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

[Redskins Diehard]

I disagree. I don't think that it is almost like there should be another terrorist attack to proved our policies are needed. It is an unfortunate, or fortunate, fact of life that the policies that make/keep us safe will always be scrutinized when they are working and the people are not afraid.

It is not "almost like" it is a good thing that people are killed in drunk driving accidents so that we are reminded it is a bad thing.

People have largely forgotten what it felt like to be under attack. To not know how many more planes and buildings would go down. To not know if their loved ones in NYC and Washington, DC and any other large metropolitan area were alright. People have forgotten that and I think that is a good thing.

[Spaceman Spiff]

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

I know, I'm just saying the roles would obviously be reversed. Trying to figure out what Sarge would say here is about as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.

[#98QBKiller]

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

He'd whine and cry like a baby that's had its candy taken away...along with a handful of other whiny repubs on here.

[Burgold]

It was a stupid thing to say and he's wrong.

Here's why-

If there had been a sniper attacks or another successful terrorist attack (although part of me still thinks that the East Coast blackout was too perfect for it to be an accident) what would have been the story:

We are fighting an unnecessary war while little to no money or attention has been devoted to securing our borders, ports, etc. The ability of people to enter this country illegally has not only not been slowed it has been encouraged. This (attack) was bound to happen and the diversion of an unnecessary Iraq War lowered our readiness to deal with real domestic threats.

That would have been the storyline if Bush had "allowed" a number of successful terrorist attacks. The idea that "Only I (the Republicans) can save you" is better made if there are NO attacks than if they are common enough that people are constantly on edge.

[Sarge]

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

What needs to be said? Obama's crowd are the ones say ing the threat has been overblown to keep people afraid. Unfortunately, "Almost blew up" doesn't make headlines like "Blown up".

[Thiebear]

Books have been written about this exact scenario.

The CIA allows and stages a couple of attacks that allow them to put their guy into the Presidency.

Everyone thought for sure Bush would "plant" WMD to show he was right: = Nope.

Letting a little attack through at the right time would help him push his dictatorship: = Nope.

AND the latest that Alqaeda is dying on the vine right now..

Newt like all others that are pundits are allowed to say whatever they want...

Obama and Hillary and McCain and people in an actual position of power are not.

[Sarge]

People have forgotten that and I think that is a good thing.

That's right. Because something has kept us safe, and it sure ain't the policies of the left.

I agree that it is a good thing that people feel secure and are able to forget. That's the way it's supposed to be.

All I ask is that the left quit whining about the policies and practices of those of us charged with doing the heavy lifting

[GoSkins561]

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

If he did say it, that would mean that he would have supported a cause that has prevented terrorist attacks on US soil.

[The Sisko]

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.

I think you're pretty much right on this point Mick. For what has been accomplished, W. deserves some credit. The only thing is, we might not have had an attack anyway-there's just no way to know. I tend to think though that it has been as much luck as anything else. Like Newt, I strongly suspected that any terrorist worth his salt would see the effect of the sniper attacks and decide that was going to be the next big thing. Had that happened, I don't know if we'd have been able to stop it very quickly. Being in emergency preparedness, even only at the margins, I know for a fact that there are any number of targets available that we've done a poor job of protecting.

I have always believed that preventing the next terror attack was the real reason for the Iraq invasion. That is, we knew Saddam probably didn't have WMD but pre-invasion Iraq was an intelligence black hole and we weren't going to allow Al Qaeda to find a new safe haven there after getting ejected from Afghanistan. Even so, I'd much rather we did something unsuccessful in preventing the next attack rather than doing nothing.

In any event, Newt is mostly right particularly when you take what he actually said into account rather than immediately recoiling at how bad it seems on the surface. However, the problem is that he fails to mention that much of the blame for W's lack of credit in this area is his own fault. Had the administration not horribly mismanaged the Iraq invasion and its immediate aftermath along with the Katrina response, not to mention the tax cuts plus increasing budget strategy that has resulted in a ballooning deficit, attention would not have been diverted from what they've done right.

[NoCalMike]

Well I am suprised he actually said it PUBLICLY, but in all honestly, it really just ties in to the fear-mongering culture in Washington. They want to scare everyone and have them thinking that terrorist attacks are imminent everyday. Keep the people scared and they will lay down at your feet and give you more power then you could imagine.

It happened after 9/11, and if this country hasn't learned anything, it would/could happen again in the future.

The fact is that the "terrorist threat" in this country has been overblown to an unrealistic proportion. Are there people out there that want to "kill america" sure, of course, but it is not nearly the amount of people this administration would have you believe, but the problem is the american people wouldn't be afraid of "10 guys with box cutters" so that HAD TO change into "Saddamn has nuclear weapons and wants to strike the U.S." because that sounds a lot more scary.

[Redskins Diehard]

That's right. Because something has kept us safe, and it sure ain't the policies of the left.

I agree that it is a good thing that people feel secure and are able to forget. That's the way it's supposed to be.

All I ask is that the left quit whining about the policies and practices of those of us charged with doing the heavy lifting

Is that you COL Jessup?

I don't disagree with anything you say here. Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that a reasonable examination of the policies and practices will not take place and the "whining" will continue. And I don't think all on "the left" are that way...but there certainly are some...and some of those frequent this board

[Destino]

If people aren't afraid they aren't going to support this batch of republicans. An attack before election day is entirely in the interest of the GOP at the moment, and that should tell you how perverted the party has become. Bush was reelected on defense and we had a nice run up of color coded warning changes/reminders leading up to the election to make certain we all were aware of the danger.

We need to get everyone of these people out of office on election day. Before they realize that creating enemies would likely help keep them in power.

[Koolblue13]

^^^

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

Funny thing.

Can you give me one scenario where allowing the American population to be killed intentionally to get what you want would be "a good thing"? Seems fundamentally wrong to me.

That is also the point of some of the CTs. Allowing an attack to get the people behind you, so you can go into a war on conjured evidence. Playing on peoples fear to do as you wish.

[#98QBKiller]

If people aren't afraid they aren't going to support this batch of republicans. An attack before election day is entirely in the interest of the GOP at the moment, and that should tell you how perverted the party has become. Bush was reelected on defense and we had a nice run up of color coded warning changes/reminders leading up to the election to make certain we all were aware of the danger.

We need to get everyone of these people out of office on election day. Before they realize that creating enemies would likely help keep them in power.

Exactly. Like NoCalMike said, the only surprise here is that it was said publicly.

[Smoot Point Really]

It was a stupid thing to say, or think... There are plenty of reminders, but a lot of them are ignored.

[Smoot Point Really]

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

I'm pretty sure BHO would've found a more eloquent way of incorporating the words "Chicken" and "roost" somewhere in that statement.

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm pretty sure BHO would've found a more eloquent way of incorporating the words "Chicken" and "roost" somewhere in that statement.

I've got to ask this.

Do you feel that other races or religions are below you and yours?

[Koolblue13]

It was a stupid thing to say, or think... There are plenty of reminders, but a lot of them are ignored.

Like the two large piles of rubble and 1,000 sick and dieing first responders.

[Sarge]

Well I am suprised he actually said it PUBLICLY, but in all honestly, it really just ties in to the fear-mongering culture in Washington. They want to scare everyone and have them thinking that terrorist attacks are imminent everyday. Keep the people scared and they will lay down at your feet and give you more power then you could imagine.

It happened after 9/11, and if this country hasn't learned anything, it would/could happen again in the future.

The fact is that the "terrorist threat" in this country has been overblown to an unrealistic proportion. Are there people out there that want to "kill america" sure, of course, but it is not nearly the amount of people this administration would have you believe, but the problem is the american people wouldn't be afraid of "10 guys with box cutters" so that HAD TO change into "Saddamn has nuclear weapons and wants to strike the U.S." because that sounds a lot more scary.

You wouldn't believe how many people with bad intentions are already here, in country

[Smoot Point Really]

I've got to ask this.

Do you feel that other races or religions are below you and yours?

I think everyone is below me and mine... I treat everyone the same. Why restrict it to just race and religion?

I'm not really sure why you asked this... It was clearly a reference to Jeremiah Wright. Whatever, Buford. Your sincerity over this remark makes me wonder why I even wasted the energy to respond to your question.

[@DCGoldPants]

No, its just in general. The Muslim stuff, the Liberal stuff, the Israel stuff.

I was curious.

[Koolblue13]

If, after 9/11, Bush came out and immediately got us off foreign oil and out of the ME, I don't think we would be so worried about it. That would be so much better than going to war and becoming more intrusive in our lives.

[dg28daman]

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

I think it's fairly obvious that he was trying to make a point, and it wasn't to be taken literally. I think you should stop letting your liberal bias take away from you intelligence.

[chomerics]

You wouldn't believe how many people with bad intentions are already here, in country

I take it you just stepped out of the bathroom and saw a mirror before you wrote this right?

[chomerics]

I think it's fairly obvious that he was trying to make a point, and it wasn't to be taken literally. I think you should stop letting your liberal bias take away from you intelligence.

I am not letting a liberal bias creep into anything, and in fact, I said it may be true. . . but just because it is true does not excuse himself for saying it!

Here is the quote again. . .

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

ALLOWED!!!

That is the part that is really scary to me. He is saying they should have allowed an attack for political ratings, and it is a HORRID thing to say.

Would an attack help them in the polls? Probably it would. . .but should it even be thought up? Hell no!!! Your role as a government is to protect the people, and to even think this is bad, but to publicly say it, as a politician is not only bad tact, it is going to be used against you in every way possible.

Can you imagine what people would say if Obama said this? As a politician, you need to have a filter on your words, and THINK about what you say, because they WILL be used against you. This quote will be used if newt ever decides to try for any election and it will sink him. It is a horrible thing to say, advocating an attack for political ratings, and it shows where some republicans heads are. In the polls, not at the countries best interest.