L.A. Times Preparing Another Hit Piece on Fred!
posted at 8:55 pm on July 11, 2007 by Patterico
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The L.A. Times really has it in for Fred Thompson. Jim Geraghty reports:
Folks close to Fred Thompson expect another critical piece from the Los Angeles Times in the near future, this one focusing on Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn’s past work for the government of Chile. Apparently sometime around 1991 or 1992, the partners invited Fred Thompson to join them on a trip down to Chile aimed at drumming up additional business. Fred went on the trip, sat in on the pitch meetings, and then returned with the partners. Thompson did not do any work for the government of Chile, I am told.
Allegedly, one primary source for this Times story is the same as the last one: former Congressman Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.).
It’s not clear what the paper is planning to accuse Thompson of doing. Geraghty says it has nothing to do with Pinochet, based on the timing.
If they’re trying to “pre-spin” whatever’s coming out, they’re being pretty mysterious about it:
The individual close to Thompson that I spoke to seemed to sense that the Times had not eaten their journalistic Wheaties in this endeavor. “There’s a difference in relationship between being [a lawyer] of counsel to a firm and being a partner, and they want to blur the distinction… [We] keep explaining that relationship, they don’t want to get it. Maybe we need flash cards for the L.A. Times.”
When the L.A. Times is done, can I see those flash cards? ‘Cause I don’t get it.
Specifically, I don’t understand why the campaign is leaking this now — but not telling us anything specific that will help put the allegations in context. Maybe it will all become clear in time. Stay tuned . . .
[Patterico blogs at Patterico.com and can be reached at patterico -AT- gmail -DOT- com.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: 1 2 Next »
wimpy wimpy wimpy
Buzzy on July 11, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Its a flush request. You leak something your concerned about in hopes of flushing out any info that corroberates it. They seem to know that LA Times has SOMETHING but if they get the info out first they can get other sources to release info they have about it.
Its a subtle way to manipulate the media
William Amos on July 11, 2007 at 9:04 PM
If you are wondering why Fred hasnt declared yet these are the reasons. They want to go over his past with a fine tooth comb and shake out anything that is negative.
Expect his handlers to spend the next few weeks floating stuff about freds past to see if any of it is too damaging to continue on.
William Amos on July 11, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Simple reason, he’s got a trophy wife, LAT has trophy boys. It’s an LA thang ♥
Kini on July 11, 2007 at 9:10 PM
The LA Times is a terrible paper. I could stand all the liberal crap if they would only learn how to write well.
aengus on July 11, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Imagine if the NYT or LAT spent this kind of energy looking at liberal candidates. Hey, they would not even have to expend the energy to make things up!
bbz123 on July 11, 2007 at 9:14 PM
You ain’t seen nuttin’ yet.
They already know who there opponent is.
TheSitRep on July 11, 2007 at 9:15 PM
The Left lives in the 19th and 20th Centuries. From Marxism and also the theory discarded in the 1890s that society itself causes crime, all the way to this one from the 1980s: Just the appearance of impropriety is enough to disqualify a Republican candidate from any office in the land.
Liam on July 11, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Is that a subtle Family Guy reference?
BadgerHawk on July 11, 2007 at 9:16 PM
While in Chile, he swallowed a baby whole; lots of people do it and it’s a dumb thing to make an issue of.
frankj on July 11, 2007 at 9:21 PM
A COLUMN FROM FRED THOMPSON, at Power Line.
bnelson44 on July 11, 2007 at 9:23 PM
While in Chile Fred! bit the head off of a LIVE chicken!!! I wonder if these tools had anything to say about Bitch Pelosi’s little unauthorized trip…
DCJeff on July 11, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Good read…thanks for sharing!
DCJeff on July 11, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Ditto.
Spirit of 1776 on July 11, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Look on the bright side. When the Dog Trainer went after Ah-nold, they sat on the story until mere days before the election. This time, they’re going after Fred? before he even declared as a candidate. By the time he does, this story will be old news.
Xrlq on July 11, 2007 at 9:40 PM
The LAT must be upset with Fred! for not toeing the Hollywood lib line. Aren’t all Hollywood actors supposed to be flaming libs who b*tch and complain and never put it on the line like Fred!, Arnold, Love Boat Fred, and Sonny did? For that reason, they must be compelled to bring him down and to do it as quickly as possible.
Mallard T. Drake on July 11, 2007 at 9:42 PM
The attacks on Fred will only gt worse. He is what the media hates, a real Conservative.
Gatordoug on July 11, 2007 at 9:47 PM
If you take a shot at the king, you better kill him.
Iblis on July 11, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Xrlq, the LAT also predicted that Arnold would lose in the CA recall. Other major predictions or aspirations of their were huge flops.
What they hate the most, though, is that he doesn’t fear or revere the media.
He might make it or not, but watch what he’ll do to them.
Entelechy on July 11, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Fred Thompson’s first name contains the word “red” and the letter “F“, both of which have negative connotations for conservatives.
Film at 11!
profitsbeard on July 11, 2007 at 9:55 PM
The best part is the LAT’s pretense to look out for real conservatives.
Entelechy on July 11, 2007 at 9:57 PM
AP, OT: Just in case you are reading these comments, will you drop your opinion on the Telegraph piece. Where do you think the McCain crumbs will fall?
Spirit of 1776 on July 11, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Their (the Dems, the MSM, the “progressives,” and especially the nutroots) fear, dread actually, is positively delicious, and has been obvious from the first time they heard he might even consider running.
ShoreMark on July 11, 2007 at 10:27 PM
I think the LA Times means he like chili on his all beef hotdogs…and we know beef comes from cows…and cows cause global warming.
SouthernGent on July 11, 2007 at 10:28 PM
OF COURSE the LAT is on a vendetta against Fred!
Hello! Los Angeles? Hollywood? The entertainment industry? Any of this ring a bell? To parrot a Hollywood Movie Trailer…….. This time it’s personal.
Fred is an actor and yet he’s not part of Hillary’s west coast lemming brigade. They view him with more scorn than your garden variety Republican because, being an actor, he should know better.
BTW, the LAT has never bothered hiding the fact it is nothing but a propoganda outlet for the DNC. When I lived out there during the 2000 Presidential Debates their “unbiased” man-on-thestreet views of how the candidates did went somebody like this: Democrat weighing in was always an elected Democrat official. Republican weighing in was always a RINO at best from some organization like “Democrats for Bush.” The independent was always from some utterly pro-Democrat group like Planned Parenthood or the AFL-CIO. Not surprisingly, the LAT determined that Gore hit all three debates out of the park without question (and despite the fact he utterly screwed up two out of the three).
highhopes on July 11, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Hee.
You social cons better get used to it, there is nobody in this race who is pure.
The beatings will continue untill.
JackStraw on July 11, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Maybe there’s nobody pure in this race, but when did that ever happen?
Meanwhile, Rudy, Mitt, and Fred! are far more palatable than Hillary and Obama.
And this social con has no trouble backing any of them.
Kimmer on July 11, 2007 at 10:59 PM
JackStraw
What? Is there such a thing as a pure candidate? Everyone has different opinions. I don’t even agree with Hannity on some topics. There is no pure form. There are certain things that are desirable, but you can never end up with exactly what you want. (okay, Reagan was an exception) Oh, and what beatings are you referring to?
j_ehman on July 11, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Until(l)… he’s nominated?, sworn in?, or, until(l) they figure out how to drum him out of office with smears?
Bring. It. On.
ShoreMark on July 11, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Saw that earlier — a definite must read and very relevent to this post.
bdfaith on July 11, 2007 at 11:45 PM
“liar fred?” will continue to take hits for his histiry as an arm-twisting lobbyist. You fred?heads think this is bad? This is NOTHING. Wait until the stuff with actual documentation comes out. Every single accusation before the big one will automatically become valid and will land squarely on freds? forked tongue.
fred?, YOU STINK!
csdeven on July 11, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Where is the “Fairness Doctrine” when you need it. The man is not even a declared candidate, yet the LAT sees fit to examine his career with a magnifying glass.
Where is the LAT hit piece on declared candidates like Obama and his crooked friends in Cook county, or Hillary and her “lucky gamble” on $100k in cattle futures.
WWIII on July 12, 2007 at 12:30 AM
After all the success the LAT had in keeping GW Bush out of office for 8 years they’re pumped to do the same for Fred.
Yah baby.
Mojave Mark on July 12, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Apparently the LAT wants to coronate Fred! as the anti-Lib.
Want to elect a real leader? Vote for whomever gets most attacked by the left.
unamused on July 12, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Csdeven is apparently unaware that it is legal and ethical to lobby for right-wing causes.
WWIII on July 12, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Anyone ever heard of a websitespace called Ace of the Spades or something?
Stephen M on July 12, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Isn’t it amazing? A candidate that can spell and write and put words together that actually convey a message or story. I am simply amazed. Not since RR have we had a literate President. A man at ease with the language. Unbelievable. I guess the cincher is the mere fact that he wasn’t corrupt enough to stay a U.S. Senator.
Griz on July 12, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Let me translate Fred at Powerline:
Don’t judge me politically for every person, cause,or issue that I represented as a lawyer or lobbyist. Why, even Judge Roberts gave legal advice to gay groups!
I knew this waiting was to get out all the skeletons. Political and personal. I hope he can survive the tear down.
Rightwingsparkle on July 12, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Let me see a show of hands from all of the presidential candidates- how many of you have either written posts that were linked to or actively engaged in the fever swamp that is the blogosphere on a first hand basis?
I mean, BESIDES Fred!?
Just curious..
Tman on July 12, 2007 at 1:48 AM
I hope he gets properly vetted.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 2:04 AM
Why does anyone read this rag and if you do you get what you deserve!
sabbott on July 12, 2007 at 5:18 AM
Let the L.A. Times go after Fred all they want. The more the better. If he is the candidate that we want, and I am hoping that he is, it will just make him stronger.
MB4 on July 12, 2007 at 5:26 AM
that
“Jim Geraghty report” was so poorly written I gleaned nothing from it.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 6:49 AM
He’s tarring with a wide brush, is all. He figured that if he used the names Abramoff and Thompson in the same sentence often enough people would magically decide that an honorable man was a criminal. A tactic remarkably pertinent under a post regarding a hit piece by the LAT. His fantasy is for it to go something like this:
“He’s a lawyer!” – Strike one
“He’s a lobbyist!” – Strike two
“He’s a baby-killing, lying faker!” – Strike three
I’m sure that will all work better for him than it did for the Times against Arnold. Not. And Arnold really is a RINO deserving of significant criticism.
Freelancer on July 12, 2007 at 7:43 AM
Man, they’re scared shitless of this guy and Rudy huh?
LtE126 on July 12, 2007 at 7:47 AM
Perhaps they haven’t made it up yet?
oldleprechaun on July 12, 2007 at 8:22 AM
This is hilarious. Using fred? and Abramoff in the same sentence will put enough of the truth about freddie boy out there that reg’lar folk, who are not political junkies, will realize what a POS he is and he will lose in the general and we will be left with Hillary.
I am surprised that for all the talk about political junkism here, that many people, (especially the fred? supporters) forget that lots and lots people are supporting fred? because of character he played on some TV show. These folks are starting to see that the fred? of TV is not the fred? of reality. All they see is that fred? = Abramoff. That means buh bye to the casual supporter.
Just because a person his head over heels swooning for their non-candidate, doesn’t mean everyone who supports him feel the same way. fred? has support because people don’t know him.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 8:26 AM
Were you dating Jeri when Fred came along and stole her from you, or is there something else he’s personally done to you? In order for you to have this much animosity towards Fred it has to be something personal.
Kowboy on July 12, 2007 at 9:20 AM
If someone is dumb enough to support a candidate because they like his TV persona, they’re dumb enough to never have heard of Abramoff, don’t you think?
zeebeach on July 12, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Kowboy on July 12, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Am starting to wonder how much longer Allah is going to put up with csdeven ranting about Fred.
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Your feelings for Fred! have caused you miss the point of these LAT articles. We have an arm of the MSM clearly with an agenda to take out a conservative candidate. (I know you will argue how conservative he really is, blah blah blah). Regardless, the LAT has targeted him. But we will see no such agenda for the Dim candidates. Despite your feelings about Fred!, you should at least stick up for a candidate on “our team.”
You are so far to the right about Fred!, you have come around to the other side and are standing with the LAT on the left.
Mallard T. Drake on July 12, 2007 at 9:54 AM
If we can’t go to war with what we want, we’ll go with what we have.
Anyway, the more LAT slings at him, the more I like him !
stenwin77 on July 12, 2007 at 10:12 AM
I highly doubt Fred is in any way afraid of the LAT.
otcconan on July 12, 2007 at 10:28 AM
otcconan on July 12, 2007 at 10:28 AM
But obviously the LAT and csdeven are afraid of Fred…….Fear the Fred…
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 10:36 AM
To be honest, I hope forever. Free speech is one of the cornerstones of this country. We may not agree with cs, and to be honest I think he’s a bit obsessive about Fred. But I would never censor him. I used to be a regular at Tongue Tied until J. Ray started censoring people he didn’t agree with.
Kowboy on July 12, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Kowboy on July 12, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Censorship is one thing, which like you I do not agree with, however requiring him to tone down the vitriolic rhetoric is another all together. Were csdeven personal attacks being launched on another member here with the same frequency and vehemence I seriously doubt Allah would permit them to continue, hence my curiosity as to whether they will be permitted to continue.
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 11:12 AM
A point well made. The baiting people is another tactic he uses I don’t agree with. Talking about “groupies” without specifically mentioning anyone and vilifying anyone who responds is one of his favorites.
Kowboy on July 12, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Kowboy on July 12, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Not that I really like defending cs, but he really isn’t a one topic retard, and on any topic that isn’t Fred he is nearly always rational and logical and pretty damn conservative. So I really don’t want to see him censored, but he really does need to tone down his rhetoric concerning Fred. Quite honestly I am saddened that he is doing so much damage to his creditability on other important issues by being so adamantly vicious on this one topic.
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Pre-Primary news from the LAT.
Fred Thompson is a RINO, he’s not really Conservative. He’s a Liberal to Moderate on most issues.
Post-Primary news coming from the LAT (read from my future copies, from the future where Fred wins the Primary…)
Fred Thomason is a Reich-Wing Conservative IDEALOGUE of serious magnitude. This Conservative is WAY out of the mainstream, and his ultra-Conservative views would be damaging to this country.
Anyone doubt that this is the gameplan? I seriously suspect after the primary that the LAT’s stories and editorials take a 180 turn. But what do you expect from a Liberal organization whose sole job is to get the Democrats elected at all costs?
Wait, you say that isn’t the job of Journalists? Are you sure? Can you prove that somehow, because I’m basing this on what I’ve seen…
gekkobear on July 12, 2007 at 11:45 AM
It’s going to be a “scandal-a-day” to the very end. Before you know it, Fred! will be accused of every bad thing to happen since the dawn of time.
BDS has been replaced with FDS (Fred! Derangement Syndrome)
jdawg on July 12, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Kowboy on July 12, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Or pathological, like simple Fred! Derangement Syndrome. Worse yet, he always posts the very same thing over and over and over and… well, you get the picture.
Not worth responding to most of the time, yet on other topics, he’s perfectly reasonable, sane, even.
Yeah, it is curious.
jdawg on July 12, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Of course he is. csdeven is his ViC.
Entelechy on July 12, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Entelechy on July 12, 2007 at 12:12 PM
and here I thought he was just a deranged cyber-stalker….
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 12:22 PM
DON’T FEED THE TROLL.
It’s pretty obvious the tears of fear swelling in csdeven’s eyes as he throws his obsessive-compulsive temper tantrum are brought about by the inclreasingly prospect of non-metrosexual President Thompson. Fear and desperation do strange things to the weak minded.
Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 12:46 PM
fred? is another Bush without the balls to fight the terrorists.
He needs to be vetted out of the process before he even becomes a candidate and if the LAT is gonna help the Clinton smear machine accomplish that, then so be it. If fred? could defend his actions, he’d be immune to the LAT. If fred? wouldn’t have lied about his pro-choice past, this would be moot. Now fred? is trying to nuance his disgusting lobbying activities, and that opens the door to skewer him for not holding to the true conservative principles of honest etc.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 1:59 PM
No. The same network that airs his TV show is the same network that fixates on Abramoff. Abramoff is a lobbyist. Lobbyists have a worse reputation than lawyers. fredddie boy is a lobbyist. That’s enough to stain him to start and when the truth about his clients comes out, he’ll be toast.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Agree on the Powerline article being a good read- all but the fanatical FDS sufferers won’t be too distracted by this I don’t believe- especially against actions taken as part of his law practice some 15 years ago.
Otherwise I guess we should get rid of the Lincoln Memorial; since Lincoln defended a murder suspect in court, it must make him pro-murder ya know.
Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Bring it on!!!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 12, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Accept this, please: You are the only person on earth outside of the liberal media you would otherwise be heaping scorn upon, that attempts to make a blanket comparison between two completely different people who once performed in similar occupations. It’s ridiculous, and beneath you. Or so I thought, but you are proving that very little is beneath you.
Your characterization of people you have never met as “head over heals” and “swooning” is moronic and tired. Of course many people choose a person based on inadequate reasons. That’s far more true of Rudy, or Hillary, or Obama than it could ever be of Sen. Thompson. However, I guarantee that far fewer of his supporters know “nothing about him” than you feverishly fantasize.
I also guarantee that your unhinged diatribes have generated a net increase in support for him within this narrow little tribe here. Not that THAT will amount to a hill of beans in any big picture, but it’s awfully fun knowing it’s true. A couple thousand like you spread around might just “hate” him into office, as if he needed your help.
Freelancer on July 12, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Freelancer on July 12, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Hmmm, wonders aloud, could that actually be csdeven strategy?
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 3:33 PM
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Karl Rove you magnificent bastard……..
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I order you to give me $100.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 5:35 PM
cs, we all know you hate Fred!
All other issues aside, are you telling us that you hate him so much you’d vote for Hitlery if he was the nominee?
jdawg on July 12, 2007 at 6:44 PM
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_193151822.html
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Ugh, for some reason of late I’m forgetting to close link tags. Anyway this is kind of interestingre: Fred/NY firefighters union.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 7:28 PM
No news here.
Any Republican will be roasted at the hands of liberal media. No big deal. The media forgets most Americans are not idiots.
Question is, are there enough idiots to elect Clinton (back) into office? yikes.
bridgetown on July 12, 2007 at 8:30 PM
New theory: CS is an operative for another republican candidate who knows he’ll get his ass stomped if Fred enters the race, and he’s formed a temporary alliance with the MSM to try and stop it form happening.
Too far fetched?
Kowboy on July 12, 2007 at 8:38 PM
ha! Kowboy….one can dream.
Like I used to dream that the dems and repubs weren’t really fighting on the Hill. They were just Pretending..
with one big master plan to get us out of Iraq and let the ME implode, and then we could go in and take care of business the easy way.
Dreams are nice. But, they’re just dreams. :)
bridgetown on July 12, 2007 at 8:46 PM
First statement above: Are you just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, ala LAT, or do you have something to back up a statement like that. How do you know Fred! won’t take on the terrorists?
Second statement above: How about showing at least a little ire towards the LAT that they are “vetting” Fred! so relentlessly, yet hthey ave not given this king of treatment to any of the Dim candidates. Is your “Fred?” obsession so overwhelming that you are encouraged by this type of biased media coverage?
Mallard T. Drake on July 12, 2007 at 8:52 PM
How about you cozy up to fred? all you want and I’ll distrust him because he doesn’t hold to conservative values?
People who discard stories because of the paper they appear in, are being careless. I don’t care who says it, the stuff in the LAT article is the exact behavior I have seen in fred? The propoer vetting of fred? is important to this country. He is a liar and a fake and needs to be exposed.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Doo-Dah, Doo-dah, E-I-E-I-O.
Ad infinitum
Kowboy on July 12, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Sorry guys, csdeven seems to be the only guy on this thread who desn’t get those little hypnotic spiral thingies in his eyes every time Fred speaks with that raspy Rasputin like voice. csdeven is a clarion call of sanity in a wilderness of confusion.
tommylotto on July 12, 2007 at 9:32 PM
No, he has already said that he will vote for the Republican nominee no matter who it is, in spite of his loud, proud proclamations of strong principle. Sounds like a weaselly, unprincipled, lying faker to me. Not that I’d call him that, it’s just how it sounds.
Freelancer on July 12, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Freelancer on July 12, 2007 at 9:47 PM
I agree. And he refuses to answer the question, he dodges and twists and turns, and gives weasely worthless non-answers.
jdawg on July 12, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Of course, you never answered my question about your allegation about Fred! You can vet Fred! all you want, but don’t do it by throwing allegations around carelessly. That is a lib and MSM tatic.
Mallard T. Drake on July 13, 2007 at 12:16 AM
What is it with Rudy’s southern leadership?
South Carolina treasurer indicted on cocaine charges (Rudy’s state campaign boy).
Louisiana Senator “Oh Brothel!” Vitter (Rudy’s southern leader).
Then, Rudy in the north…
Bernard “I don’t have to pay nanny taxes” Kerik (Rudy’s police commissioner)
Donna “Rudy Is Screwing Around On Me” Hanover dumped for a younger…
It seems that Rudy has people selection issues. Is this the man you want selecting pro-choice Supremes, DHS management, treasury secretary, etc? Rudy hates tax reform and the unborn children.
There’s an awful lot of slam Fred! stuff on Hot Air and Rudy is getting a pass.
saved on July 13, 2007 at 4:59 AM
I miss took you for someone that has been around here long enough to know why I feel the way I do about fred?.
fred?, on several occasions, has remarked that he will be confident about Iraq as long as the troops are confident. We don’t need a leader who defers to soldiers who have a very limited view of the geo-politics in the region. The president is a leader and he, along with advisor’s should make the decisions concerning our involvement in Iraq. The feelings of the troops should have nothing to do with his decisions whether to stay or to go. That is abdication of responsibility. A coward.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 6:18 AM
Rudy has been honest about his pro-choice abortion stand, Fred — not so much. Also, Rudy has put together a very impressive group on Foreign Policy.
tommylotto on July 13, 2007 at 6:22 AM
And Shrillery worked for years for a well known and self admitted Communist attorney. Let’s face it…the nutroot libs are terrified of Fred. Wasn’t it always the policy of our nation to fight the spread of Communism? So go ahead and elect Shrillery…the master spreader herself!
lynnv on July 13, 2007 at 8:43 AM
I have learned, over the many years, that if the LAT is against something for someone…I should be for it.
Look at their history of picking candidates, of supporting issues (they even went to bat for Father Mahoney the protector of molestors), they have consistently attacked people and issues on the right. They are the most liberal rag west of the Miss.
Any real conservative should throw up the red flag and ask themselves…do I really want to be on the side of the LAT? And why is the LAT attacking Fred? Isn’t there much more to attack regarding Hillary?
Any paper that defends child molestors, racists (LaRaza), embraces the Hollywoood elite, supports Gore, has supported every left wing liberal for Mayor for decades, is an absolute apologist for all liberal things, who does not know the meaning of illegal immigrants, fights for every socialist cause, would be hard pressed to get my vote of confidence.
Only someone absolutly obsessed with the destruction of someone (so obsessed that they throw reasoning out the window), would take whatever the LAT reports at face value, or even give it the slightest bit of credence.
right2bright on July 13, 2007 at 9:09 AM
During my years in the military, generals, admirals and other high ranking officers were always considered as part of “the troops”. They were also advisors to the president. Do you think it might be remotely possible that these are some of “the troops” he’s referring too? Or is that just too far fetched for you to even contemplate?
And just where do you think the officers get their information from. My money is on “the troops” in the field. That would be your lower ranking officers and NCO’s.
So gee, maybe listening to “the troops” isn’t such a bad idea after all.
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 9:24 AM
So, which troops does his listen to? The family friends he specifically refers to? Does he take a poll and do what ever the majority says? What about the troops in areas that are very encouraged by their progress? Does he ignore them?
You aren’t the first fred?head whose is so blindly in love with fred? that you’ll make excuses and justify anything this fool says. Do you think soldiers have all the information on how their actions fit in the global politics in the region? Are you really gonna sit there and tell the group that the troops get daily briefings on how the Syrians, Iranians, Jordanians, the Saudis, the Turks, The kurds, and every other player in the Iraq war, is affected by what the US does? Hell, our actions in different parts of Iraq have different ramifications that must be considered. freddie boys family friends don’t have anything except their narrow view from their limited involvement in very small areas with different political goals with which to make any decisions. And “ol fred?” is gonna leave it up to them to decide just how encouraged he is about our prospects in Iraq. The conditions on the ground relate to specific areas, NOT the overall strategy for the region.
Do you even study what freddie boy says?
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Thanks for making me spew coffee out of my nose. LOL!
Tennman on July 13, 2007 at 10:08 AM
And what do you call someone who doesn’t STUDY what their candidate says and just assumes that if a lefty rag reported it, that it has to be false and their candidate believes the polar opposite? Accepting the truth, regardless of it’s source, is a conservative value. ESPECIALLY when it hurts.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Quite a stretch dude. I’m really impressed by it.
Since I imagine his access to the Joint Chiefs is a bit limited at this point, I would guess that he might actually be listening to not only family friends, but “the troops” he meets at speeches. I’m betting there are some who attend.
Actually with Fred not in the race, my vote is with Tancredo. We’ll see if it changes if and when Fred enters the fray.
And how do our military leaders develop their strategies? Oh yeah, they evaluate the conditions on the ground in specific area and then do things like develop an overall strategy for the region and redeploy “the troops” accordingly.
Yup.
Now a question for you. Besides F-Troop reruns, what exactly do you base your understanding of the military on?
Kowboy on July 13, 2007 at 10:25 AM
How typical arrogant of you. I was not referring to you. You have already misquoted me and lied about what I have posted, I have no interest in engaging with you (you are the LAT of Fred blogging).
To others what I was posting, is that you should consider the source. The LAT does not do hit pieces on liberals, but they do on conservatives…
When the LAT “hits” a conservative, that is a red flag. That person is now considered a potential threat to their liberal standards. Typical of the LAT is that they will throw out numerous accusations over a period of time, a couple may be true, many false or at least severly slanted. Then when attacked fall back and point out the few true facts, and ignore the many false. As Eisenhower was once asked what type of candidate he was looking for (I think it was an economic advisor) he said he wanted a one-armed advisor…that way he could never say “on the other hand”. The LAT must have octopi as writers.
right2bright on July 13, 2007 at 10:44 AM
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 10:10 AM
You’ve never answered my question here – if Fred! is the nominee, are you going to vote for Hitlery out of hatred for Fred?
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »