An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
Fred Stuff
Thompson wary of long-term Iraq presence
Republican Fred Thompson warned Saturday that suggestions the U.S. could maintain a long-term presence in Iraq “would not be a good development,” and he conceded that mistakes were made that are only now being rectified.
President Bush has suggested there could be a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq, very similar to what the nation has in Korea. But Thompson, who has been a reliable supporter of the war in Iraq thus far, was leery of a long-term presence in an interview with The Associated Press.
Ok, now I’m confused. If we aren’t going to just walk away, and commit to win this thing, wouldn’t it be logical that we’d have a presence there for quite a while? I mean, seriously, we still haven’t left Germany or Japan. I sure don’t want to see our guys in Iraq anywhere near as long.
While Thompson said there are U.S. troops on long-term deployments in places like Germany and Korea, he said “of course not” when asked if a similar deployment should happen in Iraq.
“I don’t think that’s desirable,” said Thompson, though he did leave an opening. “What might be necessary in the future, you can never tell,” he said.
Ok, I’m sorry, but…….duh!
His described his definition of success in Iraq:
“The average person being able to go to worship without fear of being blown up. … Political leaders being able to meet without fear of being blown up. They key is stability, and that would signal a level of stability we haven’t had.”
Not being worried about ending up in pieces is definitely a good thing, but one type of bad guy is being replaced with another type of bad guy. I don’t see any indication of ’stability’ in that at all.
Thompson has warned that the nation faces in Iraq “kids” who make improvised explosive devices, and it would be a bad signal to lose to such a foe.
The greatest fighting force on the planet can NOT lose to kids. Totally unacceptable.
“They are being made in large numbers by youngsters along the border there and they are doing a lot of damage to us,” Thompson said. “The perception that America could be defeated by this and these people, obviously not alone, for that to be such an integral part of the success of our enemies would be a very damaging thing I think to the perception of our will and our abilities.”
Huh? If anyone understands this, please translate, K?
He dismissed suggestions he runs a campaign that’s less intense than his rivals.
“I don’t feel the need to impress the national media with the details of my schedule,” said Thompson. “I do things my own way, at my own pace.”
I tend to agree. We shouldn’t be allowing the media to choose our next presidential candidates, yet, that’s exactly what we’ve done for a while now. I don’t care who Sean Hannity endorses, or Perky Couric, or any of the rest of them. I want to know where ALL of them stand, and I’d like them to tell me themselves.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has maintained a lead in most national polls among the Republican contenders, though his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stands are at odds with many in the conservative base of the Republican.
I get the impression that Giuliani has maintained that lead because people, even those serious conservatives, are afraid of another Clinton White House, and feel only he can beat her. How ’bout we stick without our values instead!
Things will change, Thompson argued, when voters begin to focus on the views of the candidates.
“Let’s just say there will be more focus on everyone and everyone’s positions,” Thompson said. “I’m sure there are a lot of voters out there who are really not clear on the positions of all of us, and that includes Mayor Giuliani.”
Die hards have already been focusing.
H/T: Elephant Biz
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Amen…this die hard cannot and WILL NOT vote for Rudy Giuliani. Even if it means a write in.
I’m DEAD serious about that.