To The Gangrenous GOP, Goading Into War Is Fully Justified So Long As It Brings Them The Votes

Probably for my own mental health (what shreds of it remain), I've avoided discussing former - and failed - Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich since he claimed that it would be to the GOP's incredible advantage to turn Lebanon - and Iran and Syria - into World War III to guarantee righteous Republicans the fear vote this November mid-term as well as the presidential race in 2008.

However, Glenn Greenwald updates us on Gingrich's war-mongering tyranny:

Newt Gingrich spoke at a fundraiser for a GOP Congressional candidate yesterday and made explicit one of the core issues that the 2006 election will resolve:

To deal with the threat [of "nuclear bombs destroying U.S. cities"], he said, "we want to replace the North Korean regime. We want to replace the Iranian regime and the Syrian regime. We would like to replace them without using military force if we can."

When Gingrich says "we would like to replace them without using military force if we can," he means, of course, that he wants military force used (i.e. new wars waged) on those countries. It is almost certainly the case that military force is the only way to accomplish regime change in those three countries. That means that, in addition to staying in Iraq indefinitely, we will have three new Iraqs -- including in two countries with far greater military force than Iraq could have dreamed of having (one of which has nuclear capabilities).

It is hard to overstate how extremist is the warmongering agenda of those who exert the most influence among Bush supporters. Isn't that what Democrats should be asking Americans most clearly and aggressively - do you really want to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and on top of that, have whole new wars with Iran and Syria, perhaps with North Korea? That is what Newt Gingrich says he wants, and he is hardly alone.