This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think the national threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several mission Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
Also, read OlbermanGÇÖs report here.
And the story from The Manchester Union Leader here.
Ironically, Gingrich used the occasion of a banquet honoring free speech to suggest the redrawing of the First Amendment. It turns out that the event, The Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award Dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire, is named after longtime conservative New Hampshire newspaperman Bill LoebGÇÖs wife and heiress of the Scripps fortune. But Newt has been about anything but freedom of late. The Loeb banquet needs to rethink its criteria.
Moreover, Gingrich implies that America might need and eventually want him to lead the effort to rob us of what our nation really is all about!
Imagine it: We can have more unraveling of 20th and 21st Century progress, more impeaching of Democrats for whatever, probably for not holding their mouths right. Newt could strip Americans of their resources, incomes, and real security, while enriching his friends and donors again. IsnGÇÖt that why we just voted the rascals out? Newt, the architect of the Contact on America, I mean, Contract for America, is a master flim-flam man.
However, a Gingrich candidacy would be more than a throwback. If he were to win the nomination, it could complete the descent of the GOP into the realm of the autocracy.
Fortunately, as one finds over at Talking Points Memo, even a Gingrich strategist thinks Gingrich has no chance. But the puffery propping up the widbag words is truly something to behold. Read it here: Talking Points Memo
This past summer, I diaried (here) on Newt GingrichGÇÖs proclamation that we are in World War III. This was a another thinly disguised attempt to both frighten Americans and and unravel free speech. Of course, despite the serious threat of terrorism, this isnGÇÖt World War III. Even in such a case, a government should not be allowed to lie to its citizens. Nor should it be allowed to repress free speech, freedom of the press or other freedoms protected by the First Amendment. The neo-con pretense that we both are at war without end, and "must" give up free speech, would thus permanently eliminate free speech. But here Newt goes again this past week.
As I said in July, itGÇÖs important to remind ourselves that Newt has insinuated himself into the belly of Pentagon planning on the Defense Policy Board. And so, even as he has now suggested the Bush administration has failed in Iraq, he has been intimately involved in promoting such policies. Gingrich also thought President Bush wasnGÇÖt acting consistent with NewtGÇÖs GÇ£reality.GÇ¥ In July, following his remarks, as surely as Newt made the talk show rounds, Sean Hannity, Bill OGÇ¥Reilly and others ditto-headed the WWIII claim. Newt's more about creating his own "reality." Gingrich also has been busy doing the GÇ£think tankGÇ¥ routine. He needs to think a bit more. As for the rest of us, we donGÇÖt need Newt to tell us what to read, think or say. His ideas haven't exactly passed the test of time.
Go figure. Rather hard to track their logic here.
It's a good thing he's not going to run for president, but will wait till the populace comes and begs him to be king :)
If I should have a choice between the risk of some terrorist killing me while enjoying my liberty or relenting my liberties in exchange for the yolk of governmental tyranny, I would choose as Patrick Henry did. No thanks Newt.