Keep Digging, Newt

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) appeared on "The Daily Show" last night, and screwed up in a rather humiliating way. Today, he made it worse. On the show, Jon Stewart asked why the Obama administration was wrong to make Abdulmutallab aware of his rights, but the Bush administration was right to make Richard Reid aware of his rights. "Richard Reid was an American citizen," insisted Gingrich.

That, of course, isn't true. Neither Reid nor Abdulmutallab are, or have ever been, Americans. Gingrich was so desperate to come up with a substantive difference where none exists, he had to rely on a bogus claim to defend an argument without a foundation in reality.

The good news is, Gingrich admitted today that he was wrong. The bad news is, his explanation made his error worse.

On Twitter, the former Speaker explained that when he mentioned Richard Reid, he meant to say Jose Padilla. Regardless, Newt added, "treating terrorists like criminals [is] wrong no matter who" is president.

The first part of the claim is bizarre. Jon Stewart specifically asked, "Didn't they do the same with Richard Reid, who was the shoe bomber?" This made Gingrich think of an entirely different person, who was detained as an enemy combatant in a case unrelated to the shoe bomber? If Gingrich is a self-proclaimed expert, shouldn't this undermine his credibility a bit?

What's more, as Greg Sargent explained, Gingrich's explanation "doesn't make much sense on its face."

Yesterday, he suggested it was okay to Mirandize a terror suspect provided he were an American citizen. Today, he seemed to transfer that opinion onto Padilla in his Tweet -- but then in the very next sentence added that treating any and all terrorists like criminals is wrong in all cases, no matter who is president.

So either Gingrich is conceding it was wrong to try Padilla in civilian court -- which would appear to be a concession that Bush did this too. Or he's saying it was okay to do so because Padilla is an American citizen -- even as he's simultaneously claiming it's always wrong to treat terrorists as criminals. Or maybe Gingrich doesn't think Padilla is a terrorist?

Marc Ambinder notes the problem, too.

Padilla was captured and not Mirandized. He was subject to harsh interrogation techniques. That, ostensibly, was Gingrich's point. But -- and this is a very simple rejoinder -- Padilla DID NOT talk when he was held incommunicado.

Mirandizing him either would not have made a difference -- OR perhaps a more hospitable interrogation might have helped to loosen his lips early on.

So Gingrich's reference -- his proof that the Bush administration used a different practice and that it worked -- is so far removed from the point that he is trying to make that it is, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, not even wrong.

Greg concluded, "Anyone have any idea what [Gingrich] means?" It beats me. Then again, after a couple of weeks of truly ridiculous political attacks surrounding the Abdulmutallab case, I have no idea what any of the Republican rhetoric on this means. Gingrich, by all appearances, is both clueless and dishonest -- not a good combination -- but he seems no different at this point than his GOP cohorts.

link

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is the kind of 'news item' only us junkies consider news items... no one else cares.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is the kind of 'news item' only us junkies consider news items... no one else cares.

Because it's petty.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Because it's petty.

Newt lying to make a point isn't petty, it's revealing.

That said, it's also an obscure point which most news consumers will simply glaze right over.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Newt lying to make a point isn't petty, it's revealing.

That said, it's also an obscure point which most news consumers will simply glaze right over.

Scrutinizing anything said on the Daily Show is petty.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Scrutinizing anything said on the Daily Show is petty.

Newt is not a comedian.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Newt is not a comedian.

That would explain my previous comment.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What else would you expect from a pack of neanderthals? Truth to the masses??? HAA HAA HAA!And they think they'll return to power on lies…HAA HAA HAA!!

BY NAT TURNER on 02/10/2010 at 15:54

Why are just liberals calling this out? Shouldn't all misinformation be brought to the attention of the American Public? Hold them all accountable!

BY CHRIS on 02/10/2010 at 15:59

Since when have Republicans ever been concerned with the facts??

BY KEVIN on 02/10/2010 at 16:01

As a Conservative I can honestly say that I can't stand Gingrich. The guy makes me sick, please just make him shut up and go away…along with his "pal" stretch Pelosi.

BY JTHM on 02/10/2010 at 16:24

Newt, let's take a look around and see if the cue cards were upside down…Ohh they don't use them..D*** the luck…You should write stuff on your hand to use for "crib notes." No clue about the questions?? Boy, that's just not fair…I've got it, STFU!!!!!!

BY SASQUATCH on 02/10/2010 at 16:38

I,unlike conservative JTHM… am a loyal,proud Democrat And I can't stand Gingrich,either .He's a sissy-#### mama's boy and wears lace trimmed girly panties.But he's not to much different than the rest of the tea drinking republicans!

BY CHETA on 02/10/2010 at 16:52

I did like Newt a while back, but not now. LOL, look at all the hyper liberal condemnation of NG, and these Dims are clueless about national security. They think babysitting terrorists, giving them citizen's rights, is the infallible way to go, that military trials at Gitmo are wrong. How lame can you get? Finding fault with Newt, while their positions on the war on terror are laughable and dangerous? Glad the American voter got a taste of wall to wall Dim control of Congress and the Presidency. After November, they won't be in power again this century…

BY BILLY on 02/10/2010 at 17:54

Not sure what all the fuss is about, so what he mispoke. Not sure why all the anger against Newt, the man is a historian and has more knowledge of how the governement runs and knows the history of our countly like few others. Name calling and belittling just because the guy is a repbulican is sad. So what if the shoe bomber was merandized, that was shortly after 9/11 and we should have learned from that, not made the same mistake. Admit it, President Obama and his staff really blew it with the underwear bomber, and let's move on!

BY DAVE on 02/10/2010 at 17:56

As far as CHETA is concerned, one has to wonder how he knows what type of panties Gingrich wears - old, white haired men are your type perhaps? All of this argument about how Bush dealt with terrorists and how they are handled today is a waste of time. You use Bush as an excuse when you say you inherited his mistakes and then use him as an example when you follow his lead. Democrats are somewhat confused. Regardless of how terrorists were handled in the past, we can choose to be smarter today than we were yesterday. Treating an enemy combatant, who is not an American citizen, as a criminal with some form of "rights" is not being smarter. A guy with an explosive in his undies (what type were those CHETA?) that he was attempting to set off, is not an alledged anything. He is a terrorist…pop a cap in him and be done with it. Semper Fi

BY JIMMY KNUCKLES on 02/10/2010 at 17:57

Newt playing fast and loose with the truth, oh, I wish you hadn't said the Mr. President. You are not even acquainted in the slightest with the truth. You were just looking for a reason to lose it because the Reps are kicking your tail.

BY NAVY on 02/10/2010 at 18:01

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...bomber-comments

[scandal 951]

Newt lying to make a point isn't petty, it's revealing.

That said, it's also an obscure point which most news consumers will simply glaze right over.

I wouldn't even call it lying. He messed up and confused Reid and Padilla. Big whoop.

Besides, I was bugged by the tone of this piece from the very first word. Since when is Gingrich "disgraced"?

You'd have to go all the way back to 1997, and his ethics sanctions while he was House Speaker, to find a true blemish on his character.

I may not be very fond of him, but he's a pretty stand up guy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I wouldn't even call it lying. He messed up and confused Reid and Padilla. Big whoop.

Besides, I was bugged by the tone of this piece from the very first word. Since when is Gingrich "disgraced"?

You'd have to go all the way back to 1997, and his ethics sanctions while he was House Speaker, to find a true blemish on his character.

I may not be very fond of him, but he's a pretty stand up guy.

He'd make a great GOP nominee for President in 2012. He's serious and smart. The Anti-Palin.

[웃 910]

Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) appeared on "The Daily Show" last night, and screwed up in a rather humiliating way. Today, he made it worse.

His political career ended yesterday. What a disgraceful and humiliating way to go.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

His political career ended yesterday. What a disgraceful and humiliating way to go.

That has been said of Newt many times. He is a survivor.

[Danno 1,228]

He'd make a great GOP nominee for President in 2012. He's serious and smart. The Anti-Palin.

I think he is fine tuning that new (and improved) "Contract with America" right now.

Lets be honest, this is not 1975, Looks matter, Newt is ugly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is the kind of 'news item' only us junkies consider news items... no one else cares.

It's true, unfortunately.

But it does make you think about the BS these guys have tried to make us swallow - they can't even keep their stories straight.

Of course it was more concerning to hear the attorney general use such logic - picking and choose bits and pieces from both US and International law to suit their own purposes.

[Danno 1,228]

Come on Hunt you must admit it is a little funny the WH line of defense is "Nothings CHANGED."