The Marxist Libs make Gingrich "the confused one," rather than their own president.

In response to a Marxist blogger bent on finding someone who flip-flops more than Obama, Newt Gingrich finds it necessary to set the record straight. The blogger, a donut eater named George Zornick at ThinkProgress: , made the charge yesterday. After Newt's response, Zornick called the response "incoherent and contradictory," you know, kind of like Obama's stated policy on Libya. Understand that Zornick, not to be confused with the Great Carnack, is desperate to make his president appear resolved and predetermined. It is not Gingrich who is confused. It is Obama.

In short, Gingrich's position is/was that he would not have gotten involved, militarily, in Libya. But after the leader of the free world made a public announcement that "Gadafi must go," the military option became the only option.

According to Obama, we are done with the event come this weekend. And if Gadafi is still in power, well, he wins. It is that simple. Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, defended Obama yesterday by arguing that Obama had stopped a certain slaughter of innocents with the intervention. But, if we leave off the intervention, and Gadafi continues to murder his own people, what is the sense in that? O'Reilly might see an ultimate upside, I don't.

In fact, Obama has announced the end of the mission. Its this weekend. If that holds out to be true, Gadafi needs only to hunker down and wait for the Great Black Hope to vacate the region, and (again), he wins.

On his facebook, Newt writes:

. . . . . . I made this point on The Today Show this morning, saying “I would not have intervened…there were a lot of other ways to affect Gaddafi…I would not have used American and European forces.”

The president, however, took those options off the table with his public statement. From the moment of the president’s declaration, he put the prestige and authority of the United States on the line. After March 3, anything short of a successful, public campaign for regime change would have been seen as a defeat for the United States.

That’s why during a March 7th Greta van Susteren interview, I asserted that the president should establish a no-fly zone "this evening.” After March 3rd, the President should have moved immediately to consult with Congress to implement a no-fly zone, while also making it clear the US would welcome involvement from other nations.

Instead, he did the opposite. The President wasted weeks trying to get approval from the United Nations instead of Congress, the result of which was a weak mandate from the UN that changed the mission to one of humanitarian intervention.

Yet, by that standard we should also be using US forces in the Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Yemen and more countries. . . . . .

Now that we have US forces engaged, any result less than the removal of Gadaffi from power will be considered a defeat.

For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through.

Nothing confusing about any of this from Gingrich. Nothing but confusion from Obama.