Gingrich on NSA : Administration’s Co... Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » Soapbox: All Politics » Archive through August 12, 2006 » Archive through May 20, 2006 » Gingrich on NSA : Administration’s Conduct Can’t Be Defended « Previous Next »

  Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page          

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger

Post Number: 1338
Registered: 9-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 2:31 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gingrich on NSA Phone Records Program:

Administration’s Conduct Can’t ‘Be Defended By Reasonable People’


The disclosure of the NSA’s domestic call-tracking program has drawn criticism from some of Bush’s key allies:

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): “I am concerned about what I read with regard to NSA databases of phone calls.”

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH): “While I support aggressively tracking al-Qaida, the administration needs to answer some tough questions about the protection of our civil liberties.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers, how does that fit into following the enemy?”

Last night on Fox, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich added his name to the growing list of bipartisan critics of the program. Watch it:



I don’t think the way they’ve handled this can be defended by reasonable people. It is sloppy. It is contradictory, and frankly for normal Americans, it makes no sense to listen to these three totally different explanations.

Full transcript below:

GINGRICH: Good to be with you, Alan.

COLMES: Here’s what the president said in April of 2004 about the whole issue of wiretapping and warrants. Here’s what he said then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLMES: Then he said when it came out a little while ago that there was some wiretapping he said it only applies to international communications. And now we’re finding something else. So it just seems we’re not getting a consistent story here, are we?

GINGRICH: No. You’re not.

COLMES: Why not?

GINGRICH: Look, I’m not — Alan, I’m not going to defend the indefensible. The Bush administration has an obligation to level with the American people.

And I’m prepared to defend a very aggressive anti-terrorist campaign, and I’m prepared to defend the idea that the government ought to know who’s making the calls, as long as that information is only used against terrorists, and as long as the Congress knows that it’s underway.

But I don’t think the way they’ve handled this can be defended by reasonable people. It is sloppy. It is contradictory, and frankly for normal Americans, it makes no sense to listen to these three totally different explanations

video:

http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/ging.320.240 .mov
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers

Post Number: 6337
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 10:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That may be the first time I have agreed with the Newt since he crawled back under his rock.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger

Post Number: 1347
Registered: 9-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 6:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would suggest he goes back to the rock..........
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead

Post Number: 3261
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 10:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree. The guy is no dummy, but he had his turn in the limelight and blew it. It's interesting to see guys of his experience speaking out against this administration, but it's odd the way he phrases things. He's "prepared to defend" or "not prepared to defend"... who cares? What kind of defending does he think he can do that has the slightest relevance at this point?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Straw Kennedy
Supporter
Username: Strawberry

Post Number: 7206
Registered: 10-2001


Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 10:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

well for starters he may be running for President. He's certainly going to be considered a V.P. candidate if a moderate such as McCain gets the nomination. It's part of the reason he's throwing some of these type of comments out there..

I've been saying for 2 years the 08 tix could very well be McCain/Newt... Powerful ....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark

Post Number: 3347
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Makes sense, Straw. McCain sure veered to the right last week when he kissed Falwell's ring in public. And Newt has been making nice with Hilary in public, and now critiquing Bush (however mildly). Having Newt as his wingman is consistent. (please hold the "wingnut" comments my dear fellow libs).

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration