Newt goes for the incoherent defense

Deleting his old silly tweets won't solve his larger problems. In his latest attempt to explain his complete aboutface on Libya, Newt keeps digging that hole deeper.

Newt a couple of weeks ago:

GINGRICH: All we have to say is that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable, and we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops, all we have to do is suppress his air force, which we can do in minutes. And then we have to say, publicly, that he is gone, that the military should switch sides now. … The fact there’s no more Libya air power, and the fact that the United States has come out decisively for replacing him, I suspect the military will dump him.

Newt yesterday:

GINGRICH: If they’re serious about protecting civilians, you can’t do that from the air. Gadaffi is going to use light infantry, he’s going to use his secret police. He’s going to be in the cities, he’s going to be inside buildings. Your not going to be able to do that with air power. This is a fundamental mistake. And I think is a typical politician’s over-reliance on air power.

And Newt is showing a typical GOP reliance on saying what he thinks the audience wants to hear, no matter how contradictory or nonsenical.

Of course he is far from the only one. There's a whole raft of hypocritical GOPers taking 180 degree turns in their position on the Libya "intervention." It used to be sort of joke, but it's the new reality now. The GOP's entire platform really can be summed up with, "Whatever Obama, (or the Democratic party), does is bad and we're against it. Even if we initially recommended the policy."

Addendum: In the second link, Michigan Rep. Candice Miller is misidentified as a Democrat. I tweeted Jon Karl who was listed an a co-author of the piece when I noticed it this morning. No response and no correction so far. Be interesting to see if they ever fix it.