LAT congratulates itself: “Thompson star dims on abortion issue”!
posted at 2:37 pm on July 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
The evidence? Two mild quotes from Paul Weyrich and a bare assertion by a random GOP strategist in New Hampshire that “People who really believe in the pro-life cause will not be happy.” Consider that star dimmed. Meanwhile, the AP reports “wild applause” for his speech to the Young Republican National Convention in Florida yesterday.
While we’re on the subject, have a look at this post by Captain Ed. His source sent me the same info yesterday. If the dates are correct then the Times needs to explain why Fred was retained to lobby for the abortion group before he’d even joined the firm. Was he retained while he was still a sole practitioner and took the client with him to Arent Fox? Or had he already been part of Arent Fox for some time before his FARA registration went through in October? I suspect it’s the latter: he probably applied for registration when he joined the firm and it took a few months for the feds to process the application and approve him. We’ll see. Exit question: If it’s a simple matter of disproving the Times story with dates, why on earth hasn’t the campaign already done that?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
We’re getting close to agreeing about something! If I’m not careful I might start thinking you’re coming around.
jaime on July 8, 2007 at 10:15 PM
After hearing his take on Cuban immigration, it was clear to me that he is only interested in two things Cuban. Cuban ceegars and the Cuban vote. I think he’ll find the Cuban vote is not easily impressed like the Tennessee voters were. The Cuban folk have been through hell and they can smell a rat a mile away.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 10:27 PM
I seem to remember the left trotting out some skank to try to derail Thomas’s appointment to the SCOTUS. Also, didn’t the left trot out a skank in an attempt to derail Arnold’s run for governor? Both men won their bid for office. Do I see a pattern? It’s not the same charge, but exactly the same M.O.
It’s such a loser scheme I’m surprised they’re trying it again on Fred!.
jaime on July 8, 2007 at 10:32 PM
There is only one person who is qualified to be President of the United States, and that is a previous President of the United States.
As much as their minions would have us believe, no one is qualified to be President be they senator, governor, mayor, or dog catcher.
The plain fact is, the position of President is an ‘on-the-job training’ process. There is absolutely nothing one can do to prepare for it.
So, the next time you hear a candidate claim to be qualified, just give him or her a wink and a nod, and politely say that they need not apply for the position.
pocomoco on July 8, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Sold a bill of goods? Why did you vote for him a second time? Give me your number because I’ve got some Kirbys, Amway products as well as a little Mary Kay for the missus….
Bradky on July 8, 2007 at 9:19 PM
I voted for him once and only once. I did that because he was not John Kerry and we are at war. The moment in 1999 when I heard “compassionate conservative” is the moment he lost me. I did not vote for him in 2000. I voted a protest vote.
Yet even from that outlook I was able to give Bush leeway after 9/11 but he blew that when he failed to secure victory after the battles in both battle fronts. His distain for American soverignity has pushed me farther away from his version of the GOP. To me Bush and Carter are running a tight race for the worst President since FDR
I’m hoping in 2008 to be able for the first time since 1988 to vote for someone instead of against someone.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 11:11 PM
BKennedy on July 8, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Bush is an idea man. Which is fine in and of itself. But ideas need to have energy and conviction behind them. They need to be hammered on over and over and over again. They need to have details, strategies and tons of small stuff. All this is needed to bring an idea from the drawing board to life.
Social securty, the Iraq war, the Afgan war, tax cuts, spending cuts, the space mission, even the immigration battle all showed that Bush had ideas but not the energy needed to bring the ideas from the drawing board to real life. NCLB and prescription drugs where is 2 biggest domestic victory but even these programs where not fleshed out and the true costs of both programs were not known. If these two programs did not “sound great” and were political suicide to oppose I don’t even think these two would have passed. Bush thinks that ideas get you a legacy. Results gets you the legacy not ideas.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 11:29 PM
LOL. I’d have to plead guilty to the same dilemma in 2004. And I did get the added bonus of seeing Susan Estrich seemingly drunk off her gourd around 10 PM that evening while trying to slur “Cuyahoga county is not all in yet”.
Regards!
Bradky on July 8, 2007 at 11:31 PM
pocomoco on July 8, 2007 at 10:47 PM
good point
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Ummm… you mean that hes willing to listen to military profesionals about what is going on over there? Instead of the Press, and pundits, and people who have NO military experience?
Crap, I wish Bush HAD listened to the military, and not the Colin Powel type political General… and not to his “advisors”… we’d be in a LOT better position in Iraq today.
We essentialy declared WAR, and we should let the MILITARY run it…
FRED’s! position makes PERFECT sense to me… but then agian, I am retired military, who was on more than one occastion stopped by politicians from doing what needed to be done.
You see it as cowardice? I see it as knowing what you DON’T know and listening to experts.
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 12:01 AM
So, is it your assertion that the POTUS should ask a couple of foot soldiers what they think of the war and if they are discouraged, he should be discouraged?
Do you really think that the common foot soldier knows enough about geo-politics to make a decision that would affect 300 million Americans and untold millions in the middle east?
Yeah, I see it as cowardice when a guy who wants to “do a few things” as POTUS, is willing to leave the propagation of a war to foot soldiers. One of his main jobs is the CinC of the military forces of this country and he’s gonna abdicate that to regular G.I.’s. Foot soldiers are hardly in the position to be “experts” on the ramifications of a pullout of Iraq.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 12:24 AM
fred? is the least qualified candidate to be POTUS and his statements expose that most perfectly
csdeven,
I suggest you read my 10:47pm comment.
pocomoco
pocomoco on July 9, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Folks, csdeven is not a troll and he has a son in the service. He also has his mind made up on Mitt primarily, and possibly Rudy (who knows why and how). It’s simply futile to be sensible or combative with him. He needs to be loved in spite of the circle he’s spinning in. I figure he’s trying to prove a higher speed of light. Let him. Maybe he’ll invent something good in the process.
Romeo13, well said, and if I’d be worthy, I’d salute you.
Entelechy on July 9, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Shall we then cast our ballots without discrimination? If one does not look to experience, where would you suggest? Character or knowledge? All three of those can be acquired.
Surely you mean that no one can be fully prepared, and not abrogating the responsibility of preparing for leadership. Will you please clarify your remarks?
Spirit of 1776 on July 9, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Brad, you made me laugh tears – brought back fun memories of a white night, long vanished. In general, even if I disagree with her often, I like Susan because she can transcend. For that reason I also like Bob Boeckel and Pat Cadell.
Have a great week,
Entelechy on July 9, 2007 at 12:50 AM
C’mon Jimmy Carter! :-)
The qualifications for the office are subjective. A governor of a large state will have a much better grasp on the workings of the US government than a professional lobbyist. Could fred? learn? Sure, but remember, he only has a “few things he wants to do”, and as we have heard in his interviews, immigration and being the CinC are not some of the things on his list.
When you take into account that fred? has been an arm twisting lobbyist longer than he has been a public servant, and with the recent Abramoff scandal, freds? prospects for being invited to be the CinC are slim to none.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 12:52 AM
It’s more than a little bit impossible to imagine a rational basis for this bizarre new “executive experience” litmus test. What in the Hell does any state governor have to do with foreign affairs or national defense? And how does a state capital’s dominion over municipalities compare to the Constitutional relationship between Washington and the States? It doesn’t; it’s not even close.
But if you look at the moonbats’ seemingly idiotic claim backwards, it makes perfect sense. Think about it: which of the twenty-or-so candidates out there right now has spent the most time in the White House? It’s not even close.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Entelechy,
csdeven appears to be one of the few, the proud, and don’t confuse me with facts, kind of guy. He is Neville Chamberlain incarnate where appeasement is the only play in his book. We don’t need a military says he, just talk and make nice to our enemies and nirvana will be ours.
pocomoco on July 9, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Two sons. One in the Persian Gulf serving on board a destroyer as a DCman and the other in the 101st (air assault) at Ft Campbell. He deploys to Iraq in September. Both are fine men and I couldn’t be prouder.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 1:08 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but governors do command their National Guard. They also deal with foreign countries etc. Remember, for the good of his city, Rudy dealt with some Arab jerk off. And that is one Arab jerk off more than freddie boy dealt with. Unless of course it was lobbying against the American people with an Arab as a client.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Bring on the facts. Unless you’re more comfortable hijacking this thread into another discussion about csdeven. And in that case, you can talk to yourself.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Here’s a nice article that will help solidify the real fred?.
He’s a proud papa!
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Spirit of 1776,
Putting aside that no one is qualified to be President we are left to discriminate by the platform they present remembering that when they get into office, the platform often goes by the way of the dinosaur. Carter tried the “Ill never lie to you” routine on us, and look what happened to the country. Clinton tried the “I’ll be the hardest working president” routine on us, and look what we got.
This being the case, voting for a President is a crap shoot. Like Forrest Gump’s mother said, you never know what your gonna get. Unfortunately, for the American people – generally it’s too late.
pocomoco on July 9, 2007 at 1:26 AM
If we accept the assumption that no one is qualified, then you suggest then that we judge by platform, disregarding (or minimizing) character, experience, and knowledge.
Therefore a careful constructed platform, or shall we say, a platform carefully prepared to appeal to the populace would lead a candidate to success. Surely you would agree then also that a candidate who has charismatic appeal and who leaves enough vagary in his prepared platform to allow unstated assumptions to be adopted, should meet with remarkable success. Perhaps even lead the polls a full year out of the election.
Also adding this assumption (and as to your examples I would add Bush41 ‘read my lips, no new taxes’), – following your logic and example – would lead you to conclude that a candidate of such nature is of unpredictable value. In your words: a crap shoot.
Have I summed up your view fairly?
Spirit of 1776 on July 9, 2007 at 2:04 AM
As you would say, this is the very paragon of simplicity.
The value of executive experience is, for one, to exercise the ability to make distinct impartial judgments based on merit alone and to execute those judgments unflinchingly, seeing them through to their conclusion.
Washington in his day, by his peers, was regarded as the most capable of holding the fledgling nation together. Why do I mention that? Because you claim it is new and bizarre. Here is what Jefferson himself wrote regarding our first Executive:
Would you be so kind as to tell me what you think might have swayed those men to choose Mr. Washington as the 1st chief executive if not for these character traits that were exhibited by his “executive experience” for his service in the army, the congresses, convention, etc?
Spirit of 1776 on July 9, 2007 at 2:57 AM
Of course, your quote from Thomas Jefferson said absolutely nothing about “executive experience” you just sort of made that up for no apparent reason.
All the quote talked about was Washington’s character. Of course there is no way to guess based on anything you typed, what specifically you think any of that has to do with Fred Thompson, but if the only thought you are capable of formulating is “I don’t like Fred Thompson,” then that is all you should have said.
I’m afraid you have it backwards: you see, simplicity is only a virtue when it applies to EXPRESSION.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Spirit of 1776,
The platform is the only thing left to judge them by. To the senator, governor, or dog catcher their character, experience, and knowledge are superficial because these traits can be manufactured just like their platform, and they often are.
Can you say Bill Clinton?
You have!
pocomoco on July 9, 2007 at 4:44 AM
Fred needs to get in the Game or get the Hell out of the way. The Dems are now starting up their campaign to pull out of Iraq before September’s report. Bloomberg is sucking votes from Guliani and Romny and Hunter are not getting enough attention as they should. The GOP will be in complete dis-array if the Dems succeed in pulling the Troops. It’s called implosion. That is a possible reality and really bad outcome for America.
Egfrow on July 9, 2007 at 5:16 AM
That is because Jefferson was DESCRIBING Washington’s actions as the executive who ran the war. GW had the overall view of everything that was happening and made his decisions in the way Jefferson was talking about.
I know you don’t want to see that because it doesn’t fit the paradigm that fred? is, and you want the basic essence of the job to change to fit freds? history, instead of fred? having the qualities and experience that best fits the job.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 7:25 AM
Here’s a little snippet from the article I linked to in my 1:25 am post.
Ahhhh, arm twisting lobbying! The ties that bind. How touching!
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 7:41 AM
Also to consider….people can most certainly change after 16 years on such an emotional issue. I know for instance that I have. Therefore, can you really hold him to something from 16 years ago as opposed to how he says he feels today? I’ll go with the here and now thanks. I’m willing to bet that most pro-lifers will too.
lynnv on July 9, 2007 at 7:55 AM
For me, freds? past positions on abortion aren’t the big issue. The issue is the lying about it. Also, his careful crafting of his image appears to be something he is manufacturing when he says he has always been with the pro-life position, when it is crystal clear that he has not been. In 1994 he was staunchly pro-choice. If fred? wants to be accepted by the pro-lifers, he needs to come clean about it, explain his conversion, and leave it the hands of the folks.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 8:15 AM
Please engage the question honestly. I’ll repeat it for you:
Your characterization of Jefferson’s quote is inaccurate. I will take responsibility for your confusion. I did only take a piece of the first of it, for reasons of space. I did not expect that to mis-understood by you, especially as I framed it.
He is speaking directly to the ability of the man to lead the nation, he uses this to preface the character to preface listing the successes (read experiences) of the man.
Spirit of 1776 on July 9, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Thank you for your clarification, I appreciate your directness. And I am glad I understood you, as I tried to neither add to nor take away from your explanation.
Would you consider one question more: By your words, the framework with which you have to judge a candidate leads to ‘a crap shoot’. As such, would your integrity not dictate to you to advise others to abstain from your political opinion, as the use of your framework would also lead them to ‘a crap shoot’?
That may read coldly, but I mean it warmly. Specifically, I have more respect for your judgment then you do. As did also the founding fathers who entrusted you with the power of a vote. They would not have done so if they thought the conclusion was a crap shoot.
With all due respect I suggest to you sir, that the foundations of your argument, though well-meaning, are erroneous.
Spirit of 1776 on July 9, 2007 at 9:58 AM
You’d be suprised what a privates might just know about GeoPolitiics…. often much more than Congress!
I don’t believe his statement is saying to ask every dang soldiers opinion, because of course you can always find one who disagrees. I believe he is saying that if the military thinks it can WIN he will continue to support the war.
And guess what? The military still understands the mission and continues to support the war! Thats right, the guys doing the JOB, the guys there every day, think we can do it… but the media and Politicians who are thousands of miles away are saying we can’t.
Fred! is saying he’ll listen to the soldiers first… how is that cowardice?
Oh… and if you’d be so kind… tell you sons thank you from me for their service!!!
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I will tell them and thank you!
fred? specifically refers to two soldier friends that are not in the higher echelon of the military. The impression he is leaving is one that speaks to the family of the troops and not to the decisions that are in the best interest of the country as a whole.
fred? is afraid to say what the CinC should say. That is that the president is the only one in the position to know what is best for the country and must propagate the war regardless of the troops feelings on the matter. fred? is basically taking the liberals tack on the pullout of Iraq. The decision for pulling out is based on ANYTHING other than the conditions on the ground and in the scope of geo-political consequences.
I call that cowardice.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 10:32 AM
The way Fred Thompson parts his hair shows lack of determination, and his choice of sock color shows lack of “executive character”, whatever the Hell that is supposed to mean from one moment to the next.
Trying to connect those inchoate feelings to any sort of rational explanation is a waste of time.
Sadly, I’ve only seen a few hundred posts from CS so far, so there’s really very little to go on. But as near as I can figure, the moonbats are incensed because Thompson isn’t doing what everyone on TV says he’s supposed to do.
“Thou shalt not kill” is a just sort of an ad-hoc suggestion. But “Thou shalt declare candidacy one year before the first primary” is an everlasting and absolutely inflexible mandate of the cosmos.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 10:33 AM
A fun game I like to play is to take whatever the moonbats are complaining about, and then assume that
George BushFred Thompson had done the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.So if Thompson had said “I could not possibly care less what anyone else thinks – ESPECIALLY the people who are there on the ground – only I know what’s best for America!” They’d all bow down and hail whatever decision he made as “courageous”?
I’m not even positive that CS is dumb enough to believe he really means that. But I guarantee you no one else is.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 10:42 AM
If you really believe that trivial things like hair and socks compare to the abdication of the CinC’s responsibility to foot soldiers, you ought to just come out and say it instead of being cryptic about it.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Please, explain to the group why it is wise for fred? the coward to defer to foot soldiers who operate in a limited area of the region, with no access to all the intelligence, and in the end, are not elected by the people of America?
Please, enquiring minds want to know!
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 11:02 AM
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Having worked on an Admirals staff… I have to tell you that often the guys wearing the Stars are pretty clueless… its the midlevel officers and long serving NCOs who really know whats going on. Who can really tell you whether somthing is working or not.
Do they have the whole picture? No. But they are the ones at the front of the battlespace… they are the ones talking to “natives” every day. They are the ones who know whats going on in their own commands, and the senior NCOs often have MUCH more Combat experience than the Generals leading them.
The LARGEST problem we have in the military today is that the combats troops are hampered by the army of lawyers second guessing every shot fired in a war. Get the politicians (who are mostly lawyers) and the legal begals out of the loop and we could win this thing much more easily… and its things like this that you will hear from the Troops.
I can GUARENTEE that Bush has never sat down and talked to a group of Senior Combat NCOs over a beer… but I could see Thompson talkin to em over a Cuban Cigar…
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Exactly. freds? opinion, and he has said it several times, is that he will listen to the troops and do what they want.
That is abdication.
Your theory is full of holes.
WHICH troops does he listen too?
Does he take a poll and do what the majority says?
Does he ignore the conditions on the ground?
Does he ignore the geo-political consequences?
Who voted for these troops that make up the core of the troops fred? will listen to?
Who cleans up the mess after it’s over?
Do these troops go back to the voters and explain themselves?
Do these troops have to go back and fix the prolems, or are they allowed to get out and leave the mess to someone else?
These ARE the responsibilities that are given to the CinC and fred? doesn’t want them. He wants to dump them on the troops.
THAT is cowardice and abdication of responsibility. And more than the abortion issue, this exposes fred? as totally unfit and unaware of the responsibilities of POTUS. THAT is why fire in the belly and executive experience are important in a president.
All ” Ol’fred?” has is folksy rhetoric and a rented red pickup truck. He is ACTING the part of candidate (as he is STILL a non-candidate) and thinks he can act the part of president and that will suffice with the American people. It surely did work in Tennessee when he wanted to be a senator, but POTUS is too important to turn over to a midget with a bull horn standing behind a card board cutout of Ronald Reagan.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Spirit of 1776
Each election cycle, the voter has the unenviable task of trying to sift through the political rhetoric by politicians who are running for any office in the hope that they won’t be snookered.
When the two candidates, through the caucus, primary system, and telling the people what they want to hear, are finally winnowed out for the national ‘big show’, the voter, still in the back of his or her mind, is wondering if they’re going to be snookered. Why? Because it has happened so often in our 200+ year history.
When the final vote is tallied for President, do we find voters making their decision based on their platform, experience, and character? Hell no! Their vote is based primarily on party affiliation as noted by the 50/50 vote split between the parties.
Their were, however, a few exceptions. Washington on his successes during the Revolutionary War, Grant on his successes during the Civil war, Eisenhower on his experience and success as Supreme Commander for four years during WWII, and Reagan on his platform and character.
Other than these few exceptions, the political process still amounts to a crap shoot pure and simple.
pocomoco on July 9, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Newsbusters has an excellent piece on this – turns out the reporting was in error, or at best sloppily done, probably at the behest of the Hitlery campaign.
Go check it out.
http://www.newsbusters.org
jdawg on July 9, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Ohhh… I see the basis of your arguement… you are taking ONE statement and extrapolating it out to an absurd endpoint, and than saying he’s a COWARD for it?
Strong allegation when I read his statement as he is going to pay attention to the EXPERTS in War, ie, the MILITARY. We have a lot of pundits and “think tank” folks, and politicians, who proclaim there opinion every day in an area that they know very little about.
Fact is that the military is made up of very divergent groups… Theres are Warfighters, Policymakers (military politician), and Logisticians (those who believe that some single Wep is the answer), and Lawyers.
Right now the Policymakers are under control of the Lawyers, and they control the Pentagon due to the Political atmosphere in Washington (from both parties).
The Warfighters are under represented at the decision making levels… and yet THEY are the ones who know whats going on over there.
I read Thompson’s statement as saying he is going to listen to the War fighters… if you want to interpret it differently, fine, but you are slinging about some serious allegations based on a statement that can be interpreted multiple ways.
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Direct link to that story:
http://newsbusters.org/node/13944
jdawg on July 9, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Or, as Christopher Hitchens said about Fahrenheit 911: “It’s not EVEN a lie.” It’s only a slur; which is far more intellectually disgusting.
If some people choose to hate Fred Thompson more than life itself, then more power to you. And if you want to make 200 posts in an attempt to prove that “endless repetition is the soul of wit.” Then please be so kind as to kill yourselves. But either way, that has nothing to do with the point here.
Which is that the LA Times will NEVER be held accountable for any of this. They loudly declare themselves the Arbiters of Truth, and they have not the faintest clue what that word means.
OK, sure, its readership may be dropping by 5% a year or whatever. But in the meantime its authors are getting paid, so they at least have an excuse to be utterly shameless. But what about the dimbulbs who actually read this pretentious filth?
With the National Enquirer, you can assume that most of its readers are in on the joke. But what of the voracious consumers of liberal media? America can easily survive a handful of egomaniacal holier-than-thou liberal idiots, but what of their MILLIONS of thralls? That’s what scares me.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 12:27 PM
The MSM at it’s best.
Makes ya wanna puke.
jdawg on July 9, 2007 at 12:43 PM
As all government derives it’s power from the consent of the governed, so too the processes of that government. It is incumbent on us then, to examine, or as you say sift through, the candidates as best we can, and it is helpful when the candidates answer direct questions.
Thank you for this conversation and the manner in which you conducted it. I look forward to conversing with you in the future.
Spirit of 1776 on July 9, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I smell fear in the MSM.
What about those other guys (Rudy, Mitt, McJohn), must not need to waste the ink ‘cuz there done for by now.
omnipotent on July 9, 2007 at 12:44 PM
there= they’reD’oh!
Hey Allah, how about cathing up with LGF (2 years ago) and get a preview button for us baffoons here.
omnipotent on July 9, 2007 at 12:45 PM
catching up….
(PIMF)
omnipotent on July 9, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Speaking as a Logistician, you couldn’t have described us any more innacurately. Logisticians concern themselves with implementing the strategic decisions others make on employing ALL weapon systems, making the operational and tactical decisions that get everything where it needs to be in adequate numbers in time to be of use.
We order, stock, store, ship, issue, fuel, repair, and replace everything that warfighters use. We don’t care if it’s one single weapon system or a hundred…if you need it and you’re allowed to have it, we get it for you.
James on July 9, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Aww, look at the cute little gnats swarming the warhorse again!Puh-lease.
No doubt and once he gets in and the base goes wild, they’ll be urgently hitting the panic button repeatedly.
Schweggie on July 9, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Sorry, I probably used the wrong term to describe this group.
In the Air Force, Army, and Navy, there are proponents of one weapon system… which they will advocate over all other systems, to the point of stupidity.
F-16 over A-10 for close support… Super New Artillery over a replacement for the crappy M-16… things like that.
Or those who place material readiness over Manpower readiness… both are needed…
They seem to not understand the Rock Paper Scissors idea that has been a staple of military thought for Ages.
They also often seem to have an overly large impact on procurements…
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Patterico has more on this:
http://patterico.com/2007/07/07/did-thompson-lobby-for-abortion-rights-group/
jdawg on July 9, 2007 at 1:40 PM
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 1:08 AM
csdeven, that was an oversight on my part for which I sincerely apologize to you. You, for bringing them up and for supporting their service and suffering through the agony, and your sons for serving our country are appreciated equally. I’m humbled and grateful. They are better than us. Regards,
Entelechy on July 9, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Yeah, I already seen it.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM
That wasn’t the context of the question he was asked that I am referring to.
He said as long as the troops are encouraged, he will be encouraged. It doesn’t matter if the troops are encouraged. A real CinC will select a course of action and the troops follow him. What freddie boy proposes is that he will follow the troops. This is cowardice and abdication. Plain.and.simple.
Now, you can try to explain what fred? really meant on your own, but he said what he said and there is no other way to understand it until he decides to clarify that specific statement.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM
It was no problem. I just like to give them credit whenever I can. They certainly are better than I.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 2:05 PM
I actually read an article by a liberal reporter a while back that said that embedded journalists and the “soldiers, behind their concertina wire” don’t know anything about the “real” Iraq.
And, of course all conservatives who AREN’T soldiers are “cowardly war hawks” whose opinions can’t be trusted…
So who does that leave? Who are the only people on earth who liberals feel are qualified to have an opinion? Only the liberals, of course.
Once again, liberals start with the feeling; in this case: “Only MY opinion matters!” And then they blithely string together whatever insane series of rationalizations it takes to get them there.
No matter how crazy liberals sound, we must always remember that none of it is ever a “lie” inside their minds. Facts are always incidental, and logic is always relative, to the FEELING. Because, to people who make decisions based on emotion, that’s the only thing that ever has to be “true.” And it always is.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I’ll use small words. The troops, ie, those actualy fighting and know the most about what is going on, are encouraged about the prospects of winning in Iraq.
Fred!, listening to the troops, is encouraged by what he hears because the TROOPS, ie, the warfighting experts, believe they can win… vice the pundits, and analysts, and MSM, who are sitting here in America saying the opposite.
He didn’t say he would abrogate his decision making to them, but he is saying that what he hears FROM them makes him think we can win…
How does that make him a coward? This statement was sent straight at those who, sitting here in America, who say we CAN’T win!
AND HE IS RIGHT! We CAN win… if we believe we can…
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Actually, you could break that down into even smaller words. “Winning” can be a pretty fuzzy concept, but nothing in the world can be more stark than the possibility of LOSING in Iraq.
Liberals constantly whine about Iraq turning into “another Vietnam,” but they are doing everything in their power to get it to END in exactly the same way: totalitarianism, genocide, and an expanded base of operations for America’s enemies.
When asked how he plans to respond to the Democrats’ endless criticisms about the War on Terror, Fred Thompson said there’s no way to respond to all the idiocy; what we need to do is spend the last six weeks before the election talking about NOTHING except what will happen if the Democrats get their way and the troops are pulled out of Iraq.
Can you say: “Biggest turnout in American history?”
…I knew you could.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2