Eye of Newt


“This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you’re prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers…”

That’s Newt Gingrich on Face the Nation after the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision striking down the Bush regime’s denial of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees.

Glenn Greenwald, arguably the most eloquent blogger on the planet, explains why this is fear-mongering of the worst kind, and documents other instances in which Gingrich has used the same wording about “losing a city.”

It’s hard to add anything to what he said, but the fiery outrage I feel demands that I try.

First of all, I’d like to know how allowing a human being the minimum due process of appearing in a court of law would cause us to “lose a city.” This is an example of pure nonsense without any rational foundation being peddled on the public stage as if it had substance. Gingrich wants us to believe that the only way we can prevent destruction of a city is to throw people in cages for the rest of their lives at the whim of the executive.

The few examples offered by Bush of terror plots prevented through his methods have all been debunked as pathetic lies or entrapments, exaggerated for political capital. The UK, on the other hand, has actually prevented some plots, and they treat terrorism as a criminal matter for the courts and police, not a phony macho war on terror.

The Bush regime doesn’t want any legal daylight shed on their little concentration camp because that would expose them as the criminal outfit they are. They want to keep torturing people without any consequences. And that’s all this is.

Secondly, I’d like to point out that we’ve already lost a city. It’s called New Orleans, and the Republicans deliberately let it drown because they don’t give a damn about Americans who don’t look like them or go to their country clubs. They weren’t even able to respond competently when the chips were down, so anything they say now about security should never be believed.

In any case, what Gingrich is saying in layman’s terms is, “If the Supreme Court doesn’t allow us to practice our disgusting perversions, you and your family will die.” He’s saying to the American people, “You must consent to human beings being forced to lick their own feces, being chained to a wall without food or water for days, being tied up in stress positions, being beaten to a pulp and shoved underwater, undergoing sexual humiliation and endless sleep deprivation—you must accept all these things and more, or else you and your loved ones could be killed.” That’s what it amounts to.

To Newt Gingrich, the death of an entire city is nothing but a rhetorical strategy, a trick to keep him and his friends in power. All the people in his hypothetical city are nothing more to him than a chess piece or a bargaining chip. And it demonstrates that he is a revolting piece of garbage that should be hauled off the public stage forever instead of being interviewed on network television.

He’s not the only one, either. Not by a long shot. Republicans have been addicted to this tactic for far too long. The slimeball John Bolton said the other day that the only things electing Obama would accomplish are more terrorist attacks. These wingnuts have a compulsion to threaten the American people unless we elect them and agree with them and always let them have their way. They’re like a madman waving a gun around and screaming about how the boogie man is going to get us. If you’re more worried about the boogie man than the madman waving a gun, you’re a fool.

Furthermore, whatever threat there actually is out there, bed-wetters like Gingrich and Bolton aren’t protecting us from it. If there’s a crisis going on, do you want some wild-eyed hysterical coward yelling “We’re all going to die unless you follow me!” while he shits his pants? No, it’s the calm and collected person, the person who can accurately assess the threat, rally the spirits of those around him, and reaffirm our human values, that we trust to lead us in a crisis. But the neocon artists have turned this topsy-turvy so that wetting the bed is now considered toughness, while actual courage and intelligence is derided.

Perhaps the most despicable aspect of this country’s right-wing is how they’ve cynically exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to advance their interests. They have gleefully enlisted the people who were murdered on that day in order to win elections, make money, attack anyone who disagrees with them, and destroy American institutions and values. Deep down inside, Newt Gingrich and his friends loved 9/11. They rejoiced inwardly when it happened. It meant new life for their outdated politics of hate.

And not only do they love 9/11—they want it to happen again. “Please God,” Newt Gingrich secretly prays, “prove me right. Resurrect my career. Show these liberals what’s what. Please, Lord—destroy a city.”


~ by cdash on June 24, 2008.

14 Responses to “Eye of Newt”

  1. Don’t forget about Newt blaming them stupid darkies down in New Orleans for letting themselves get drowned either. And while you’re at it, you might keep in mind how he served divorce papers on his chemotherapy-addled wife.

    I can think of one good use for that Gitmo detention facility. All these shitbags that think die process is such a bad idea should go down there for 90 days as “enemy combatants,” governed by Electrode Al Gonzales’s rules. At the end of 90 days, we could then ask the survivors if their opinions have changed any.

  2. I’m still at a loss for words about how badly New Orleans was handled in comparison to 9/11. And it’s still being handled badly…..

  3. I’d gladly lose a city if we could find a shitty, run-down one, take all the people currently there out, and dump all the neocon fucks in.

    They certainly did love 9/11, and they’ll have another nationwide orgasm if another one were to occur. I hate when fuckers say otherwise. They don’t love America, just the opportunity for exploitation available to them.

  4. They DO want it to happen again, sick bastards. That’s what Charlie Black was basically saying with his remarks; “Dear Al Qaeda, it will help McCain if you attack. Come on down!”

  5. Way to go Randal.

  6. 9/11 was manna from heaven for the eye of newt and his hags. the comments that have flown from this decision are nothing short of yelling fire in movie theatre to see what happens

    i can only imagine how newt would feel if he was thrown in turkish prison and give NO chance of seeing a judge. that soap would be held so closely to him

    as for bolton — i will say this, the planet would be a better place without him

  7. Newt….whatta fuck kinda name is Newt? Anyways? HuH? A fucking mud puppy…… I hate idiots who pander to the stupid. Real problem is Merica has too many of both. Jesus-fucking Christ&Rusty Nails!

  8. civil rights for us, the little people, are not allowed you know. but when one of those neo-cons have a problem well now that’s an altogether different thing. you know how they rail against the ACLU but then use them if they need them. I can’t think of an example off hand but I know I ‘ve heard it several times before. (wasn’t it Rush who used the ACLU when he was in trouble for prescription drug use? someone help me here.) I know neo-cons here in the heartland of Indiana who hate big government, and especially democratic big government, yet when the shit hits the fan who do they call?

    as for 9/11 they planned it or let it happen and have reaped the reward ever since. all our civil liberties going down the drain day by day, year by year. they just love it too. torture! spying! killing! bombing! gawd, don’t they get off on it…

  9. Newt and jerks like Bolton actually think all their cartoon-land macho torture scenes are effective….. they’ve been watching too much “24”. The sad fact is that Republicans really don’t value American values…. the Constitution for them truly is “just a piece of paper”.

    the national security principles committee….. 

  10. Impeach the motherfukers now! Call you congress person and demand impeachment proceedings. Cheney should go first. Indict them all, especially that little piece of walking lard, turd blossom.

  11. Hello, Dashiell.
    In the matter of allowing foreskins on American shores….

    It’s a matter of whether five foreskins would cost us the extinction of the buffalo.

    Ok, well maybe not. Maybe something that people really care about… like the turkey… the crappie… orrrrrr… Buffalo Wings!!!

    At issue is whether a nation so full of pork rinds should allow foreskins on our hallowed shores when our precious buffalo wings are indeed in jeopardy.

    From immigrants, no doubt.
    Adorned with foreskins, no doubt.
    Merrily swilling Coronas while driving our buffalo wings into extinction, no doubt.

  12. PT, your ellipsis is a bit too elliptical. I don’t get the joke.

  13. Just mocking Newt’s argument, filling in the blank with something more ridiculous.
    That reductio ad absurdum works well with number sets, but when used with verbal proofs it is often known as ‘mocking.’

  14. thanks for the greenwald link

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: