 to declare that we should rethink the first Amendment to the Constitution. Said Newt: <p>
<blockquote> 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. </blockquote><br><br/><br>
Hear the full audio <a href=)
here .Also, read OlbermanGÇÖs report here.
And the story from The Manchester Union Leader here.
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. Ironically, Newt has been about anything but freedom of late. The Loeb banquet needs to rethink its criteria.
This past summer, I diaried (here) on Newt GingrichGÇÖs proclamation that we are in World War III . His agenda at the time; was, among other things, to scare Americans and to ratchet back free speech. Of course, despite the serious threat of terrorism, this isnGÇÖt World War III, unless Newt tries to make it so. Even in such a case, a government should not be allowed to lie to its citizens. And it shouldn't be allowed to repress free speech, particularly since the neo-con declaration that we are at war without end. But it certainly shouldn't be allowed to do both at the same time. 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." In the current controversy, Newt incites fear by exaggerating the risk of a nuclear attack on our cities by terrorists. A so-called GÇ£dirty bomb, the most extreme attack thought possible by terrorists, is a frightening thought, but it would not destroy an entire American city. But Newt trusts that fear sells. HeGÇÖs also been busy doing the GÇ£think tankGÇ¥ route, even when he clearly 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.
Note: Bloggerman watch! A special comment on this subject airs tonight, Nov. 30th on MSNBC (8 PM Eastern)