Will ABC 'Hit Piece' on Newt Backfire?

The ABC hit piece on Newt that features his scorned ex-wife is clearly an attempt by the MSM outlet to give Romney a boost. The timing of the piece couldn't make the intent more obvious. The AP is reporting that ABC will be airing the interview with Marianne Gingrich after the debate, sandwiched between the debate and Saturday's primary. Newt's indiscretions are not new, which is another indicator that this is nothing more than an attempt to end his surge in South Carolina in order to help Romney.

The Hill has Newt's reaction:

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said a decision by ABC News to air an interview with one of his ex-wives would be “wrong” and blamed the “liberal media” for attempting to distract voters from the failures of the Obama administration.

"I’m not going to say anything negative about Marianne,” Gingrich said in an interview Thursday on NBC’s Today show in response to reports that his second ex-wife Marianne Gingrich would conduct an interview with ABC News.

The Drudge Report first reported on Wednesday that Marianne Gingrich intended to share "explosive revelations" about her marriage to the former House speaker.

Gingrich said that his daughters had sent a letter to ABC News criticizing the decision to air the interview "as wrong" and referred any media questions about the matter to them.

"My two daughters Kathy and Jackie have sent a letter to the president of ABC News, saying from a family perspective they think this is totally wrong," he said. "They think ABC should not air anything like this and that intruding into family things that are more, that are more than a decade old are simply wrong."

It's quite possible that this attempt by ABC to torpedo Newt's chances in South Carolina could actually backfire. Newt already has a penchant for slamming the media in the debates. Look for him to come out with all guns blazing tonight. The only thing that might make watching it more palatable would be if ABC was the entity putting it on. It will be CNN.

Here is Newt's appearance on the Today show. He makes very valid points here and could generate sympathetic audiences as a result of this very overt attempt by the MSM to smear him. Rick Perry has dropped out of the race and will reportedly throw his support behind Gingrich.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Victims of Fort Hood Massacre Denied Purple Hearts

Late last year, the Obama administration decided to identify the Fort Hood massacre as being the result of 'workplace violence,' which put Nidal Malik Hasan on par with an angry postal worker who just snapped, before gunning down his co-workers. Adding to the outrage that coincides with such an absurd comparison is the fact that none of Hasan's victims will receive purple hearts, despite being killed by an enemy of the United States while on duty.

From David Horowitz via Tom Tancredo:

Barack Obama has just done something truly disgraceful! He’s declared the 2009 Fort Hood massacre — where a radical Islamic terrorist killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 29 more — “work place violence,” not a terrorist attack.

This means that these men and women are denied the military medals they are due — like the Purple Heart — for their deaths or injuries during the attack by a radicalized Muslim combatant. The way I see it, these soldiers put their lives and their bodies in harm’s way in defense of our freedom. But instead of recognizing them as heroes, Obama is treating them like they are civil service employees who just happened to be in the way when a random accident occurred!

Once again, Obama has failed to recognize that radical Islamic terrorists have declared war on this nation and our armed forces — our first line of defense against their monstrous actions. That’s why your Freedom Center has launched a nationwide petition campaign demanding that the Fort Hood massacre be categorized as what it was — a terrorist attack — and that medals be awarded to those who suffered in battle that day.

Yet another consequence of not identifying the enemy.

More here.

Duh: Violence in Iraq up after US Exit

Like this wasn't predictable. Obama's decision to pull our troops out of Iraq in the days before Christmas was a direct appeal to his far left base for 2012. It was also made more politically palatable because of the exploding national debt, for which he is largely responsible. The consequence of his decision, however, has been increased violence in Iraq.

Via Washington Post:

Violence appears to have increased sharply since U.S. troops left Iraq a month ago, as insurgents have unleashed a wave of furious bombings targeting Baghdad neighborhoods, Shiite pilgrims and police facilities in Sunni areas.

The deadly attacks have roots not only in the troops’ departure but also in a domestic political crisis that erupted in its wake. Shiite and Sunni leaders have squared off in a power struggle, one that analysts say insurgents are trying to turn into a full-scale civil war. How the politicians handle their own mess, and the attacks, will determine Iraq’s ability to hold itself together.

There are multiple indications that Iraq's Shiite government is closely aligned with Iran. Iraq's Transportation Minister, Hadi al-Ameri, has a long history of allegiance to Iran. Here he is bowing to and kissing the hand of the Ayatollah:



Back to the Post article:

U.S. officials never promised the transition would be easy. At a ceremony in Baghdad two days before the last troops left, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta sounded a note of caution.

“Let me be clear, Iraq will be tested in the days ahead — by terrorism, by those who would seek to divide, by economic and social issues, by the demands of democracy itself,” he said.


Even as Panetta was speaking, security forces loyal to Maliki, a Shiite, were moving to arrest Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, on charges that he used his bodyguards to run a terrorism squad. Hashimi fled to a semiautonomous region of Kurdistan, where leaders provided refuge even as Maliki demanded his return to Baghdad to face trial. At the same time, Sunni leaders walked out of parliament and boycotted cabinet positions to protest what they said was Maliki’s move to create a Shiite-controlled dictatorship.

Making this more noteworthy is that Shiite al-Ameri is a confirmed terrorist, yet he is in Iraq's cabinet while the Sunni Vice President had to flee to avoid arrest.

Such things make the words of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta one month before the Iraq pullout quite puzzling; they should prompt some major head-scratching:

"My view is that the region largely rejects Iran and its intentions. And I think Iraq is at the top of that list."

Again, in light of al-Ameri's prominence in the Iraqi government (he was given the red carpet treatment by the Oval Office on December 12th) and the arrest warrant of the Sunni Vice President, Panetta's statements to Senate Armed Services Committee one month before the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq are belied by the facts.

h/t Hapblog