Gingrich, "normal" phone calls not at risk from NSA spying

[zoeb]

From Sunday's Meet The Press:

MR. GINGRICH: Look....Nobody who’s not involved in terrorism should be at risk. Nobody who’s making normal phone calls should be at risk....

Rest of the transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12739318/

Should the republican party be the deciders of normalcy?...I don't think so!

[DRoseDARs]

1. Didn't he just get through saying he WOULDN'T defend this?

Why yes, yes he did.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/12.html#a8260

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.

[zoeb]

7. it took him a few days to get his talking points from Bushco...n/t

[indepat]

13. Anybody involved in terraism is anybody not with us, anyone who does not

support or would criticize or question or speak out against or demonstrate against the controlling reich wing junta: they're the enemy and hence terraists.

[wakeme2008]

2. Two Words Newty.... "President Hillary"

I am sure you would have no problem with President Hillary putting one of her toadys over the collection of phone records at the NSA for "Terrorist" Right Newty....

[Popol Vuh]

3. And another example

of the republican party openly defying the U.S. Constitution.


Culture of Corruption.

[hwmnbn]

4. How does he know? ........

what an ass!

[rucky]

5. Anybody still have the list of words & phrases bookmarked?

that the NSA is looking for?

the one leaked to The Guardian from the other day.

[neoblues]

6. "Should" being the operative word...

Of course they "should be" safe (or nobody not involved in terrorism "should be" at risk). Alas, that is not saying that they are.

[Garbo 2004]

8. only those who have been deemed a potential security threats like Quakers

and antiwar protestors he means? And others who also are viewed askance by the Administration?

We should trust the gov't with unlimited power without oversight? Seeing as this Administration considers itself not limited by mere laws or the Constitution.

[TheMadMonk]

9. But when they're done playing the "Kevin Bacon Game"...

Oppose the war on terror and ipso facto a person sympathisea with, nay support terrorists and thus are such themselves.

Judging by the polls, and using their definitions, the number of terrorists (and you were all clearly warned way back when) in the United States has rocketed past 200 million and is still rising.

[AndyA]

10. Let's all be sure to pay attention to what Newt Gingrich says.

He is a stunning example of high morals, ethics, and Christianity. NOT.

[yourout]

11. And who decides what is "Normal"?

[C_U_L8R]

12. I thought this stuff was double-knot super secret

How the hell does a corrupt and disgraced scum
like "Newt" know exactly what's going ....
unless the republicans are leaking again ?????

Whatever..it's more likely they just make shit up.

[shance]

14. Words mean nothing to Newt Gingrich. They are just tools to manipulate

the masses, as far as he's concerned.