 sahara says: ...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." The video can be viewed here: http://current.com/items/88988029_newt_gingrich_bush_should_have_allowed_some_terror_attacks_as_a_reminder Is is possible? Did Newt Gingrich actually say something reasonable? I suppose there is a first time for everything, although judging from this unscrupulous twit's past seeing and hearing may not be enough. Its unfortunate that Newt has neither the smarts nor the class to just fade away into obscurity, thus shielding his descendants from further embarrassment. "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.""They should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us." NO sane person could say this never mind think it. He is saying that they allow a successful attack just to prove there are attacks. Nuts. Only someone who believed there never were other attacks - unsuc... Well put, righthand. Tks, Seaj11 |
View the Top Clips from May 30, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
