What did Newt really say about free speech and terrorism?

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 ~

Why is this man NOT running for President?

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!

we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism

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 don't like Newt's personal baggage but I could vote for him in the general. BTW, it's not just "social conservatives" who have a problem with Newt. There is one prominent RINO FReeper who trashes Newt for his "personal baggage" all the while supporting Guiliani, and that with a straight face.

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!!

The first amendment is still the law of the land, it isn't neutralized because Gingrich mutters buzz phrases like "rules of engagement." This illustrates the danger of the "war on terrorism", it will inevitably be turned on the American people.

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.