« DoD Emails Help Establish Link Between NSA Telecoms, NSA Affiliated contractors, and Military Analysts | testing's Blog | War Crimes: Implications of McClellan's Book For Congress, US Attorneys »
Gingrich Allegedly Advocates Treason
Gingrich:
Treason:
"And it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."
Treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Advertisement
Yeah, I've often thought that I should have let my children run in front of a car once to teach them a lesson about how brilliant I am when I say, "Stop! Look right, look left and then go."
I guess Gingrich forgets that Bush already dropped the ball when 911 happened. Remember when he told the CIA agent who warned him, "OK, NOw you've covered your ass."
I think Bush has gotten quite enough mileage out of 911 (why it has been a net gain for him I'll never understand as long as I live). How in the world Gingrich thinks he should have gotten more is all you need to know about republicans in general.
May 29, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody actually believe that the Bush administration was competent enough that it can "let" an attack get through. That would imply awesome and unlikely levels of control.
Face it, we haven't been attacked in the US because nobody's credibly tried since 9/11 or maybe the anthrax attacks (which seemed more a Unabomber type criminal act, in any event.)
I don't say we haven't been attacked, by the way. Because I'm darned sure our soldiers abroad would disagree.
May 29, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sort of 'control' needed to let an attack through would have required precision intelligence and access to information that probably only a handful of people on the planet could have had access to.
Two people that could have had this power are Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom had been lurking inside the White House apparatus since the Nixon administration -- and in Rummy's case, the Eisenhower administration (god damn that is a long time ago).
'
I'm not suggesting LIHOP but if you want to sniff around where the largest treasure trove of information is likely to be, it's around career-oriented bureaucrats who rose to the top over the span of 40 years.
I still think the book of the 9/11 investigation shouldn't be closed, because it seems plausible that the alleged hijackers had access to military intelligence to pull off their attacks. Did they know in advance about the military exercises planned for 9/11 and use it as a cover?
Also it's quite funny that in Bush's recent SOTU that he said that we hadn't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 -- conveniently writing the Anthrax attacks out of history. I wonder what the justification for that was?
May 30, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad the war against democracy doesn't count because many of the right wingers would definitely fall into it:
- calling for a presidential candidate to be assassinated (Fox)
- Operation Chaos to screw with open elections (Limbaugh)
- Disseminating pure propaganda (too many to list)
The list could go on but you get the point.
Live Frankly
May 29, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article should have been linked on the front page.
Newt Gingrich is unbelievable. He is the primary reason that I will not vote for a Republican candidate at all. Ever. Lots of blank spots on my local ballots here in Texas.
He is a crazy, crazy man.
May 30, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, I'm no Gingrich fan, but thats just quoting a stupid thought out of context. When one is accusing an American of treason, one should provide at least a whole paragraph. He appears to be saying that hypothetically, if another terrorist attack inside the US happened, it would prove the conservative argument that civil liberties should be restricted to fight terrorism.
Second, imagine if a well-known liberal said,
"...it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to let us know how invading Iraq made us less safe..." My guess is that Fox News would be on it like white on rice for a week.
May 30, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad that's ok with him; because that is what they did.
May 30, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
and that's a patriotic remark ???
which part ???
the part about Americans dying ???
or the part about restricting our freedom ???
what America did you grow up in that you think either of those ideas is patriotic ???
if you take the WHOLE STATEMENT as a single thought, what newt is saying is that a terrorist attack on America would allow the repuglitards to destroy America
what part of that do you not understand ???
May 30, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your emotional response suggests I failed to communicate what I meant to say. Of course his statement is irresponsible and unpatriotic, but my point is that that doesn't qualify as treason.
May 31, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink