Posted on 01/29/2007 5:02:54 AM PST by yoe
The NH Union Leader article "Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech" (linked to by the Drudge Report) has created a lot of comment. In an effort to answer questions, we are providing this partial transcript (below) and audio of the relevant excerpt from Speaker Gingrich's 11/27/06 speech at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications.
NEWT GINGRICH: …The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of threat.
Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.
Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I’ve simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.
But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.
And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britian , speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear of biological weapons.
And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.
This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate. So…
Newt's comments make all the sense in the world to you and me. Why then did America vote to turn Congress over to the liberal-minded Democrats, who think they are now mandated by the American public to insure that we Cut-and-Run ASAP from Iraq? Why do they keep electing jerks like Kerry and Kennedy, who simply don't believe in a WOT? If we Cut-and-Run, without reflecing on the consequences, it is almost a guarantee that Iran will be ushering in a new, and empowered Islamic Caliphate. The irresponsible, and miopic views presented by these people (including Pelosi and Reid) ignore the short and long-term consequences that will affect the stability of the region, and effect the politics of Energy and National Security. We will be in for an Oil War! We won't have to wait to lose a city...let's see how much sway the general public gives the libs when they can't afford their electric bills and gasoline prices are through the roof!
"We've past the point where we could protect ourselves with reasonable steps and moved into an area where it's going to take some very strong medicine to cure us."
I agree, strong medicine is needed -- except we are not the ones who need a cure.
"During the civil war they had to tie patients down to amputate limbs in hope of saving the patient's life. We are rapidly approaching that point in our efforts to save our country and our way of life."
I call complete BS on this point. If someone wants to kill us then we should take the fight to them. We should not be willing to lose what the Founding Fathers called "Essential Liberties".
Yes, I realize that there are Terrorists among us. But the problem with the Tangos that live amongst us is that they get support from their home countries. If it weren't for radical regimes in the Middle East supporting those people here and in Europe then they wouldn't be much of a threat.
So we should take the fight to the source of the problem and stop having a polite, limited war. We go in it to win and don't stop until they give complete and unconditional surrender. It's what the Brits did in the 19th century and once they had established their determination for all the world to see, then no nation would dare threaten them. Did we prosecute WWII with this same sense of limited aggression? If we had we would probably be speaking German or Japanese now.
"Peace through strength", as Reagan said. No country becomes concerned for their safety because they are too strong. America has ceased to be strong and that's what the issue is. Think about how silly it is for a country the size of Iran to threaten us, with the most military power of any country on earth. I say, if they are itching for a fight, let's give it to them and see how they like it.
Bush has not made this point about the WOT and that's why his efforts have been met with such opposition. Or maybe it's just that most Americans (and Westerners in general) don't have the stomach for an all-out war anymore. They would rather restrict their own freedoms and lifestyle instead of going after the source of the problem.
~ excellent Newt ping ~
I hope he runs, if he does not, he would make a good VP to any current candidate. As a VP slot, I like Giuliani-Gingrich '08.
I fear you might have misunderstood just whom I want to tie down! It's the MSM and the Lefties that are keeping us from doing what has to be done to win this war as quickly as possible and with a few casualties as possible!
I am more disgusted with the MSM/Lefties than I am with the Islamofascists!
I am on your side, 100%!
America owes NOBODY an apology. The world would be a much worse place than it is today had America not existed. We are not the cause of the problems in this world and we have spent more of our money, blood and resources to solve problems throughout our history than any other nation or people on Earth.
Turn our forces loose and let them win the war, regardless of what it takes. I want the rest of the world to leave us alone and I don't care if it's because they love and respect us or are scared to death of us. Either way works for me!
A Geneva convention? Newt misses that by a mile. Iran and North Korea and Sudan are signatories. Why should we care what they think.
I'm all for a convention, but an American convention or America plus a few select allies who're committed to fight against our currect crop of barbarians.
I understand Newt's thinking but I believe if these concessions are ever made, they will be used against Christians and conservatives once people like Hillary are in power.
I agree with everything you write.
I would also add that until our borders are secure, any talk of restricting Americans' personal freedom is suspect. As long as that southern border remains open, the entire "war on terror" remains suspect.
Amen!!
And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britian , speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
So Newt, do you support a ban on Muslim immigration into the West and America? Wouldn't it have been more effective to prevent these potential recruits from immigrating to the West rather than crushing the freedoms of Western people in an attempt (vain) to mitigate the effects of that immigration? The system vets every candidate for major office and prevents the rise of any that challenge the core values of the ruling elite, particularly multi-culturalism and anti-nationalism. Islamic terrorism in the West is an offshoot not of free speech but of the policies of racist colonialism the Western elite are waging against their own nations and peoples. Newt won't come out against that colonialism and the destruction of his civilization it will cause because that would hurt his career, and he'd rather sacrifice his nation than do that.
"Why is this man NOT running for President?"
Because social conservatives will mount a witch hunt that would shame the mob scene in Frankestein?
"It's the MSM and the Lefties that are keeping us from doing what has to be done to win this war as quickly as possible and with a few casualties as possible!"
I agree.
"I want the rest of the world to leave us alone and I don't care if it's because they love and respect us or are scared to death of us."
That makes sense. And it's something that can be achieved with the right amount of purpose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.