Hey, Newt Gingrich, why do you think we haven’t had any follow-on domestic terror attacks since September 11, 2001?
“I honestly don’t know,” Gingrich replied. “I would have expected another attack. I was very, very worried … when we had the sniper attacks, because the sniper attacks were psychologically so frightening. … I was amazed that the bad guys didn’t figure out how to send ten or twelve sniper teams.”
“This is … one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration,” Gingrich continued. “The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ‘Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.”
Okay. I can see you’re not really serious Newt, but you seem to be implying that we should allow small attacks to somehow prevent large attacks. Is that what you’re saying?
I think that your liberties in a domestic setting are paramount,” Gingrich explained. “I would rather risk crime than risk losing my civil liberties. But I would not rather risk a nuclear weapon. … I think the greatest danger to our liberty is to actually have the country end up in the kind of attack that would lead us to favor a dictatorship for security.”
Oh, so you are saying that you’ll trade small attacks to prevent big attacks. Aren’t those called false-flag operations normally? Or maybe you are just arguing that we should allow our rights to be violated. Is that what you’re really trying to say?
Gingrich then recommended splitting the FBI into a domestic crime unit, which would respect civil liberties, and a “small but very aggressive anti-terrorism agency” with “extraordinary ability to eavesdrop.”
So, I guess we need to rephrase that old canard to read, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, unless there are nuclear weapons in the world.”
And the Republicans actually want people that love freedom and liberty to vote for them. Astonishing.
Boo: Two words
Early Alzheimer’s
If Bush was so good at stopping attacks, wouldn’t there be more to show for all this torture and wiretapping than a few loser pizza shop owners in S Jersey, and some other losers in S FL and W NY? Maybe I missed a story on a real serious threat to the US, but if I missed it what does that say?
And the people connected to 9/11 wouldn’t be getting acquitted or having the charges thrown out.
Not if they were doing a good job.
Operation Northwoods comes to mind.
.
yeah, and that was proposed, IIRC, by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was it not?
why in dogs name does this pathetic, washed up, has been of a disgraced RATpublican’t continue to get air time and electrons devoted to his increaingly stupid remarks?
this is just a rehash of the garbage he was spewing back in april:
jezeus, what a waste of air and space.
When I addressed a college class and took questions from 20 students, somehow the event didn’t make the news.
I need a new PR person, I guess.
perhaps…but l suspect you’re just another pseudo-intellectual, effite, latte drinking, prius driving liberal…aka…o f’g hippie…you’ll need a complete make over.
/snark
I agree that our civil liberties are paramount but I think the greatest threat to them is the one posed by the neocons. What with their plan for the next American century, who knows maybe they were behind the 9/11 attacks. They certainly did little to prevent them nor did they distinguish themselves in setting up and cooperating with the 9/11 commission.
And, if they really wanted to capture Bin Laden why did they entrust that vital task to the Afghan military at Tora Bora? A military known for its fondness for taking bribes. So many things fail to add up when the neocons are involved that we have a brand new math. Just look at Watergate, Iran-Contragate, Anthrax letters, Hussein with weapons of mass destruction and close friendship with Al Qaeda.
Just one lie after another. Simply revolting.
I’m sorry, but that’s straight up nutjobby yabber, for reals.
“This President’s pretty much a victim of success. We haven’t had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it’s not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing’s in Europe, there’s a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it’s a shame we don’t have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats…the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you’d think we’d be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less…the less…”
–Rummy
منتديات–شات–دردشة–دردشه–شات
كتابي–دردشة كتابية–شات
صوتي–دردشة صوتية–شات
سعودي–دردشة سعودية–شات
الغلا–منتديات الغلا–تحميل
العاب–برامج كمبيوتر–كتب
مجانية–برامج جوال–مقاطع
بلوتوث–مسجات–نغمات–ثيمات–العاب
جوال موبايل–تصاميم–هكر–صور–صور
انمي–اخبار الفن–صور
فنانين–افلام–افلام
اجنبية–اناشيد–صور
سيارات–كاس امم اوروبا–تحميل
اهداف–محمد–سياحة
وسفر–منتدى النقاش–منتديات
عامة–منتديات اسلامية–صور
كاريكاتير–منتدى تعارف–نكت–الغاز–خواطر–قصائد–شعر–قصص–اساطير–روايات–حكم
وامثال–ازياء–منتديات
عروس–المطبخ–اطفال–طب–علم
النفس–منال العالم–مركز
تحميل–دليل مواقع–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9–برق–19–p1–p2–p3–p4–78–71–20–21–59–60–58–61–67–53–56–9–a9–a1–a8–a12—a15–a16–a18–ماسنجر–صور
بنات–51–26–a–b–c–d–e–e–f–g–h–j–l–29–43–47–13–6–dd–p18–f8–12–62–65–49l–f11–f86–مسجات
حب–مسجات عتاب–مسجات
شوق–مسجات مقالب–مسجات
نكت–مسجات حلوة–صور
حب–صور بنات–شات
بنات–دردشة بنات–شات
الحب–دردشة الحب–دردشة
كويت 25–اغاني هيفاء وهبي–دردشة
بنت السعودية–عمرو خالد–ناصر
الفراعنة–صور نانسي عجرم–ياسر
القحطاني–شات بنات عوانس–نغمات
نوكيا–قصص–هشام
الراشد–تامر حسني–العاب–