Earlier today, ThinkProgress exposed that Newt Gingrich completely reversed his position on Libya. On March 7th he criticized Obama for not acting on Libya and said he would “exercise a no-fly zone this evening.” This morning Gingrich said, “I would not have intervened.” Watch:

What’s followed has been a series of convoluted and contradictory explanations. The latest is a first person statement posted to his Facebook page. The thrust of his Facebook post is that he believes Obama should not have publicly stated that Qaddafi needed to go on March 3:

On March 3rd, President Obama said publicly that “it’s time for Gadaffi to go.”

Prior to this statement, there were options to be indirect and subtle to achieve this result without United States military forces. 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 Qaddafi…I would not have used American and European forces.”

The president, however, took those options off the table with his public statement.

But in February, Gingrich said precisely the opposite on Fox News. He very clearly stated that Obama should publicly support the ouster of Qaddafi. From Politico on February 22 (text and video):

“If you are the Libyans…you are able to to suppress your people and the American government stays quiet”

…

“I wish the administration — the Obama administration was as enthusiastic about democracy in Libya and in Iran and in other countries as it was in Egypt, which was our ally.

“Qadhafi’s been our enemy for years. This is an opportunity to replace that dictatorship, and I think the United States ought to be firmly on the side of the Libyan people in replacing this administration.“

Gingrich has now responded on Twitter, through a spokesperson and on Facebook. Each time, Gingrich only further contradicts his prior positions, digging his hole deeper.

As ThinkProgress noted this morning, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has undergone a remarkable transformation in his views about intervening in Libya. On March 7, before President Obama acted, Gingrich said that if it were up to him, he would “exercise a no-fly zone this evening…the United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission.” Then, less than 24 hours after President Obama signed off on a no-fly zone, Gingrich accused him of “opportunism,” and this morning on the Today Show, said plainly that “I would not have intervened.”

When asked by Rolling Stone on Twitter this afternoon about the contradiction, Gingrich offered a confusing reply:

First, Gingrich’s assertion that he would use “allies” and not Americans — which he also said on the Today Show this morning — is a direct contradiction to the earlier interview in which he dismisses the need for allies. “We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations,” he said earlier this month.

Gingrich’s explanation that that Obama “changed the choice” on March 3 makes no sense. That excuse ignores the fact that both of Gingrich’s contradictory statements came after March 3. Again, he strongly advocated intervention on March 7 and slammed Obama for doing so on March 20.

Obama has been consistent about his desire to see Qaddafi relinquish power, as have other world leaders. Obama joined an international effort to protect the rebels, which is what Newt originally advocated (“All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening,”) before explicitly denouncing that justification. (“The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain.”)

So what is Newt’s point? That’s not really clear. Except that Obama is wrong.

This morning, a bomb struck a bus in downtown Jerusalem, killing one person and injuring dozens more. Jerusalem police called it a “terrorist attack,” the first in Jerusalem in seven years. President Obama condemned the attack “in the strongest possible terms.” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayad have also condemned the attack.

Even before the street had been cleared, however, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee blasted an email out to its supporters in a crass attempt to raise money off the attack:

While Jerusalem has been relatively quiet over the past years, the occupation of the West Bank — which, despite the lack of attention to it, is a constant, humiliating reality of Palestinian life — ensures that tensions always remain at a simmer. Settler activity over the past couple years in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem like Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah, where Palestinian families have been evicted to make way for Jewish ones, have ratcheted up tension to an alarming degree. The horrific murders in the Itamar settlement earlier this month added more fuel to the fire, and the recent exchange of fire between Hamas and the Israeli army in Gaza has added more. There is a real danger now of things spiraling out of control. It’s disgraceful that AIPAC’s first response to this tragedy is to try and monetize it.

Earlier this month, former Speaker of the House and current presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was hammering President Obama for not intervening in Libya. Asked, “what would you do about Libya?” Gingrich responded:

Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.

During appearances that same day, Gingrich also said that he would provide help to the Libyan rebels on top of the no-fly zone: “This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” He later mocked Obama for filling out an NCAA bracket while France took the lead on intervention.

Now that Obama has initiated a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich has completely reversed his position with no apparent explanation. He told Politico over the weekend — less than 24 hours after Obama took action — that “it is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity.” This morning on the Today Show, he said plainly, “I would not have intervened”:

GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. … The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Watch it:

Speaking of “opportunism and news media publicity,” there is no other reasonable explanation for Gingrich’s complete flip-flop, which went unchallenged by Today Show host Matt Lauer.

In an additional dose of hypocrisy, Gingrich said of the Libyan intervention: “This is about as badly run as any foreign operation we’ve seen in our lifetime.” This shows once again that Iraq War hawks like Gingrich have very short memories.