Gingrich: Bush Should Have Allowed Terror Attacks

[DCUBED]

http://blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=6730

Gingrich: Bush Should Have Allowed Terror Attacks

During an appearance at a Long Island bookstore last month, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was asked by a member of the audience why the United States has not been hit again since 9/11.

"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."

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."

"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."

[DCUBED]

It almost seems reasonable if you don't know that "terrorism" is defined as "any act harmful to another human being that is against federal or state law".

You do realize that because of the Patriot Act defining "terrorism" is itself considered terrorism....go figure.

[MR2]

Another example of the psychopaths we have running things on this planet!! 

[Scarbo]

Sounds like he's promoting treason there.

[Freeski]

"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."

In other words, according to the Newt, terrorism isn't a crime. Bite me you doubletalking weeny.

[birgit]

Newt has a newterd  brain!

[chris jones]

Do they have a test of some kind for those who wish to enter the NWO AND REGIME,, if one is not a sociopath or money grubbing barstard, with visions of graduer and royalty, willing to kill peons to get there, experts at deception and lies, imperitive.  Above all hollow of conscience and filled with self interest, then he may be accepted if his wealth and greed allow it.
That leaves us out of the gang.

[Femacamper]

Why join the losing team?

[illeagalhunter]

This is TREASON hang the bastard with Cheney

[GeorgeHayduke]

We could only hope that the "terrorist attack" they allowed to happen would have taken out Gingrich himself as well as Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Shaun Hannity and a whole slew of other neocon scumbags. But that would be a hit that would improve the world.

Ever notice that "terrorists" always and only get innocent folks or decent people. They rarely if ever seem to get the people that really need to be gotten to advance their cause.  That's one reason I began questioning "terrorist attacks" years ago. It always seems they can come up with the most brilliant plans, like 911, and pick the only day in ten years that would work, pick the right place to attack, exploit just the right weakness, etc, yet never, ever take out the real people in power that they should get to actually advance their cause. No, they always get innocent, unknowing citizens or minor players. Kinda interesting isn't it?

[seebach77]

http://blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=6730

Gingrich: Bush Should Have Allowed Terror Attacks

During an appearance at a Long Island bookstore last month, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was asked by a member of the audience why the United States has not been hit again since 9/11.

"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."

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."

"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."

Gingrich is another human sack of puss to be thrown in the heap with Bush I and II, Cheney, Rummy, Rove, Libby, Card, this Administration's neo-cons, et al.
All Masters of Disinformation and Misdirection.
And Lord knows what a sterling (sarcasm on) character he is in his personal life.... leaving his first wife he had a family with while she's in the hospital with cancer for another younger woman, then leaving THAT woman, who I believe had another family with him, while she's in the hospital with cancer for a third younger woman...   oh yeah, just a good ol' trustworthy boy! LOL!

[rio]

He's not even a very good double talker and those people listening are just idiots. What a bizarre clip!

[superfender]

Keith Olbermann did a "worst person's in the world" piece on him for this comment, Olbermann when are you going to wake up, you almost piss me off even more than the neo cons because YOU are the best we've got on mainstream television, why can't you see that the government DID "let one get through."

But then again I ask you guys on this forum rhetorically and seriously (because I might be wrong).  Has Keith Olbermann EVER attacked 911 conspiracy theories??  In fact it seems like he is the ONLY talk show host that I can think of that hasn't!!  Maybe he knows the truth and is too afraid?

[A K]

i have never seen him attack 9-11 truth.  He has done a good job of exposing many of the crimes of this regime, from attacking the Constitution to fake pre-war intel.  But he works at MSNBC and I would guess he knows or has been told there are limits to what he can do, and saying this regime intended 9-11 is still off limits.

[superfender]

Yeah I'm sure if he DID want to go public, that just simply wouldn't happen on MSNBC air waves, your right.  But it is encouraging in a way that he may be aware, but at the same time like I said, very frustrating because the way things are going there might not be a chance for him to speak out it shit hits the fan, it'll be too late, thats what pisses me off.