from Gingrich, but I thought Huntsman was supposed to be a foreign policy "realist". But he's fully signed up to the "Iran is the number one threat to our national security" and "Iran is an existential threat to Israel" canards, as well! This is just depressing.
 
Oh, yeah, Jon. When people around the world think "American values", they definitely think "Jon Huntsman".
 
I wish all these Independents and Democrats that are going to vote for Huntsman would hear this so that they can hear for themselves how much of a "Warmonger" Huntsman is.

Gingrich is scarier than Bush with his warmongering. :eek:
 
LatinsforPaul said:
I wish all these Independents and Democrats that are going to vote for Huntsman would hear this so that they can hear for themselves how much of a "Warmonger" Huntsman is.

Gingrich is scarier than Bush with his warmongering. :eek:
Click to expand...

Here's what's amazing to me - Gingrich came right out and said our goal should be regime change, and that a limited bombing campaign wouldn't work. But he also talked about providing communications equipment to Iranian dissidents, so I presume he was calling for covertly undermining the Iranian regime rather than calling for an all-out invasion. But, again, this is Newt, so I can't be sure of that.

Then Huntsman pointed out (correctly) that a sanctions regime, no matter how severe, won't stop Iran from going nuclear if that's what the mullahs really want. He also said that if Iran goes nuclear, the entire region will go nuclear which can't be allowed. So, does that make Huntsman more of a hawk than Gingrich? Newt wants a secret war to stop Iran, and Jon wants an open war?
 
Last edited:
Huntsman seems to flip flop terribly on this issue. On one hand he says we need to come home, but on the other hand Iran is going to go nuclear and destroy Israel and needs to be stopped. Can these people FOR ONCE stand on principles and not change what they're saying every other sentence!?
 
Thanks for the updates. Someone please post the YouTube link when it arrives.
 
Muttley said:
Huntsman seems to flip flop terribly on this issue. On one hand he says we need to come home, but on the other hand Iran is going to go nuclear and destroy Israel and needs to be stopped. Can these people FOR ONCE stand on principles and not change what they're saying every other sentence!?
Click to expand...


depends on the crowd he is speaking to.
 
If anyone is really bored, they can watch the recording of this here:
h xxp://www.c-span.org/Events/Huntsman-Gingrich-Debate-Natl-Security-Issues/10737426215-1/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Watching this I feel like I'm at the bottom of an old, dark, well and someone's saying ... "It puts the lotion on it's skin ..."
 
cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57341887-503544/gingrich-hunstman-debate-affably-in-n.h/

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Newt Gingrich took a respite Monday from battling with Mitt Romney for the top spot on the GOP campaign totem pole to engage in something more to his liking: an affable foreign policy debate with Jon Huntsman.
The event between the former Utah governor and former House Speaker at St. Anselm College in Manchester, billed as a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, was more of a friendly discussion between a former ambassador and former professor.
At one point, Huntsman praised Gingrich for being "a great historian" - a kinder description than he offered at a Sunday media availability, when he dismissed Gingrich as a "professor" to Huntsman's superior "practitioner."
Disagreements were downplayed. When asked about dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran, Huntsman reiterated his standard answer: "All options need to be on the table."
Gingrich, on the other hand, advocated regime change, "because there's no practical scenario in which you can take out their nuclear weapon systems without them rebuilding them."
"A movement which recruits its own children to learn how to be suicide bombers," Gingrich said, "and sends them into a bus station or into a mall or into a restaurant to blow themselves up in order to kill you, is a movement which with nuclear weapons would use them in a heartbeat, because there's no effective deterrent."
Gingrich added: "If you are an Israeli prime minister, and you remember the Holocaust, and you think about the death of millions of Jews, and you look at the idea that two or three nuclear weapons is a holocaust -- Israel is a very small country, very urban population; no more than three nuclear weapons would be required to equal a holocaust -- and you say to yourself, 'Am I going to take the risk of presiding over the second holocaust, which would mean for all practical purposes virtually the end of Judaism,' you're not going to take the risk."
In remarks to reporters following the debate, Huntsman defended his decision not to engage Gingrich further on Iran.
"Well, he spoke to regime change; I spoke to a missed opportunity in terms of fall of 2009 where he missed an opening with the so-called Persian Spring," Huntsman said. "I think we're talking about the same thing in that regard."
Huntsman declined to address a question about whether he agreed with Gingrich's claim during the debate that if Israel was destroyed by nuclear weapons, it would end Judaism on the planet. But the former Utah governor said he appreciated the debate's format.
"We ought to have more like it," he said. "In fact, I'd like to challenge the other candidates to a similar sit-down; I'd like to challenge Gov. Romney to a sit-down like this. I think it's great for the voters, here in New Hampshire particularly, because we've got a primary right around the corner."
Making good on his remarks, Huntsman's campaign subsequently released a copy of an invitation it sent to Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades asking the former Massachusetts governor to engage in a similar debate. There was no immediate response from Romney's campaign.
Click to expand...
 
Inkblots said:
This is disgusting. I expected the war propaganda and lies about Iran from Gingrich, but I thought Huntsman was supposed to be a foreign policy "realist". But he's fully signed up to the "Iran is the number one threat to our national security" and "Iran is an existential threat to Israel" canards, as well! This is just depressing.
Click to expand...

It's all show. Huntsman is globalist to the core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top