Newt's Flip-flopping post and why I won't vote for him

Today Newt Gingrich posted his opinion on a Facebook post.  He is showing his true colors.  I agree with his premise that “it is deeply disturbing that there is so much confusion, lack of foresight, and little resolve coming from the President”.   He goes on to say he wouldn’t have gotten involved, which I agree with as well.  While I have proposed the threat of further military action as a direct result of President Obama’s verbal support of Gadhafi’s removal earlier this month, Newt goes a step further.  While referring to peaceful options he says “ the President, however, took those options off the table with his public statement”.  Why is this so?  I only fear that the POTUS and our government will use the statement as some sort of justification.  I certainly can not agree that the statement actually provides any kind of justification to further our involvement. Mr. Gingrich seems to make a substantial effort at playing both sides of the fence here.  On the one hand he tries to separate himself by saying he wouldn’t have involved us, he then backtracks and says that due to President Obama’s statement we don’t have a choice now.  As he admitted he believes we should have acted unilaterally instead of waiting for a coalition to form.  “That’s why, during a March 7^th Greta van Susteren interview, I asserted that the president should establish a no fly zone ‘this evening.’ He goes on to criticize the POTUS saying that he “wasted weeks trying to get approval from the United Nations, instead of Congress”. While I certainly support declaring war through Congress, as the Constitution requires, I can’t say that we should be faulting President Obama for allowing a multi-national coalition to form supporting the effort.  These are two different topics in my mind.  Firstly, if the U.N. is going to be the catalyst then we should be using U.N. forces, or at least have them lead the operation.  Secondly, we shouldn’t use our military while hiding behind terms as humanitarian or coalition.  If the U.S. military attacks a country not attacking us, I see that as an act of war which should be declared and paid for.  However, I digress.   The idea that he wouldn’t have sent troops doesn’t meld well with the idea that once a President puts his foot in his mouth that our troops are automatically committed.  Is that really all it takes to for Newt to support a war that he wouldn’t have started?  Does this not remind us of our current President rallying against the war-mongering of President Bush and then building on those same foreign policy ideas?   Where is the alternative mindset for us to vote for?  Must we look to someone like Trump who I don’t think would have gone simply for economic reasons?  Must we pray that the champion of liberty, Ron Paul, will run again and that his revolution will finally be listened too?    I suppose so.  When Newt says, “ Now that we have US forces engaged, any result less than the removal of Gadaffi from power will be considered a failure.  For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through.” He shows us that he doesn’t have the capability of acting any differently than the previous Presidents and that he isn’t really offering anything different.  Simply because the POTUS says something stupid, and then does something stupid, doesn’t mean we must commit ourselves to being stupid.  I would prefer the notion of the next President having our country’s best interest at heart instead of continuing this moronic empire they think we need and can afford.  I dare say that in the eyes of the world and hopefully American citizens, realizing it was a mistake and leaving as quickly as possible might show an improvement in our politicians. We can all be wrong Newt, only fools support an idea they say they don’t agree with in order to force truth into the President’s misspoken declaration.    If Newt isn’t strong enough to stick to his own beliefs then he certainly won’t have my vote.  I think we need a President with principles and that doesn’t include calling our mission a failure if it is changed through enlightenment or election.  I suppose Newt would still have us in Vietnam since he seems to believe that it is better to send civilians and soldiers to death than to admit we might be wrong sometimes.   I hope this buries any campaign because when you read his opinion, it sure sounds like another war-mongering, self-justifying President to me.  I’m not sure we can take that kind of leadership anymore.  Yes, he says he wouldn’t have gone and I’m sure his supporters will point to that.  However, those are cheap words when you show you are willing to abandon your principles so easily and quickly.  I encourage you to read his short opinion at the link below.