Gangrenous Newt Gingrich: He Won't Be Happy Until World War III Starts Just to Further His Political Agenda

Newt really, really, really wants to be president in 2008; this the "man" who said women can't fight in wars because they get "infections" in fox holes and the man who, two days after being re-elected to his seat in Georgia walked away from his constituents because if he couldn't be Numero Uno, he wasn't gonna serve.

But what is far more appalling is that Newt desperately wants to talk the U.S. into World War III (or World War IV if you buy James Woolsey's diatribe that the War in Iraq is World War Three) just so he can use the scared-shitless fear tactics to make you vote Republican (GOP = for Newt, Greedy Old Pig). He came out and said that WWIII would be a HUGE boon for this November's mid-term elections as well as the next presidential race in 2008.

So ol' Neocon Newt is writing op/eds like this one in today's WaPo, with the apt headline of "The Only Option Is to Win" (but his idea of winning is his furtherment, the lives of thousands or tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians be damned):

In fact an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is a mortal threat to American, Israeli and European cities. If a nonnuclear Iran is prepared to finance, arm and train Hezbollah, sustain a war against Israel from southern Lebanon and, in Holbrooke's own words, "support actions against U.S. forces in Iraq," then what would a nuclear Iran be likely to do? Remember, Iranian officials were present at North Korea's missile launches on our Fourth of July, and it is noteworthy that Venezuela's anti-American dictator, Hugo Chávez, has visited Iran five times.

It is because the Bush administration has failed to win this argument over the direct threat of Iranian and North Korean nuclear and biological weapons that Americans are divided and uncertain about our national security interests.

Nevertheless, Holbrooke has set the stage for an important national debate that goes well beyond such awful possibilities as Sept. 11-style airliner plots. It's a debate about whether we are in danger of losing one or more U.S. cities, whether the world faces the possibility of a second Holocaust should Iran use nuclear or biological weapons against Israel, and whether a nuclear Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf and the world's energy supplies. This is the most important debate of our time. It rivals both Winston Churchill's argument in the 1930s over the nature of Hitler and the Nazis and Harry Truman's argument in the 1940s about the emerging Soviet empire.