Gingrich: Obama Terror Speech 'Breathtakingly Naive'

[The Rabbi]

How did al Awlaki vote?

 

[Katzndogz]

According to these 'due process' people,

if an Army sniper in Afghanistan had shot John Walker Lindh dead, he should be tried for the murder of an American citizen.

The thing that really gets me about the Obamaites on here is that you howled at the moon over the patriot act, yet you support the murder of an American citizen without due process of law. So, for you it is worse to have someone listen in on your phone conversation than it is to murder an innocent American citizen.

I have a legal education, and I can tell you that guilt is a verdict that is determined in a court of law, and no such verdict had been rendered, so killing that man was nothing but murder, and that after bringing a foreigner here to stand trial in an American court of law.

There comes a time when everyone should consider what is going on and part company with their partisan idols if they are doing something that is unconscionable. You call me a partisan hack. Well, here's a flash: I didn't vote for Bush, either time. I spoke against the patriot act, and I still do. I was not cool with the war in Iraq, and I did catch the talk show in which his own father disagreed with about Iraq. I did support killing the man who had killed 500,000 of his own citizens, but he wasn't an American citizen, and I had a student who was Iraqi and told me personally far more about his reign than has ever been published. Even Bush's own father parted company with him, and yet you, so called liberals, lovers of American freedom, cannot part company with Obama on the murder of an innocent American citizen without due process of law. Standing up for your guy is one thing, going down a murderous path with him is something else, and that is what you are doing. That makes all of you a bunch of partisan hacks.

And, while I am now retired and living happily off the taxpayers, I still do keep my own house so I have things to do. I hope you will consider the paradoxical stance you have taken regarding American liberties and freedoms.

The AUMF allows the President of the United States to use the military to strike at Al Qaeda.

Are you disputing that Al Awlaki wasn't an agent of Al Qaeda and wasn't actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and destroy American infrastructure?

Is that what you are saying?

al Awlaki was an agent of Al Quaeda. He was actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and he was actively involved with destroying American infrastructure. Americans absolutely deserved to hear what he did and all the evidence against him. The process under which he was MURDERED was completely illegal. The process that murdered his 16 year old innocent son deserves the same kind of attention that would be given here when an innocent person is killed as collateral damage. We don't execute people because "eveyone knows" what they did. If we did that, there would be no reason for trials at all.

When a country gets to the point of killing its own citizens based on nothing more than the whim of a ruler that country is getting into some serious trouble. It can be done again, with even less provocation.

 

[rightwinger]

The thing that really gets me about the Obamaites on here is that you howled at the moon over the patriot act, yet you support the murder of an American citizen without due process of law. So, for you it is worse to have someone listen in on your phone conversation than it is to murder an innocent American citizen.

I have a legal education, and I can tell you that guilt is a verdict that is determined in a court of law, and no such verdict had been rendered, so killing that man was nothing but murder, and that after bringing a foreigner here to stand trial in an American court of law.

There comes a time when everyone should consider what is going on and part company with their partisan idols if they are doing something that is unconscionable. You call me a partisan hack. Well, here's a flash: I didn't vote for Bush, either time. I spoke against the patriot act, and I still do. I was not cool with the war in Iraq, and I did catch the talk show in which his own father disagreed with about Iraq. I did support killing the man who had killed 500,000 of his own citizens, but he wasn't an American citizen, and I had a student who was Iraqi and told me personally far more about his reign than has ever been published. Even Bush's own father parted company with him, and yet you, so called liberals, lovers of American freedom, cannot part company with Obama on the murder of an innocent American citizen without due process of law. Standing up for your guy is one thing, going down a murderous path with him is something else, and that is what you are doing. That makes all of you a bunch of partisan hacks.

And, while I am now retired and living happily off the taxpayers, I still do keep my own house so I have things to do. I hope you will consider the paradoxical stance you have taken regarding American liberties and freedoms.

The AUMF allows the President of the United States to use the military to strike at Al Qaeda.

Are you disputing that Al Awlaki wasn't an agent of Al Qaeda and wasn't actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and destroy American infrastructure?

Is that what you are saying?

Even Saddam Hussein got a trial. I don't know if he was an agent of AQ or not. He was never tried for any crime which is what the American courts have held terrorism to be..

Saddam Hussein surrendered

 

[rightwinger]

How did al Awlaki vote?

Like Osama bin Laden, he voted.......NOT PRESENT

 

[Sallow]

The thing that really gets me about the Obamaites on here is that you howled at the moon over the patriot act, yet you support the murder of an American citizen without due process of law. So, for you it is worse to have someone listen in on your phone conversation than it is to murder an innocent American citizen.

I have a legal education, and I can tell you that guilt is a verdict that is determined in a court of law, and no such verdict had been rendered, so killing that man was nothing but murder, and that after bringing a foreigner here to stand trial in an American court of law.

There comes a time when everyone should consider what is going on and part company with their partisan idols if they are doing something that is unconscionable. You call me a partisan hack. Well, here's a flash: I didn't vote for Bush, either time. I spoke against the patriot act, and I still do. I was not cool with the war in Iraq, and I did catch the talk show in which his own father disagreed with about Iraq. I did support killing the man who had killed 500,000 of his own citizens, but he wasn't an American citizen, and I had a student who was Iraqi and told me personally far more about his reign than has ever been published. Even Bush's own father parted company with him, and yet you, so called liberals, lovers of American freedom, cannot part company with Obama on the murder of an innocent American citizen without due process of law. Standing up for your guy is one thing, going down a murderous path with him is something else, and that is what you are doing. That makes all of you a bunch of partisan hacks.

And, while I am now retired and living happily off the taxpayers, I still do keep my own house so I have things to do. I hope you will consider the paradoxical stance you have taken regarding American liberties and freedoms.

The AUMF allows the President of the United States to use the military to strike at Al Qaeda.

Are you disputing that Al Awlaki wasn't an agent of Al Qaeda and wasn't actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and destroy American infrastructure?

Is that what you are saying?

al Awlaki was an agent of Al Quaeda. He was actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and he was actively involved with destroying American infrastructure. Americans absolutely deserved to hear what he did and all the evidence against him. The process under which he was MURDERED was completely illegal. The process that murdered his 16 year old innocent son deserves the same kind of attention that would be given here when an innocent person is killed as collateral damage. We don't execute people because "eveyone knows" what they did. If we did that, there would be no reason for trials at all.

When a country gets to the point of killing its own citizens based on nothing more than the whim of a ruler that country is getting into some serious trouble. It can be done again, with even less provocation.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

If you did..you'd be advocating for the repeal of the AUMF, the closing of GITMO, the jettison of the notion of "Enemy Combatants" and tossing the Patriot Act.

Not some silly babble about "we don't execute people".

 

[Katzndogz]

The AUMF allows the President of the United States to use the military to strike at Al Qaeda.

Are you disputing that Al Awlaki wasn't an agent of Al Qaeda and wasn't actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and destroy American infrastructure?

Is that what you are saying?

Even Saddam Hussein got a trial. I don't know if he was an agent of AQ or not. He was never tried for any crime which is what the American courts have held terrorism to be..

Saddam Hussein surrendered

After which he was tried.

America at a Crossroads . The Trial of Saddam Hussein | PBS

THE TRIAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN provides the first comprehensive look at the trial of Iraq’s former dictator and tells the behind-the-scenes story of the drama that unfolded.

The Iraqi High Tribunal was created to investigate and try Saddam Hussein and members of his regime for their alleged crimes. The first trial—for crimes against humanity in the village of Dujail in 1982—took place from October 2005 to November 2006. In August 2006, while the judges were deliberating the verdict in the Dujail case, the Anfal trial began: Saddam was charged with genocide against the Kurds. He was found guilty of the Dujail charges and executed on December 31, 2006. The Anfal trial continued without him.

 

[Sallow]

Even Saddam Hussein got a trial. I don't know if he was an agent of AQ or not. He was never tried for any crime which is what the American courts have held terrorism to be..

Saddam Hussein surrendered

After which he was tried.

America at a Crossroads . The Trial of Saddam Hussein | PBS

THE TRIAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN provides the first comprehensive look at the trial of Iraq’s former dictator and tells the behind-the-scenes story of the drama that unfolded.

The Iraqi High Tribunal was created to investigate and try Saddam Hussein and members of his regime for their alleged crimes. The first trial—for crimes against humanity in the village of Dujail in 1982—took place from October 2005 to November 2006. In August 2006, while the judges were deliberating the verdict in the Dujail case, the Anfal trial began: Saddam was charged with genocide against the Kurds. He was found guilty of the Dujail charges and executed on December 31, 2006. The Anfal trial continued without him.

That trial was a sham.

Saddam should have been either tried in American Courts or at the Hague.

 

[Katzndogz]

The AUMF allows the President of the United States to use the military to strike at Al Qaeda.

Are you disputing that Al Awlaki wasn't an agent of Al Qaeda and wasn't actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and destroy American infrastructure?

Is that what you are saying?

al Awlaki was an agent of Al Quaeda. He was actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and he was actively involved with destroying American infrastructure. Americans absolutely deserved to hear what he did and all the evidence against him. The process under which he was MURDERED was completely illegal. The process that murdered his 16 year old innocent son deserves the same kind of attention that would be given here when an innocent person is killed as collateral damage. We don't execute people because "eveyone knows" what they did. If we did that, there would be no reason for trials at all.

When a country gets to the point of killing its own citizens based on nothing more than the whim of a ruler that country is getting into some serious trouble. It can be done again, with even less provocation.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

If you did..you'd be advocating for the repeal of the AUMF, the closing of GITMO, the jettison of the notion of "Enemy Combatants" and tossing the Patriot Act.

Not some silly babble about "we don't execute people".

Before obama, how many American citizens were assassinated or executed without a trial? Without being engaged at that moment in combat?

obama has done it four times. How many before him?

 

[NoNukes]

Gingrich: Obama Terror Speech 'Breathtakingly Naive'

And why should anyone give the opinion of a proven partisan hack like Gingrich any weight at all.

The truth knows no party

Neither does bullshit.

 

[Sallow]

al Awlaki was an agent of Al Quaeda. He was actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and he was actively involved with destroying American infrastructure. Americans absolutely deserved to hear what he did and all the evidence against him. The process under which he was MURDERED was completely illegal. The process that murdered his 16 year old innocent son deserves the same kind of attention that would be given here when an innocent person is killed as collateral damage. We don't execute people because "eveyone knows" what they did. If we did that, there would be no reason for trials at all.

When a country gets to the point of killing its own citizens based on nothing more than the whim of a ruler that country is getting into some serious trouble. It can be done again, with even less provocation.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

If you did..you'd be advocating for the repeal of the AUMF, the closing of GITMO, the jettison of the notion of "Enemy Combatants" and tossing the Patriot Act.

Not some silly babble about "we don't execute people".

Before obama, how many American citizens were assassinated or executed without a trial? Without being engaged at that moment in combat?

obama has done it four times. How many before him?

Bush was not dealing with American Al Qaeda agents actively engaged in plotting acts of terrorism from abroad.

Fact is..he didn't even get the right folks to begin with. He went to Iraq, killed 100s of thousands of innocent Iraqis and called them terrorists.

The American Citizens he did capture..he sent off to be tortured outside of US soil.

Or did you forget that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gingrich: Obama Terror Speech 'Breathtakingly Naive'

And why should anyone give the opinion of a proven partisan hack like Gingrich any weight at all.

The truth knows no party

And the truth is clearly a stranger to Gingrich.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How did al Awlaki vote?

In accordance with separation of powers doctrine the judiciary have for decades correctly refused to allow judges to micromanage military and foreign policy decisions by a given Administration. See, e.g., Dellums v. Bush (1990). The courts have ruled that presidents need to make decisions concerning foreign and National security unencumbered by judicial oversight, where the responsibility belongs to the people to determine at each election whether or not an administration’s actions are appropriate.

Until such time as a Federal court rules otherwise, the Administration’s targeting policy satisfies due process, is legal and Constitutional, and does not constitute ‘murder.’

Any citizen who disagrees is free to file suit in Federal court to challenge the Administration’s policy.

 

[rightwinger]

al Awlaki was an agent of Al Quaeda. He was actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and he was actively involved with destroying American infrastructure. Americans absolutely deserved to hear what he did and all the evidence against him. The process under which he was MURDERED was completely illegal. The process that murdered his 16 year old innocent son deserves the same kind of attention that would be given here when an innocent person is killed as collateral damage. We don't execute people because "eveyone knows" what they did. If we did that, there would be no reason for trials at all.

When a country gets to the point of killing its own citizens based on nothing more than the whim of a ruler that country is getting into some serious trouble. It can be done again, with even less provocation.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

If you did..you'd be advocating for the repeal of the AUMF, the closing of GITMO, the jettison of the notion of "Enemy Combatants" and tossing the Patriot Act.

Not some silly babble about "we don't execute people".

Before obama, how many American citizens were assassinated or executed without a trial? Without being engaged at that moment in combat?

obama has done it four times. How many before him?

If they were traitors engaging in war agains their own country.....not enough of them

 

[NYcarbineer]

The AUMF allows the President of the United States to use the military to strike at Al Qaeda.

Are you disputing that Al Awlaki wasn't an agent of Al Qaeda and wasn't actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and destroy American infrastructure?

Is that what you are saying?

Even Saddam Hussein got a trial. I don't know if he was an agent of AQ or not. He was never tried for any crime which is what the American courts have held terrorism to be..

Saddam Hussein surrendered

Bush tried to kill Saddam the first night of 'shock and awe' when a location was targeted for bombing that was, wrongly, thought to be Saddam's location.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

al Awlaki was an agent of Al Quaeda. He was actively involved in plotting to kill American citizens and he was actively involved with destroying American infrastructure. Americans absolutely deserved to hear what he did and all the evidence against him. The process under which he was MURDERED was completely illegal. The process that murdered his 16 year old innocent son deserves the same kind of attention that would be given here when an innocent person is killed as collateral damage. We don't execute people because "eveyone knows" what they did. If we did that, there would be no reason for trials at all.

When a country gets to the point of killing its own citizens based on nothing more than the whim of a ruler that country is getting into some serious trouble. It can be done again, with even less provocation.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

If you did..you'd be advocating for the repeal of the AUMF, the closing of GITMO, the jettison of the notion of "Enemy Combatants" and tossing the Patriot Act.

Not some silly babble about "we don't execute people".

Before obama, how many American citizens were assassinated or executed without a trial? Without being engaged at that moment in combat?

obama has done it four times. How many before him?

You’re asking the wrong questions.

You should be asking:

What is any president’s responsibility to keep the American people safe?

What means are allowed to any president to keep the American people safe?

How is a given president to respond to intelligence as to the location of a known terrorist suspect who wishes to harm the American people?

What would be the political or legal consequences of a president who failed to prevent a terrorist act where that attack actually occurred, where Americans were killed, and the deaths of those Americans could have been avoided?

 

[Synthaholic]

Maybe Obama can sign a peace treaty with the terrorist... Yeah that'll do it..."No more war" what an idiot Gingrich should have been our president

President Barack Obama's counterterrorism speech last was "stunningly, breathtakingly naive," former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich says.

"He says at one point, wars have to end," Gingrich said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union. "Well, (Leon) Trotsky said, 'You may not care about war, but war cares about you.'"

Gingrich said both Obama's and President George W. Bush's administrations have refused to admit radical Islam is on the offense across the planet. "It is what killed people in Boston. It is what just killed a soldier in London," he said.


The president announces cheerfully, 'The war's going to end because I'm not happy being a war president,'" Gingrich said. Pointing to problems in northern Nigeria, the Chinese volunteering to send troops to Mali, and problems in Libya, Gingrich said the United States will never again see the pre-1941 sense of peace that it isn't being threatened.

Gingrich: Obama Terror Speech 'Breathtakingly Naive'

Why would you or anyone else listen to a word from this loser?

 

[GWV5903]

Gingrich is the asshole who closed down government twice on a perceived slight. He led the charge to impeach a president over silliness and made a very severe Constitutional procedure into a joke. And he did this while he was screwing around with all sorts of women including one who became his wife.

That and hes a fucking racist and bigot.

You want to throw in with that lot? Feel free.

You're pulling a Lakhota here aka troll deflection.

Why not address the OP instead of a bullshit post going over the list of what you perceive to be Gingrich's failings?

I'm not incorrect.

Gingrich is a bigot and a racist.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6Rs2MgGMI]Newt Gingrich wants Poor Children to Work as Janitors - YouTube[/ame]

That you believe this is bigotry and racism makes every conservatives point about earning it...

There is nothing wrong with his idea here, I had my first job at 11 delivering newspapers...

The DNC promotes more racism in this debate than anyone for the right...

Sallow, you know better...

 

[Dot Com]

Gingrich? Thats like starting a Palin thread w/ a straight face

 

[Katzndogz]

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

If you did..you'd be advocating for the repeal of the AUMF, the closing of GITMO, the jettison of the notion of "Enemy Combatants" and tossing the Patriot Act.

Not some silly babble about "we don't execute people".

Before obama, how many American citizens were assassinated or executed without a trial? Without being engaged at that moment in combat?

obama has done it four times. How many before him?

If they were traitors engaging in war agains their own country.....not enough of them

If they were traitors that deserves a trial, have them stripped of their citizenship and then do whatever the government wants to do with them. Torture them, put them in front of a firing squad, bring back the oubliette. obama has set himself above the law and takes on the power of assassinating someone based on his word alone. They are not actively engaged in combat, like John Walker (who was tried). They are just killed by virtue of an executive decision judging them to be traitors without a word spoken for or against them.

What can this become?

 

[Katzndogz]

You're pulling a Lakhota here aka troll deflection.

Why not address the OP instead of a bullshit post going over the list of what you perceive to be Gingrich's failings?

I'm not incorrect.

Gingrich is a bigot and a racist.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6Rs2MgGMI]Newt Gingrich wants Poor Children to Work as Janitors - YouTube[/ame]

That you believe this is bigotry and racism makes every conservatives point about earning it...

There is nothing wrong with his idea here, I had my first job at 11 delivering newspapers...

The DNC promotes more racism in this debate than anyone for the right...

Sallow, you know better...

The act that firmly convinces democrats that Gingrich is racist is the one where he called his good friend Juan Williams "Juan" in public.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ins...lling-juan-williams-by-first-name-racial-code


Is it now racist to call Juan Williams by his given name? Apparently so, according to liberals like radio talk show host and Fox contributor Geraldo Rivera and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who seem to have acquired the gift of determining racism simply by the way a person's name is spoken.


Geraldo Rivera falsely claims Newt Gingrich's use of "Juan" racist
"There is Gingrich being filled with disdain, utter disdain for the only man of color maybe in that whole room. That room was very, very, uh, reminiscent of another era in American politics," Rivera said.

Actually, that was Gingrich being filled with utter disdain for the question Williams posed to him.

But Rivera seems to sense rasicm in the very way that Gingrich uttered Williams' name.

He followed that up by playing a clip of another failed President - Jimmy Carter - saying that Gingrich has a "subtlety of racism."

MSNBC host Chris Matthews also made the ridiculous claim that the way Gingrich addressed Williams was a racially charged "dog whistle" that contained code only certain people could understand.

That's what makes Newt Gingrich a racist.