Gingrich Falsely Claims al-Awlaki was Convicted

Do any of these Republicans know what they are talking about? For whatever reason, there's another Republican debate tonight. Newt Gingrich falsely claimed Anwar al-Awlaki was convicted. When the moderator challenged him on it, he said something like "well he was convicted by a military report given to the President." When challenged that's not what the law means by conviction, he said he's an enemy combatent so that's exactly what it means.

I'd bet he wasn't paying attention and confused al-Awlaki with someone else (a brain lapse), and instead of admitting it, tried to swim out of it. He sank.


Only Ron Paul and Huntsman opposed waterboarding. The bizarre Michelle Bachman, who seems to me as nutty as the woman from Delaware last year, said the ACLU is running the CIA.

Mitt Romney wants the U.S. to be the dominant country in the world, more important than every other country.

Since they are talking about foreign policy, will they be asked about our war on drugs policy in Mexico and Central America? Maybe Newt would repeat his support for the death penalty for drug dealers, like he did in 1994-1995.

"You import commercial quantities of drugs in the United States for the purpose of destroying our children, we will kill you," he said.

He said he would introduce a bill stipulating mandatory executions for drug dealers. "Do it one by one, it'll add up," Gingrich said. "If the word gets back that we're serious and we're actually implementing it, then it will have a very chilling effect on people bringing drugs into the U.S."

That's one way to ensure no country agrees to our requests for extradition. [/snark]

Rick Santorum ranting on Guantanamo and federal criminal trials reminded me of Arlo Guthrie screaming "I wanna kill" in Alice's Restaurant.

Michelle Bachman doesn't know the debate rules. She just got a smack-down from the moderator for trying (once again) to jump in when it wasn't her turn.

If anyone outside of the U.S. is watching this, they must be laughing their as*ses off at these clowns.

Anyone watching?

< Saturday Afternoon Open Thread | Newt Gingrich Once Proposed Mandatory Death for Drug Traffickers, Mass Executions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • WTF? You can't even make it up (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    The ACLU is running the CIA?  Holy Batshit crazy!!!!  But of course it must be true.  Why am I such a skeptic?  Everyone knows the Antichrist is the Commander in Chief of the United States military.  Now if that is true, I would have thought Jesus had come or was on his way any day now.

    If you are an Evangelical Christian is there really anything left to worry about? Nirvana is right around the corner, any second

    Lying is first nature to Newt (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by scribe on Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 08:03:08 AM EST
    And second, and third and every nature, too.

    He's not so stupid to make those kinds of mistakes.

    "Do any of these Republicans know what they (none / 0) (#2)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 08:20:24 PM EST
    are talking about?"


    Was this (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 08:25:17 PM EST
    'debate' MEANT to be a comedy show?

    Everybody knows the president runs the CIA, don't they? ;-)

    Newt's tightrope act. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Addison on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 08:51:29 PM EST
    Newt was absolutely talking about al-Awlaki. He just screwed up, and then acted like "outside of the judicial system" didn't mean extrajudicial. And that some president's council is more legally able to allow assassinations of American citizens than the president himself.

    In short, he went for his usual stroll onto the tightrope of "impressive" wordplay and plummeted to Earth. Not that anyone in attendance at that debate cared except for the moderator. Newt's answers are entirely guided by what seems clever, not his conviction and not what's true.

    Later, he implicitly acknowledged that al-Awlaki was not legally killed as he created a division between law and war when it comes to targeted killing of specific Americans for their actions without due process. That division doesn't exist to my knowledge (could be wrong), as even the military has tribunals.

    Laughing ? Certainly not (none / 0) (#6)
    by Andreas on Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 09:10:26 AM EST
    Jeralyn: "If anyone outside of the U.S. is watching this, they must be laughing their as*ses off at these clowns."

    No. These people are as "funny" as the leaders of the NSDAP. And they dominate only because the Democratic Party is not much different and does not intend to fight against this fascistic filth.

    is this a trick question? (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 04:09:59 PM EST
    Do any of these Republicans know what they are talking about?

    but serially, it doesn't matter, to the GOP primary faithful, because they don't care. they want bread, circuses and gladiatorial combat, anything else is superfluous. with that in mind, the candidates give the primary voters what they want. in fairness, democrats do the same thing, during their primaries.