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.
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.

He said as long as the troops are encouraged, he will be encouraged. It doesn’t matter if the troops are encouraged.

csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 2:04 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…

The Warfighters are under represented at the decision making levels… and yet THEY are the ones who know whats going on over there.
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 11:51 AM

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.

Entelechy on July 9, 2007 at 1:50 PM

It was no problem. I just like to give them credit whenever I can. They certainly are better than I.

Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 11:51 AM

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.

jdawg on July 9, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Yeah, I already seen it.

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,

http://patterico.com/2007/07/07/did-thompson-lobby-for-abortion-rights-group/

James on July 9, 2007 at 12:56 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…

I smell fear in the MSM.
omnipotent on July 9, 2007 at 12:44 PM

No doubt and once he gets in and the base goes wild, they’ll be urgently hitting the panic button repeatedly.

Logisticians (those who believe that some single Wep is the answer)

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.

(PIMF)

D’oh!

Hey Allah, how about cathing up with LGF (2 years ago) and get a preview button for us baffoons here.

What about those other guys (Rudy, Mitt, McJohn), must not need to waste the ink ‘cuz there done for by now.

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.[...]

pocomoco on July 9, 2007 at 11:47 AM

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.

Makes ya wanna puke.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13944 …the fact is, this claim of Thompson’s supposed lobbying for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association is nothing but an unproven (and maybe unprovable) claim against Thompson made by people who are well-known, far left activists and heavy contributors to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.

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.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13944

csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 11:39 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.

Go check it out.

http://www.newsbusters.org

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.

Do they have the whole picture? No.
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.

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…

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”?

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!

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.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 10:33 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.