well, today's Meet The Press offered the fearful clucking of Cheney's fellow chickenhawk, Newt Gingrich;
....MR. GREGORY: But do you agree with the vice president when he says that the country is less safe under President Obama?
REP. GINGRICH: Absolutely.
MR. GREGORY: Why?
....REP. GINGRICH: Let me just say, I think people should be afraid. I think the lesson of 1993, the first time they bombed the World Trade Center, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of Khobar Towers, where American servicemen were killed in Saudi Arabia, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the two embassy bombings in east Africa was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the Cole being bombed in Yemen was fear is probably appropriate. I'll tell you, if you aren't a little bit afraid after 9/11 and 3,100 Americans killed inside the United States by an effort, if you weren't worried about the second-wave attack that was designed to take out the biggest building in Los Angeles, I think that, that you are out of touch with reality.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But--wait, but Speaker Gingrich, you make the point about how Vice President Cheney felt personally, personal fear. And isn't President Obama's argument that fear as a basis of national security policy is not sustainable over time? How do you come up with a sustainable legal framework, a sustainable national security policy?
REP. GINGRICH: We, we...
MR. GREGORY: Don't we elect leaders to transcend fear for lasting policies?
dtom in response to Mr. Gingrich;
i'd like to address your comments on Meet the Press this morning regarding the level of fear that you believe americans should be experiencing in their daily lives in "the post 9/11 world".
1) to carry the requisite daily fear that you deem appropriate would mean only one thing to america; that the terrorists have been successful in their goals and the average american citizen now lives in terror.
personally, i'd rather not give 'em the satisfaction.
2) having lived in los angeles for all but a couple of the last 33 years, i'll tell you we don't necessarily frighten all that easy. crips, bloods, ms, xv3, stoners, ab, ap, akp, sswc; the list goes on. you just keep your eyes open and get on with your life. my pals in new york city have a similar attitude. that, my dear sir is living in reality.
3) you again have mentioned the clinton administration dealing with terrorism as a law enforcement issue. you failed to mention a couple of things; a) the clinton approach yielded the result of capturing the perpetrators of the 1st wtc and imprisoning them. none have escaped by the way, so don't worry your little head about that. b) by your own words, al qaida was a known quantity in the late '90s, and was still so in march of 2001 when vice president dick cheney was named by president bush to head the anti-terrorist task force. mr. cheney apparently had, again
, other priorities and did not convene the first meeting of that task force until late august of 2001.
can you, mr. gingrich explain this clear dereliction of duty? too busy rigging the energy markets? planning the war in iraq that he was intent on selling from day 1? maybe he's just a lazy, self interested jerk? bad at his job?
4) here's one that nobody has brought up though. maybe, just maybe ol' dick knows in his heart that he fucked up royal, and has a very
guilty conscience? really, to know that a terrorist group is carrying out attacks, to be charged with the anti-terrorist task force, to not hold the first meeting of that group for over 6 months... living with the knowledge that you did nothing about a known threat ?
and you want me to believe he has any
business telling anyone else, especially the sitting president how to protect the country? gee, i guess you're just not living in reality.