What the fuck, Newt Gingrich?

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

Then he recommended expanding war in Iraq to "pull in" Syria and Iran. (What, what, what, world war?) Yeah that'll work! How about if we attack every country whose name starts with an "I" or an "S" just to top it off?

Then he bitched about how if Rumsfeld had got the boot earlier then Repubs would have won the elections. And we would all be safe. For war. Because ... i forget the because... and then Newt could run for president in 2008 with NO PROBLEM.

Yes you heard me! He thinks he's running for president! Yes that's right because everyone in this country would just *love* to have free speech eliminated (except for corporations and churches I guess) and to be in an even bigger war for years and years! That's what we want, really! Because otherwise we might "lose a city".

Hey wait, didn't we already lose a city? It was called New Orleans?

What the fuck!

"thanks" to bellatrys for the link.

Comments

[qp]

We were just talking about him the other day! apparently he alluded to a speech Lincoln made, about the times requiring him to run, though he wouldn't otherwise... except that Lincoln was totally scheming and climbing the whole time, so it's not a very good speech to allude to.
and what could we possibly need him for!!

[shrike]

Just for this comment I will be sending another donation to the ACLU, Newt.

Crawl in a hole and die, you Bush fascists.....

[toobeaut]

 
before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade

But failing that, I'm sure he has a few cities in mind the Republicans wouldn't mind disappearing off the face of the earth.

[toobeaut]

BTW, here's a transcript from the May 14, 2006 "Meet the Press" in whcih Gingrich said something similar:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12739318/

GINGRICH: Look, if you find out one morning that we now have five terrorists in the U.S. who are part of an active network who want to destroy New York City or Buffalo or Atlanta, and the government says, "You know, we could've tracked every call they made for the last 10 years, but that would've been wrong, Tim. So we don't know who they've been working with. We don't know what their network is and we can't stop it," you're then going to have a totally new set of congressional hearings by the same people who will then reverse their side, totally. I do think your civil liberties ought to be...(unintelligible). Nobody who's not involved in terrorism should be at risk. Nobody who's making normal phone calls should be at risk. But the idea that we're going to say to the United States government, for libertarian reasons, "We'd rather lose a city than have you gather data," I think is totally out of touch with the danger of the modern world.

 
Nice quote there: "I do think your civil liberties ought to be...(unintelligible)."

[Mark Jones]

Newt Gingrich? They say 60 is the new 40. I say psychopathic is the new sanity.As an ex-republican/former democrat. All I have to say is "What the fuck?" Is this the best the republicans have to offer? Perhaps Rudy or Mc Cain would better serve we moral types.Or,maybe Mitt Romney who belongs to a religion that in some small circles espouses bigamy/polygamy. Not only do I believe that the unholy veil has finally been lifted from these bastards. I believe that their misguided agenda is more apparently coming to light.And that would be that Iran was always the BIG ENCHILADA in the middle. Please notice the increase in Army recruitment ads.Please notice the increase in documentaries concerning Iran.Please notice the documentaries regarding new types of weapons that we intend to use. Cool huh? Do you see a pattern developing here? But, the bigger picture is "Why are we owned by the RED CHINESE?" Because, when the bombs fly and the dust settles, and all the the t-bonds are accounted for.Who really wins in the end? Why do I seem to equate the republican party with China?Could it be the Nixon administration normalizing relations? Could it be Reagan,Bush #1 granting most favored nation status to a decidedly oppressive communist regime even in light of Tiananmen Square? My opinion.You decide.