FNS: Newt Gingrich Says Obama's Prosecution of Terror Is A Partisan Attack On Bush
There's just so much garbage in this clip, it's hard to sort it all out. But garbage it is and sort we must. I think that it's instructive to remember as we wade through this textbook example of fallacious logic that Newt Gingrich is considered the great scholar of the GOP. No wonder the GOP doesn't seem able to think their way out of the tea bag they put themselves in.
Still holding the talking points given to him by the Bush administration's Revisionist History Tour™, Newtie tries to muddy the waters by simultaneously claiming that the Clinton and Obama administrations did or do not take the War on Terror™ as seriously as the Bush administration, but also find that the tactics used by the Bush administration in their pursuit of against terrorism are so acceptable that they haven't tried outlawing them yet. HUH????
(S)ince 1993 when seven people were killed at the World Trade Center, we’ve had two cycles. We had a Clinton administration that thought this was a criminal problem, that issued -- that refused to allow the CIA and the FBI to cooperate, that refused to pressure Saudi Arabia or Yemen to go after people who were killing our folks. And then you had a Bush administration that said this is a war.
Hmm...interesting revisionism. Let's recall, Newtie, that the Clinton administration actually caught and prosecuted the "blind sheik" responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, unlike the Bush administration, who declared war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and killed millions of Iraqis but left Osama Bin Laden uncaught. That's a successful strategy, innit?
WALLACE: I want to ask you about one other aspect of this. Pelosi says even if she was briefed on this that there was nothing she could do because these were classified briefings. She and the Republican chairman of the committee got this information. There’s nothing they could do.
You as House speaker received these kinds of briefings back in the ‘90s. If you objected to a secret operation, was there something you could do?
GINGRICH: Sure. I mean, the first thing you do is call the president and tell him you will feel compelled to pass a law cutting off the money. I mean, there are lots of things you can do if you want to do it. The Congress is pretty powerful if it wants to be.
And second, you know, they’ve had control since January of 2007. They haven’t passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven’t gone into any of these things and changed law. In fact, they’ve had several -- they -- recently, you find that Attorney General Holder’s own Justice Department is saying, “Well, you know, some of these memos are actually right. They’re not wrong.”
Um, Newt? You do know that waterboarding is already illegal, don't you? Oh great historian of the GOP, can you tell me what happened to those Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American GIs during WWII? So Congress should make waterboarding illegal again otherwise they condone the act? Astonishing lack of logic there.
So this is -- what we’re seeing now in a very sad way is as bitter a partisan attack on the Bush people as we’ve seen since the McCarthy era. The degree that they’re putting specific people at risk for criminal prosecution is unprecedented in modern America.
Never let be said that today's GOP isn't the most persecuted bunch of privileged white folk in the history of mankind. Jeez. Here's another way to look at it, Newt: Specific people are at risk for criminal prosecution because of THEIR UNPRECEDENTED CRIMINAL ACTS. "Rule of Law" party, my aunt Fanny.
Which brings me to my final point, the implied slur against AG Eric Holder for his firm's representation of Yemeni detainees at Gitmo. Somehow this is siding with terrorists to actually respect our legal system. While Holder himself did not actually work on those Gitmo cases, the fact remains--and I'm sure that this comes as a shock to Gingrich--but not all attorneys think their clients are innocent. They are just interested in making sure that justice is served by a fair trial.
Obviously, the concepts of fairness and justice are alien to Gingrich.
Transcripts (courtesy of CQ Politics) below the fold
But I think it leads to a much deeper issue, which is since 1993 when seven people were killed at the World Trade Center, we’ve had two cycles. We had a Clinton administration that thought this was a criminal problem, that issued -- that refused to allow the CIA and the FBI to cooperate, that refused to pressure Saudi Arabia or Yemen to go after people who were killing our folks. And then you had a bush administration that said this is a war. I think the administration -- if the Obama administration can release documents from the last eight years, they ought to go back and release documents from the previous eight years. I mean, what -- what were the legal rulings of people like Holder who, after all -- you look at this administration, they’ve got at least...
WALLACE: Attorney General Holder, who then...
GINGRICH: Attorney General Holder.
WALLACE: ... was the deputy attorney general.
GINGRICH: But you look at -- when you look at the Obama administration, the number of attorneys they have appointed who were defending alleged terrorists -- I mean, there’s this weird pattern where the Bush people wanted to defend Americans and were pretty tough on terrorists.
These guys are prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists. And you look at who...
WALLACE: Who is defending terrorists?
GINGRICH: Oh, I think -- well, Holder’s firm has 17 alleged terrorists that they’re representing on a pro bono basis, for no fee. It’s the largest single thing they were doing for free -- was defending Yemenis.
I think there are five different attorneys in the -- in the Justice Department appointed by Obama who had direct -- their firms were defending alleged terrorists.
WALLACE: I want to ask you about one other aspect of this. Pelosi says even if she was briefed on this that there was nothing she could do because these were classified briefings. She and the Republican chairman of the committee got this information. There’s nothing they could do.
You as House speaker received these kinds of briefings back in the ‘90s. If you objected to a secret operation, was there something you could do?
GINGRICH: Sure. I mean, the first thing you do is call the president and tell him you will feel compelled to pass a law cutting off the money. I mean, there are lots of things you can do if you want to do it. The Congress is pretty powerful if it wants to be.
And second, you know, they’ve had control since January of 2007. They haven’t passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven’t gone into any of these things and changed law. In fact, they’ve had several -- they -- recently, you find that Attorney General Holder’s own Justice Department is saying, “Well, you know, some of these memos are actually right. They’re not wrong.”
So this is -- what we’re seeing now in a very sad way is as bitter a partisan attack on the Bush people as we’ve seen since the McCarthy era. The degree that they’re putting specific people at risk for criminal prosecution is unprecedented in modern America.
making waterboarding illegal. There are already laws making waterboarding illegal. What about the other methods of torture they used? Oh yeah, they are illegal also. How come nobody is talking about them?
The TV media is complicit! They would be clueless without republican whining. It would be like killing off all the villains in a fictional TV series - think how long most TV shows would last without creeps to do bad things.
TV media is complicit. They love the Republicans - they are like family. If the MSM don't wake up they are going down, down, down all the way with the lawless republicans.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Newt is just lining up the 21%ers.
is spelled Just-Us. Have fun on your journey to obscurity and irrelevence, Newt.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
but to disparage his efforts against OBL, and hold up the bush effort in combating terrorism is pure bullshit.
i seem to recall, from richard clarke and others, an effort to get the bush thuggies to take the OBL threat seriously when bush initially took office. yet, the bush junta blew off all terrorism concerns until this day. they never once worked to reduce the terror threat. not. once. in fact, the wargasmic actions they did take (illegal invasions, torture, and other human rights violations and war cimes), as they were warned, only increased the amount of worldwide terrorism, and made america less safe.
anyone that starts with the position that bush tried to fight terrorism should be discounted, as they are either confused, ignorant or lying
Like Col. Wilkerson says in his interview for February's VANITY FAIR ("Oral History of the Bush White House") (and I have it bookmarked...)
he discusses the 'preparation' of Condi for her little song-and-dance for the 9/11 whitewash..er..."commission"...and how he and John Bellinger who was Condi's lawyer (?) at the time realize how the Bush Administration weren't the least bit interested in al-Qaeda....just interested in lowering taxes, the defense shield program and how they would defend that...
but for all the programs Wilkerson has been on...NO ONE - not even Rachel Maddow - ever asks about that. And yes, I have sent her the links, AND the quote.....The quote is on page 9.
I see it now. Constant negative pressure on Obama, no good refutation of the lies told over and over on MSM, soft squishy weak dems in congress. And then the half brain dead electorate. You people better prepare for a republican resurgence.
Hehe. You said "you people". That's all you needed to say - Republicani!
You're right of coarse, they are insurgents. The republicans are dead enders, and america has to be extra cautious in these times.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
The first thing you should do if you're ever caught robbing a bank and taken to court is this - when they ask you to enter your plea, instead of answering guilty or not guilty, announce your candidacy for any elected office. That way you can claim that robbing the bank was just a 'fiscal policy' that your opponent doesn't agree with, and he's just criminalizing politics. How dare they interfere with your program of enhanced withdrawal! The nerve of some people!
DISCLAIMER: I do not advocate robbing a bank in order to try this out. Some judges may not have the sense of humor required to appreciate this tactic. This is not to be taken as real legal advise. Consult a competent attorney for advice, preferably before robbing a bank. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. YMMV
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
NEWTS support murder as in over 100 who couldn't learn how to speak and understand English before thy were beaten to death.
So that it in a nut shell ,History Prof ?, You support /Torture / Murder / Treason to find imaginary WMD's? WTF netw?
I guess this reptile has nothing left to loose, so he is going to appeal to the worst within all of us, and hope we all are as bad as he is. He is a very bad man.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Newt says:
"And second, you know, they’ve had control since January of 2007. They haven’t passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven’t gone into any of these things and changed law."
The TRUTH:
The Pelosi/Reid controlled Congress passed a BILL that would've BANNED waterboard in February 2008. A "bill" doesn't become a "law" until the President signs it. What happened in March 2008?
Bush vetoes bill outlawing CIA waterboarding
--Cobra
This reptile gave up on the truth ages ago. He has thrived on lies his entire career. He would not know how to handle the truth at this point.
These people almost conquered free america because nobody was taking note of the lies before.
Hey MSM what ever happened to the truth? Keep it up and you will be out of a job just like republicans.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
I thoroughly enjoy when I big lie is smacked down with a simple link to the truth.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
With nothing left and most of the secrets out Republicans now use the Ford defense to get the Bush Administration off. Yes we did TORTURE AND KILL INNOCENT DETAINEES, but lets just move on becauae we don't really wont the Bush Administration to be charged with the crimes. Anyone else would be sent to jail, look even Saddam was hung for his crimes and he didn't do as much as the Bush Administration. Under the US Democracy a Republican President/Vice President and their friends come commit War Crimes without being charged in America but let a Democrat President have a personal affair and we must IMPEACH HIM. Notice even Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Treason by the Bush Administration isn't a crime we just need to pray yet Bill Clinton should have been IMPEACH no prayers for him.
Just an observation on Newt's first comment:
the first thing you do is call the president and tell him you will feel compelled to pass a law cutting off the money.
I'd like to remind him that THE DEMOCRATS WERE NOT IN THE MAJORITY WHEN THIS MEETING TOOK PLACE and had no power over the purse-strings to threaten defunding the war.
By the time they were in 2007, it was a moot point. As Wallace himself noted, "EIT hadn't taken place in years"... years, as in: BEFORE THE DEMOCRATS REGAINED CONTROL IN 2007.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
Throughout history, all traitors, tyrants, and torturers insisted that they were doing what was in the best interest of their country.
What the Newster refuses to acknowledge is that investigation into the crimes of the Bush administration is a mandate of the American people. It is the voice of people who voted overwhelmingly for change. The secrets and crimes of the Bush administration have finally come to light, and the American people realize that they were duped, they were played in a time of weakness, vulnerability, and fear by their own government.
In the name of democracy and freedom, the Bush administration stripped away both from the American people. Bush/Cheney captalized on Americans' post 911 fears and paranoia to conspire with conservative lawyers to expand executive powers. They spied on Americans, undermined our system of checks and balances, and in collusion with the CIA, committed torture, detention, and rendition. They lied America into a war that has cost dearly in both blood and treasure.
Bush/Cheney continue to hide behind the secrecy of "national defense" to cover up their many crimes, and insist that their tactics worked. They refuse to testify under oath. They have no proof. They repeatedly lied to the American people and continue to show no remorse. Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and John McCain, never questioned their actions. They supported the Bush administration's takover every step of the way!
That's what this is all about. The American people are determined to take their country back. They want a full accounting of what was done, how they did it, and how who enabled it. They want those responsible brought to justice. These were no small crimes. This is about restoring America to the values and ideals that make our country a leader in the world. This must never be allowed to happen again.
If any democrat would have called up President Bush and let them know they didn't like what was going on with torturing you would have seen it come out and hear them call any democrat a traitor and unpatriotic. We are not so stupid.
Southern Yankee
Go away you useless excuse for a human being...
PATHETIC!!!
They dont have to pass a law making water boarding illegal. IT IS ILLEGAL WITH OUT THEM PASSING A LAW. Stupid. Why would congress waste time re-inventing the wheel? Would they do it just for you so you can talk smack on Faux news sunday? I dont think so.
Ah yes Newt, make sure you mention the McCarthy era, when the Republican President's tax rate for the top bracket was 91%.....
One thread is all that is needed.
Title should be "Newt Lies"
Some stuff you can't make up!
that refused to allow the CIA and the FBI to cooperate
Oh my word, won't this lie ever die? It just goes to prove that the old fantasies and nonsense spun by the right never really go away; like some incurable disease, they merely go into remission sometimes.
Gingrich is clearly referring to the "Gorelick memo," which the GOPpers have desperately tried to blame for the intelligence breakdowns in the run-up to 9/11.
So let's go through the refutation. Again.
In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Much desired by federal law enforcement, it allowed investigators to obtain special warrants for wiretaps, searches, and other forms of covert surveillance in "national security" or "intelligence" investigations. Unlike such warrants in criminal cases, these required no evidence of criminal activity. All agents had to do was "certify" that the target was somehow connected to "a foreign power."
If an intelligence investigation yields information about criminal activities, it can be used as evidence in a prosecution just like that obtained by a conventional criminal investigation warrant. But there is an obvious potential for abuse here: Agents could call what is actually a criminal investigation (or a politically-motivated fishing expedition) an "intelligence" case in order to avoid having to meet the higher standard for a warrant under the former.
Because of that, courts began to apply a "primary purpose" test to criminal prosecutions arising out of FISA investigations. That is, in order to use evidence gained in a FISA case in a criminal prosecution, prosecutors had to be able to show that the primary purpose of that FISA surveillance was in fact gathering intelligence. If they couldn’t, they couldn’t use the evidence.
In 1995, then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick was involved in a memo providing guidance on procedures to federal agents. Part of that memo urged them to be aware of the difference between FISA and criminal investigations and to be sure to avoid the fact or the appearance of turning the former into the latter - because if they didn’t, it could screw up potential prosecutions. Put another way, agents were being told by prosecutors that if they wanted to use information gained in a FISA case in a criminal case, they needed to make sure that the FISA investigation met the "primary purpose" test because "tainted evidence" could kill an entire case.
Far from erecting some kind of arbitrary "wall," the memo "provided for significant information sharing and coordination between criminal and [intelligence] investigations," in the words of an FISA Review Court finding from 2002, which also noted that the "wall" of separation between intelligence and criminal investigations dated to the 1980s, that is, to the Reagan administration. (Obviously there was no need for such separation before FISA, since there were no special warrants for intelligence cases.)
In short, the idea that the Clinton administration "refused to allow the CIA and the FBI to cooperate" is a flat-out whopper and a "wall" that prevented the sharing of information, to the degree that such a wall existed at all, was a creation of the imaginations of turf-protecting bureaucrats. It was not a product of the law, of Jamie Gorelick's memo, or even the Reagan administration policies under which it was born.
Thanks for sorting that out! I can't stand to listen to these people and with the transcript I got all of the info without the threat of sicking pencils in my ears to make the Newt noise stop!
Thanks Nicole...good piece, but we all know now that Cheeeney has said he'd rather have Limberger than the truth that's the version of reality that will come out of these bozos forever.
Let's just make sure that, if there is a possibility, there is an extra seat on the plane to the Hague for Newt seeing as he wants to go so much...
There has GOT to be something in the water in GA. given the lunacy that's coming from that part of the country in the last few weeks...
I remember reading something said by one of his ex-wives, that when the tide turns and the country becomes progressive again, that newt will change his stripes and move himself to that side and try to lead the parade from there. He is not an idealogue, he's a megalomaniac.
..get his PhD, Woolworths? K-Mart? Jiffy Lube? Wal-Marts?
What a shabby mind.
"If the President does it, it's legal"
Military Commissions Act of 2003 says so retroactive to 9-11-2001!
That's one of John McCain's babies. The President "Defines Torture" nothing is illegal he says we can do. Forget Geneva and all those treaties and laws against Torture. If Bush says it's legal, it is, and the MCA of 2003 granted him that authority.
That baby was Conceived by John McCain and Delivered behind closed doors with Bush in attendance demanding it's passage.
Donaldd
It isn't just an attack on our torturing Dumbya, but also all the rest of his neocon terrorists who gladly fucked up this country.
Did Limp-Dick give Newt permission to speak?
I followed the link to the Cornell University site showing the laws regarding torture.
The definition is pretty clear and what was done in Guantanamo *was* torture (based on my second-hand knowledge of the facts).
However, the law reads that "Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture...".
My question then is: Since Gitmo is US territory and therefore the acts were committed *inside* the United States, can the offenders be prosecuted under this statute?
Any lawyers reading this forum, please comment.
What to say,Newt calling prosecution of Bush officials for torture, violating the geneva conventions, and the national laws on torture is a personal attack on Bush, but impeaching Clinton over a blow job isn't. Riiiigggghhhhtttt. Because you know sex is a crime and torture isn't; its just a difference in policy debate. This from a man who at the time he was impeaching Clinton for an extramarital affair was involved in his own de tu tant. Good lord. How can anyone who claims to be a Republican hold their head up at all? Newt Gingrich is often proclaimed by the media as a principled conservative republican, full of intellect and ideas. Really! On what fucking planet are these people living. It really does challenge the mind to believe that Newt is the purveyor of principles and intellect. And exactly what does that say about the state of the republican party and conservatism as a whole. I would say I'm sorry to see them descend to this level, but these people have done so much damage to America, it serves us all well to keep these people in the wilderness for the next 50 years.
Comments are closed on this entry