Gingrich video: Bush should have allowed some 'reminder' attacks

[chomerics]

Wow, I can not believe someone actually said the president should have let an attack through to remind people who we are up against :doh:

Are you kidding me?

"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."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Gingrich_Bush_should_have_allowed_attack_0529.html

I wouldn't have believed it unless I saw the video myself :doh: Someone actually advocating it would have been politically wise to allow an attack. . . and people wonder why the 9-11 conspiracy theorists think the way they do. . .then he goes on to say people would like a democracy in place of a dictatorship, yet wants to give up our civil liberties to stop an attack. . .yet the biggest threat to civil liberties is an attack, not the government that is taking them away :doh1:

man, he is really off his rocker on this one, just utterly pathetic.

[SUSkinsFan]

At least Sarge can't say that liberals are the ones out to destroy America anymore...

[BigMike619]

you sure worry about what Sarge thinks huh..lol

[SUSkinsFan]

you sure worry about what Sarge thinks huh..lol

I gotta admit, it's all I think about now...

But seriously, that was a REALLY dumb thing for Gingrich to say

[chomerics]

you sure worry about what Sarge thinks huh..lol

Curious as to what you think about what Gingrich said here Mike.

[Mickalino]

Curious as to what you think about what Gingrich said here Mike.

I dont know about Mike, but I think it eliminates Gingrich from being a potential McCain running mate.

[Mickalino]

On a serious note, the Gingrich remark brings up a good point.

Bush deserves SOME credit for the fact that there have not been any attacks on our soil since 9/11. Not saying I'm agreeing with the Gingrich comment, but it does reflect the credit I think Bush is due.

[Springfield]

Did you even watch that video?

After he made that comment he followed it up with, "Civil liberties are important at a local level"

I kinda like his idea of a large CIA that focuses on domestic issues while protecting civil liberties and a small but intense group of CIA to address the terrorists.

I see nothing wrong with his comments. In fact, I find myself defending conservatives from liberal attacks than defending liberals from conservative attacks lately. It's kind of wierd and I don't like it. It harkens me to the conservative attack mode of the late 90's.

Message to liberals: Please don't do the same thing the conservatives did when they were in power, it will only end of backfiring on you. You have the power now. Use it wisely. You have the power, now make something of it. The constant attacks will only stall your success.

[TradeTheBeal!]

On a serious note, the Gingrich remark brings up a good point.

Bush deserves SOME credit for the fact that there have not been any attacks on our soil since 9/11. Not saying I'm agreeing with the Gingrich comment, but it does reflect the credit I think Bush is due.

He also deserves the credit for 9/11. But he has done a decent job at keeping the boxcutters at bay recently...just like every other president in our history.

[herrmag]

Wow, I can not believe someone actually said the president should have let an attack through to remind people who we are up against :doh:

Are you kidding me?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Gingrich_Bush_should_have_allowed_attack_0529.html

I wouldn't have believed it unless I saw the video myself :doh: Someone actually advocating it would have been politically wise to allow an attack. . . and people wonder why the 9-11 conspiracy theorists think the way they do. . .then he goes on to say people would like a democracy in place of a dictatorship, yet wants to give up our civil liberties to stop an attack. . .yet the biggest threat to civil liberties is an attack, not the government that is taking them away :doh1:

man, he is really off his rocker on this one, just utterly pathetic.

Newt goes overboard, but he doesn't hold his tongue or worry about what every media org. is going to do to with his words (and in many ways, I respect that, unlike most politicians who pander to whomever suits them at the moment). Realistically, he's right. It would have been good for the BUSH ADMINISTRATION had an attack occurred. It would have deflected a lot of the issues arising from Iraq. If you're implying that he thinks they should have allowed an attack (e.g. let down their guard), then you are taking something he said and stretching it to a conclusion to benefit your own agenda.

That being said, the part about the "aggressive" contingent of the FBI being given certain liberties is certainly suspect.

[Springfield]

Nothing beats terrorism better than a little bit of common sense and a lot of American vigilante action.

[dg28daman]

I really don't see anything wrong with the comments at all.

[chomerics]

Newt goes overboard, but he doesn't hold his tongue or worry about what every media org. is going to do to with his words (and in many ways, I respect that, unlike most politicians who pander to whomever suits them at the moment). Realistically, he's right. It would have been good for the BUSH ADMINISTRATION had an attack occurred. It would have deflected a lot of the issues arising from Iraq. If you're implying that he thinks they should have allowed an attack (e.g. let down their guard), then you are taking something he said and stretching it to a conclusion to benefit your own agenda.

I don't deny that it would be good for the Bush administration, I think it is completely ignorant, and very VERY poor judgment to say something like that publicly no matter how true. It is in bad taste to suggest that Americans getting killed by a terrorist attack would benefit Bush.

That being said, the part about the "aggressive" contingent of the FBI being given certain liberties is certainly suspect.

That to me was just as scary. He is advocating removing civil liberties, so they won't be removed in the future due to a nuclear attack, and he even stated people would rather a dictatorship if they were to be protected, rather then a democracy, I disagree. I would rather live free and in danger than live under a dictatorship and safe.

What was it that Franklin said? A man who would give up liberty for security deserves neither. I agree with that completely.

[chomerics]

I really don't see anything wrong with the comments at all.

you don't have a problem when a politician says this?

And it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."

It is utterly pathetic that he would let those words come out of his mouth, even if he is right. It is advocating terrorism for polling points.

[Koolblue13]

It is utterly pathetic that he would let those words come out of his mouth,

Sometimes anybody will say anything and sometimes that somebody might be you.

even if he is right.

What, really? Ah, did you just say that you agree that our government should allow terrorists toattack and kill Americans in the name of safety? Huh.

It is advocating terrorism for polling points.

No it isn't.

[Springfield]

^^^

Funny thing is KB used the same "out of context" style that Chom did.

Funny thing.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Geez, Newt was NOT saying Bush should have allowed a few terrorist attacks...

Am I the only one who noticed he said "It's almost like"? Or am I the only one who actually understand what that phrase means, especially within the context that Newt used it?

There are a LOT of critics of the Bush administration who like to throw out the theory that the government hypes up and exaggerates the terror threat we face in order to try and justify an "unjust" war. Newt is saying that one of the reasons they're able to issue that theory is precisely--and ironically--because the government HAS taken the terrorist threat very seriously. And since you can't prove a negative, it's hard to prove the critics wrong by saying the absence of something proves its existence.

That's the "great tragedy" in Newt's eyes...that seemingly the only result of Bush's success at stopping terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is criticism that there must have been no terrorist threat TO stop. With so many people willing to accept that, um, "logic", Newt is simply saying that it's as if we should have let another attack occur just to wake these people up.

I think it's telling that the audience was laughing during his comments, because they were smart enough to know Newt was in no way advocating or suggesting letting terrorist attacks through.

[Ax]

Am I the only one who noticed he said "It's almost like"? Or am I the only one who actually understand what that phrase means, especially within the context that Newt used it?

This was to be my post, but since you already said it, there it is.

BTW, Chom knows it as well. But with the recent, brilliant statements, by heroes, Maxine, Hillary, and Barack, the current mission for all Democricans, is to search for statements from the Republicrats, so they can say, "See, your idiot is dumber than my idiot."

I'd love to see Chom, pick his own assertion apart, if it were made by a Rep, against a Dem.

It'd be no less than a 1,500 word summary with pictures, graphs, and links showing the origins, current and former uses, and intended meanings of, "almost like."

And it would be, fascinating.

[Sarge]

This would have been a good thing only if Bush had let the terrorist attack San Fransicko

j/k

I think

[GoSkins561]

I understand what he was saying even though I think he shouldn't have said it, and obviously disagree.

My translation is, because there are so many people like yourself who just don't understand our enemy, another attack would be a reminder to those, like yourself, of thier capacity and thier complete and total disregard for human life.

I also think part of it was saying, people like yourself don't appreciate the fact, instead of us being punched in the mouth, we are now doing the punching. Why stop punching, when most recently we are starting to get an upper hand?

[Sarge]

I understand what he was saying. My translation is, because there are so many people like yourself who just don't understand our enemy, another attack would be a reminder to those, like yourself, of thier capacity and thier complete and total disregard for human life.

I also think part of it was saying, people like yourself don't appreciate the fact, instead of us being punched in the mouth, we are now doing the punching. Why stop punching, when most recently we are starting to get an upper hand?

Then the left would have nothing to whine about

[GoSkins561]

Then the left would have nothing to whine about

Policital correctness has gone mad.

[SUSkinsFan]

Then the left would have nothing to whine about

Do me a favor Sarge, imagine Obama had said tha exact statement as Gingrich, what would you have to say about the situation?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Do me a favor Sarge, imagine Obama had said tha exact statement as Gingrich, what would you have to say about the situation?

Well we all know Chommie would be spinning this and saying that this is just Faux News digging for quotes, blah blah blah...

[SUSkinsFan]

Well we all know Chommie would be spinning this and saying that this is just Faux News digging for quotes, blah blah blah...

My question wasn't about Chom, it was about what Sarge would do if the situation were reversed and a Democrat said that statement.