Anyway, I see that Jeremy Sisto is going to join "Law and Order" -- not replacing Thompson though:
Jeremy Sisto, best known for his role on "Six Feet Under," will replace Milena Govich as a detective on NBC's "Law & Order" next season....Yeah, don't let the expression "romantic comedy" fool you. Sisto plays a brutish husband who makes Stanley Kowalski seem like a comic character. It's terribly sad that the extremely talented Shelly was murdered, but her death seems to have caused reviewers to write uncritically about the movie. The men in "Waitress" are naturally evil. This is a movie where a man's only hope is to reshape his existence to cater to a woman's needs -- let's cuddle and talk! -- and where women whose men won't comply joyfully traipse off into the sunset without them. Poor Sisto puts his dramatic all into a role where the character is a monster for no reason other than that he's a man. But I adored him in "Six Feet Under," and I'm glad to see he's got this new role.
Sisto is currently in theaters with Adrienne Shelly's indie romantic comedy "Waitress." Shelly was murdered by a construction worker last year, an incident that inspired an episode of "Law & Order."
Posts
153 comments:
I've never seen Thomspon in any roles. Or at least, not that I could recognise him. I saw Hunt for Red October years ago, and he was apparently in that, so I must have seen him there. But I wouldn't know/remember he was in it if people weren't going on about Russians relieving themselves without plans these days.
All the same, I do find him appealing as a candidate. So I think I have -- on some level -- the same reaction to his character-type as many other people, who have seen him on his TV show.
On the other hand, I mistrust these kinds of charisma/celebrity based campaigns. McCain in 2000 (before the media woke up to the fact that he disagrees with them on everything but immigration and campaign finance), Obama and Thompson today, etc. So I'm not sure I would vote for him. Kind of a media-driven candidate, even if it's "new" media this time around.
Best hurry if you want to see Fred on a re-run of Law & Order, Ann. Hugh Hewitt mentioned just yesterday that the shows with Thompson will be taken off the air once he becomes a candidate.
Most people will know Thompson solely from his role on Law & Order. Its hardly acting... his role is mainly sitting in his office playing an older, wiser, politically-savvy, likeable boss reacting in a conservative and straight-talking way to issues the subordinate prosecutors occassionally bring to him. He's not going to win much critical acclaim for his acting on Law & Order but I think the character he plays is actually not so far-off from his off-camera persona and bolstering that image will serve him well in national politics.
I agree, Joe. I remember classic L&O with the unforgettable DA of Adam Shiff and prosecutor Michael Moriarty. Today it's all about "ripped from the headlines" and PC playbook. Thompson was adequate and an interesting casting choice but didn't make one forget the earlier DAs.
I liked him in "Days of Thunder"...
------
"You ever heard of a "Japanese Inspection?" Japanese Inpsection, you see, when the Japs take in a load of lettuce they're not sure they wanna let in the country, why they'll just let it sit there on the dock 'til they get good and ready to look at, But then of course, it's all gone rotten... ain't nothing left to inspect. You see, lettuce is a perishable item... like you two monkeys. You trade paint one more time, you so much as touch, I'm gonna Black Flag the two of you, and tear apart your racecars for three-hundred laps. Then, if you pass inspection and you put your cars back together, I might let you back into the race."
-------
Excelling character for Fred to play :) (He played the head of NASCAR, a Bill France-type character).....
Even if you've never seen him on an acting gig, you owe it to yourself to listen to (and read) his commentaries that have been on the Paul Harvey moment and in the National Review.
http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEyMg==
Just listening to his words and his tone of voice gives me hope that there is still sanity and common sense in the world.
He has my vote.
I never watch Law and Order and didn't know he was on the show until he started his non-campaign campaign. The only thing I ever saw him in was his but parts in Red October and Die Hard 2.
As for charisma, the Dems have Obama and the GOP has Rudy although I think Thompson will give the GOP base what they need; a solid conservative base with charismatic appeal. The man simply looksPresidential. Likability is a huge factor so I think once he officially announces, McCain and Romney will probably see major drops in the polls initially and then it will be up to Fred to see if he has the legs to rally the base.
I for one hopes he does as the current crop doesn't blow my skirt up.
and I meant 'bit parts'.
Never seen him on Law & Order.
Briefly looked to see how many people watch the show. It's not in the top 10. The #10th rated show is "Lost" with supposedly 13M viewers over the age of 2, accd. to Nielsen.
So...I wonder how many adults...who vote...watch the show?
A million, two million?
What counts, sadly, is that he knows how to communicate successfully before a camera.
Plus, the camera seems to like him.
Wonder if Lincoln would have done well on TV...
I watch a lot of Law and Order. Still haven't seen him act.
As a Dem, I can't be more excited that the GOP actually considers this empty suit a viable candidate.
Ann - start with this. Doesn't tell you much about his politics, but says a lot about his attitude in a spare 38 seconds.
I'm delighted he's getting into the race, personally, although I'm not necessarily a supporter yet. Both he and Guiliani have things going for them, from my perspective. They seem to be the pro federalism candidates.
Joshua said...
"As a Dem, I can't be more excited that the GOP actually considers this empty suit a viable candidate."
Wasn't that what Jimmy Carter said in 1979?
And for that matter, how can a party where Barack Obama is considered a serious contender throw around accusations of anyone being an empty suit?
Joshua said...
As a Dem, I can't be more excited that the GOP actually considers this empty suit a viable candidate.
of course he does have 4 times the Senate experience of Obama, but an empty suit is in the mind of the beholder I guess :)
sorry, Simon, didnt see your post.
Joshua said...
As a Dem, I can't be more excited that the GOP actually considers this empty suit a viable candidate.
Compared to whom? Obama? Edwards?
Re: Simon:
And for that matter, how can a party where Barack Obama is considered a serious contender throw around accusations of anyone being an empty suit?
Geez -- why stop at Obama? Edwards too! The only candidates in the Democratic field with meaningful experience are Clinton and Richardson. And Richardson barely counts as a candidate at this point, he's so low in the polls.
Drill Sgt:
of course he does have 4 times the Senate experience of Obama, but an empty suit is in the mind of the beholder I guess :)
Well, Kerry was in the Senate for what, like 30 years? So he had loads of "experience" there, but all the same, I'd rank Clinton II as higher on the experience meter than Kerry, simply because she's been intimately and actively involved with national politics and policy for 15 years, ever since her husband was sworn in as President. Kerry, on the other hand, just spent his time getting re-elected to a safe seat and puttering around. Just being a Senator doesn't automatically give you meaningful experience in this context, I think.
I'm not sure how someone could criticize Obama for lacking experience and still consider supporting Fred Thompson. Eight years in the Senate, and none of that much praised executive experience? Give me a break.
I have never seen Fred Thompson in any TV show or movie.
That's remarkable in and of itself. The man as an actor has been fairly ubiquitous. And it's true, he wasn't in My Dinner with André, probably mainly because it came out before he went Hollywood.
Happily you haven't missed much as far as understanding Thompson goes. The roles and characters he has played seem to be pretty much like the man is in real life.
Thompson does seem more representative of the base than any of the 3 leaders. Plus his wiseguy tell-it-like-it-is charisma and his familiar face make him a formidable candidate.
For the nomination. But lets say he wins it. He's not going take New York, he's not going to take California. The election breaks down along familiar red/blue lines. Then his right politics on social issues, apologetics for corruption and support of an unpopular war kill him in the swing states. Unless his charisma can get him past that stuff, I think it would be the Dem's election to lose.
I'm not saying they couldn't find a way.
But I'm much more afraid of a Giulliani nomination.
Zeb: I went down the whole list on IMDB and I haven't seen anything on it, except maybe the episode of "Sex and the City" where he played "politician on TV."
Maybe I'll watch the HBO thing where he plays President Grant (and blog about it).
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Even if you've never seen him on an acting gig, you owe it to yourself to listen to (and read) his commentaries that have been on the Paul Harvey moment and in the National Review.
These remind me of all the speeches that Reagan gave on the rubber chicken circuit as the GE spokesman
Common sense, good delivery, use of alternative media channels to get your presence out there...
A Thompson/Gulianni ticket would be unbeatable IMHO. Fred Thompson was also involved in more than just his Senatorial career in governemt. In fact I believe that his lack of insider beltway status will be a boon for him. People are just sick and tired of the same old same old career corrupt politicians.
And yes he/they won't win California's electoral votes but I guarantee you they would win 80% of the votes in my county and many other non urban counties in California.
California is really a geogrpahically red state with huge concentrations of blue voters in SF and other urban cesspools. If you get out of the bubble on the coast, it is a completely different State. We always get out-voted by the cities who then dictate policy to the rest of us.....but that is another rant for another time :-)
Oh never call Fred Thompson an empty suit. I think he fills out his size 62 XXXhuge suit all too well.
Besides, if it were empty we would call it a tent.
We keep hearing about how 'liberal' Hollywood is.
So what do they give us when they actually decide to leave the entertainment world and run for something?
Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Fred Thompson...
'Hollywood left,' my foot.
Fred Thompson reminds me of Ronald Reagen. He was memorable in Days of Thunder, Die Hard 2, Hunt for Red October. His character has not changed since he was minority counsel at the Watergate Hearings.
He is formidable! His classic description of running an airport; "juggling chainsaws and knives in one hand while playing 3 card monte with the planes on the ground with the other hand" (or words to that effect) is priceless and true to this day.
He is no empty suit. He is the worst nightmare of lightweight dems and repubs stuck in the status quo. He represents the majority of the oft-dissed flyover Americans.
His popularity will be measurable by the demographics of his detractors.
I hope Newt runs on the same ticket.
ahhh Dustbunny?
Outside the beltway guy? hello?
17 years as a (gasp!) lobbyist? then 3 years as a DC lawyer and then 6 in the Senate...
Right right...mr. outsider there.
People are just sick and tired of the same old same old career corrupt politicians.
Yeah, I was going to point that out, too. This is a big weakness for Thompson, I'd venture the biggest he has.
Hd -- Do you have the ability to discuss substantive policy issues?
Unless his charisma can get him past that stuff, I think it would be the Dem's election to lose.
I remember hearing the same thing in 2004. The Dems lost that election against the dumbest man on the face of the earth, who got us into an unpopular war with no end in sight and whose approval ratings are getting close to Truman's.
I don't discount any of the Democrats to self destruct at some point before 2008 so I would hedge that bet.
Re: HDHouse
Oh never call Fred Thompson an empty suit. I think he fills out his size 62 XXXhuge suit all too well.
No wonder Obama and Edwards are leading Democratic candidates!
Ann, The only thing I've seen him in is Hunt for Red October. I mainly know him as a Senator.
He is no empty suit. He is the worst nightmare of lightweight dems and repubs stuck in the status quo. He represents the majority of the oft-dissed flyover Americans.
And it would be good to have a President who can actually articulate the reasons we're fighting these wars. Its been like fighting the battle of Britain without a Churchill.
Hd -- Do you have the ability to discuss substantive policy issues
Is that a trick question?
Then again snarkiness beats coming up with a logical argument. But allow me to sum up your question by quoting HD him/herself in the previous thread about Dennis Miller.
it is flippant and also sounds about right but like much of what [hdhouse] says, it is cute and short and wryly funny but not sure it adds to anything that needs substance.
And there you have it.
I remember hearing the same thing in 2004.
Yeah, but this certainly isn't 2004. If Bush was running again in 2008, the Dems could run Frankenstein's creature and win. Hell, they'd probably even win running Kerry.
You don't really get a feel for it from the comments on this blog, but America has pretty much made up its mind on Iraq being a big mistake. That wasn't the case in 2004, and if the Republicans pretend otherwise, they're in for a trouncing.
hold on a second my little right wing snarkies...
i know you are dying for a candidate but let's sum up senator thompson. aide to howard baker and thus co-chief watergate counsel. then right into justice for a few and out the revolving door to lobby and then into a DC law firm that specialized in legislation/lobbying..then appointed to the senate to fill Gore's term was reelected and then turned actor..
thats a career of "me service" and i'm glad he is rich and has a trophy wife but someone clue me in as to his gravitas...please...just a hint...hello?
this is the best cheese you got?
Eli Blake: We keep hearing about how 'liberal' Hollywood is.
Eli, when do you think Hollywood will speak truth to power re Islam?
Roost -- You are absolutely 100 percent wrong. You don't really get a feel for it reading mainstream media, but but America has pretty much made up its mind on Iraq being a war it wants to win.
Get out more.
Note also that Congress has failed to do one solitary thing about changing the course of the war. You'd think that the most powerful branch of the government would be able to effect change if there was such popular support and if its members were directly elected.
this is the best cheese you got?
Certainly better than that stinky left over cheese from the Clinton days or boy wonder Obama.
At least Thompson is a Federalist and not a Socialist like Hillary who has already threatened to "take things away from you for the common good". That's socialism at best and communism any way you slice that cheese.
I for one hopes he does as the current crop doesn't blow my skirt up.
9:51 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...
and I meant 'bit parts'.
Something about the juxtaposition of "blow my skirt up" and "bit parts" made me laugh out loud.
OK, OK. Well, it's Friday, and I've worked 13 days in a row. I need me a little weekend of triviality, starting today!
Not saying you're trivial, Hoosier--I'm speaking of my own 'tude.
Certainly better than that stinky left over cheese from the Clinton days or boy wonder Obama.
Look, okay, yes, Fred Thompson clearly outclasses Obama and Edwards in terms of experience, gravitas, etc. Whoop-de-doo. This is not exactly a major achievement.
I'm not actually sure he outclasses Clinton II on these grounds, but she certainly does have the stink of scandal from the Clinton years with none of Clinton I's charm (although, perversely, the sheer cack-handedness of her attempts to appeal to people on a personal level is one of the things I find most appealing about her).
But leaving all that aside, I think you do have to recognise that the man, apart from a brief, successful career with DOJ, and an uneventful career as a senator, does not have all that much of a record. He only barely outclasses Obama and Edwards. This is not a man whose record exactly overflows with concrete evidence that he's capable of the long haul once in office. To that extent, HDHouse, infantile snarkiness aside, is actually making a worthwhile point.
I like what Thompson says. He looks presidential, in a way that, say, Richardson doesn't. But the man is an actor. The fact that he says good things isn't all that credible without a solid record behind it. The fact that he looks presidential doesn't mean all that much more than that Edwards happens to be handsome and Obama happens to have a great voice. These are superficial reasons to choose a candidate.
I agree Balfegor. However, I do like Thompson's foreign policy and immigration stances. Those are my litmus issues this election. And I'm not that impressed with the other GOP candidates.
Ann, seeing as you have missed some movies, I hope you do sometime rent a few of the better ones. Marie, Hunt for Red October, No Way Out, Cape Fear
Not for Thompson, but just because they are good ones.
********************
Robert said...
I'm not sure how someone could criticize Obama for lacking experience and still consider supporting Fred Thompson. Eight years in the Senate, and none of that much praised executive experience? Give me a break.
Robert is interesting as yet another person unable to look up a candidate's career and make certain judgements. Obama did very little before his Senate stint.
Not so Thompson.
He worked his way through law school as a salesman, factory worker, and truck driver. Thompson was Ass't US Attorney. Thompson ran Howard Baker's Senate Campaign as a young man. He was Lead Special Counsel in Watergate. (With some of the more famous moments, his). He then went on to be a Lobbyist starting in 1975, representing General Electric, Westinghouse, and various "blue ribbon" telecomms. Then he was back in Tennessee, where he busted and brought down a sitting Governor in 1977. He then had law practices in Tennessee and DC. He continued lobbying and serving on think tanks, acting from 1980-82 on the Reagan Transition Team and as Special Counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.
From his work in taking down Gov Blanton for selling pardons, Hollywood producers intervewed him to see who could best play him in a movie. They decided to offer him the role instead. Then he did 15 major movies including his 1st Marie, moved into TV roles, radio from 1985 to 1994.
In 1994, after all that, he was elected to the Senate.
He continued a focus on national security, WMD, relations with China & Russia became his "specialty", and he Chaired the Government Reform and Accountability Committee.
Thompson has a rich and varied life story.
I prefer Romney to him, but Thompson, even with his rep for "laziness" is no tabula rosa like Obama.
America has pretty much made up its mind on Iraq being a war it wants to win.
Wanting to win and thinking it was a mistake aren't mutually exclusive, of course. If you think the majority of Americans think that the war in Iraq was a good move, one of us is very mistaken.
Get out more.
Ooh, good one. But I do. I don't have a tv. Is there a bunch of anti-war stuff on? I somehow doubt it. But I've heard Bush-bashing from all walks of life building increasing steadily over the last few years. I know hundreds of people under 30, I've never heard a young person say that Iraq was a good idea. I've heard it was a mistake from hunters up north in Wisconsin, who think democrats are for fags. My own dear Dad, who voted for Bush twice, now regrets it. One of us has an inaccurate perception of this.
Note also that Congress has failed to do one solitary thing about changing the course of the war. You'd think that the most powerful branch of the government would be able to effect change if there was such popular support and if its members were directly elected.
This is just baffling. Are you suggesting that the democrats won both chambers in the election but are now unable to act for want of some kind of less tangible popular support?
hdhouse - then appointed to the senate to fill Gore's term was reelected and
No, some Democratic apparachnik named Harlan Matthews was appointed in 1992 to hold down the fort after Noble Algore departed.
Thompson won the 1994 Special election in a landslide.
Fred is also 6 feet...
7 inches tall.
That's tall.
And in Presidential races, the tallest guy wins.
You can see Thompson Act and Lawyer bot if you rent or buy "Marie" a courtroom drama in which he plays himself.
http://www.amazon.com/Marie-Sissy-Spacek/dp/customer-reviews/6301972848
Law & Order used to be a superb drama that posed interesting moral or ethical questions and often refused to resolve them in a tidy way, all the while remaining suspenseful and entertaining. For the past 5-6 years it's been simplistic, predictable, and tedious. Fred Thompson hasn't added much to it, though that's not his fault; it's due to the consistently subpar scripts.
Are you suggesting that the democrats won both chambers in the election but are now unable to act for want of some kind of less tangible popular support?
There does seem to be a disconnet. They ran against the war, promised you they would end it. Its only 5 months into their reign, but we're still there. You claim popular will is against the war, so whats their delay?
I think they were just telling you what you wanted to hear. Letting opinion polls trump strong leadership choices. Do you feel betrayed?
So what do they give us when they actually decide to leave the entertainment world and run for something?
Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Fred Thompson...
'Hollywood left,' my foot.
Here's the key: Hollywood liberals don't leave Hollywood - it's a safe haven. The outside world is scary! Why leave the cozy circle of like minded individuals, where your beliefs and world views are never challenged.
Plus, running for office requires that your life be opened for public scrutiny. A good portin of Hollywood stars have done things they would rather not have revealed to the world. Would not only render them unelectable, but it might damage their career. I can understand that.
Finally, who of the Hollywood left would run for office: Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, Jeanine Garofalo, Rosie O'Donnel? It would be fun drudging up all their assinine statements.
How about more likealbe stars Brad Pitt, George Clooney? Why run? They both have great careers, and Clooney's dad recently lost a race partialy because of his (George's) reputation as a Hollywood liberal. That alone probably poisoned any though George had about running for office.
As for Thompson. He does have campaign experience. I think eight years is plenty of experience, just as Obama's four years in the Senate and eight years in the Illinois assembly is better than Edwards's amount of time in public office. He's cleaner than Guiliani, who has a nice collection of dirty laundry. But I think the reason he is so appealing is that he is not yet in the race. He represents the unamed camdidate that always beats the named one in surveys.
But leaving all that aside, I think you do have to recognise that the man, apart from a brief, successful career with DOJ, and an uneventful career as a senator, does not have all that much of a record.
As opposed to whom? We all get in a tizzy over experience. We seem to think governors are good executives yet Carter and Dubya aren't poster childern for that argument. Thompson is an 'empty suit' yet the Democrats think Obama is the messiah. Hillary can make the claim that she was co-President for 8 years but other than that, squat. Really only Richardson and Giuliani are probably the only ones with a record yet Richardson hardly swings the poll meter and the Dems still hate Giuliani despite being pro-abortion, pro-immigration and pro-gun control which score him no points with the GOP base.
So it simply boils down to likability. Simply put, right now the Dems are fawning over a bestselling author/junior senator from Illinois and the GOP is hoping for a former senator turned actor who has 'presence'.
Their 'record' has less to do with what they stand for and what they plan on getting done.
And for that matter, how can a party where Barack Obama is considered a serious contender throw around accusations of anyone being an empty suit?
I don't know. Probably the same way that a party that is furiously fapping over a substance-free Hollywood actor can criticize Obama.
Here's the key: Hollywood liberals don't leave Hollywood - it's a safe haven. The outside world is scary!
Yep. It's called working for a living.
That's exactly the point, Fen.
I think they were just telling you what you wanted to hear.
Use "us" and "we", Fen, not "you". They're our congress, not mine. I didn't elect them, the public did.
I agree that they were just telling us what we wanted to hear. But whether we wanted to hear it is exactly the point at issue.
Re: Roost:
I know hundreds of people under 30, I've never heard a young person say that Iraq was a good idea.
Okay. Here's one: me. I'm under 30 (am 25), and I think Iraq was a good idea. At least the initial punitive expedition bit, namely going in, toppling a hostile regime, and absconding with all their uranium.
Initially, I was supportive of the democratization plan, but I've soured on that somewhat, and am tilting more and more in favour of just getting behind an "elected" "president," Syngman Rhee style, who will slaughter his opponents without mercy, and not (a) pursue nuclear weapons, (b) help fund our enemies, or (c) attempt to obtain unified control over the oilfields of the Gulf. Historically, that's been about the best we could hope for in the Middle East. I think it perpetuates and exacerbates domestic discontent and anti-Americanism over there, but it may be the best option we have, short of going in seriously and redrawing the map the way the British and the French did, when carving up the Ottoman Empire. Ah well.
Strictly speaking, you're not "hearing" me, I guess, but I could make an MP3 if you want.
Re: Hoosier:
As opposed to whom?
Fair enough -- the field as a whole is not particularly impressive along any axis.
Re: George:
And in Presidential races, the tallest guy wins.
Both Gore and Kerry were taller than Bush II, weren't they?
Roost on the Moon said...
"I know hundreds of people under 30, I've never heard a young person say that Iraq was a good idea."
But nobody that I know voted for Nixon!
reader_iam said: Something about the juxtaposition of "blow my skirt up" and "bit parts" made me laugh out loud
Tip your waiters. I'm here all week.
Balf,
Again, the topic at hand is not whether we were right to invade Iraq, which has been discussed 3000 times. You do count, and make well-spoken arguments as well, with an acknowledgment of the real costs we're paying that's rare around here.
You still only count for one, though. Would you agree that you're in a small minority of twenty-somethings on this?
Would you agree with Seven Machos that I am absolutely 100% completely wrong that this is an unpopular war?
Someone said:
People are just sick and tired of the same old same old career corrupt politicians.
Roost... replied:
Yeah, I was going to point that out, too. This is a big weakness for Thompson, I'd venture the biggest he has.
I would think that would be a strength for Thompson. He's better known for his stint on "L & O" than he is as a senator. I would say Kerry's record as a long serving Senator hurt him as much as it helped. "I voted for it before I voted against it". kerry got blasted for that, but in reality, this is what Senators do; they vote against things until a compromise is reached, then they vote for it. It's one reason serving as Governor has been preferable over a stint in the Senate as a stepping stone to the presidency. And the longer you serve as a Senator, the more "I.V.F.I.B.I.V.A.I" moments you're bound to have....
Uh Oh! My spell-check isn't working. Please forgive for any mistakes.
Abraham Lincoln’s experience was limited to one term in the U.S. House and several terms in the Illinois leg. Plus, briefly, postmaster in New Salem. He was the only president without experience as a governor, senator, Cabinet member, general, or veep.
In contrast, James Buchanan, served 10 years in the House, 10 in the Senate, and 4 as secretary of state, as well as serving as Ambassador to Great Britain and Russia before being elected President in 1856.
Yet Buchanan did little in office to thwart the growing threat of civil war. Certainly, past performance is no guarantee of future results. And as the Civil War itself proved, generals who moved up by the merit badge system were oftentimes less capable than men with far lesser credentials.
But nobody that I know voted for Nixon!
I don't think that applies, Simon, unless you mean to say that the war actually is popular with the under 30 crowd. Do you?
"I don't think that applies, Simon, unless you mean to say that the war actually is popular with the under 30 crowd. Do you?"
huh??? How old do you think the people doing the fighting and dying are?
Thompson is more a "persona" than an "actor". He's got limited range, but he's quite good at playing a specific type.
Experience-wise he's a bit light, on par with Clinton and behind the rest of the Republican field. His main advantage is not having irritated most of the Republican Party yet, which is more than can be said for the other candidates.
You still only count for one, though. Would you agree that you're in a small minority of twenty-somethings on this?
I don't even understand why thats relevant? The demographic you cite gets their foreign policy from comedy monologues or biased CNN clips. Most couldn't find Iraq on a map, much less tell you anything about 500 arty shells of Sarin & Mustard, or that Iraqi scientists found working on nukes in Libya.
The war may be unpopular, but so is a root canal. Still necessary though. Thats why we have a republic and not a democracy. Our reps are exepected to be leaders, not followers of opinion polls.
Thompson's no empty suit. He's been very clear about his positions in his blunt editorials and Paul Harvey radio spots. Here are his editorials at Townhall.
Fen:
It is a little odd that I've somehow baited half of those here into taking the position that the war is enjoying broad-based, though invisible, support. How did we get here?
It was because we were talking politics, not war policy. I had speculated that Thompson was a strong candidate for the nomination, but that his nomination would make it a fairly easy race for a moderate democrat.
Hoosier pointed out that he's heard that before. And he's right, many said the Democrats couldn't blow the 04 election, and they managed to bungle it badly.
I came back and pointed out that the war is much less popular than it was in 2004.
At which point everyone fell all over themselves to deny that. Which, from whichever side you take about whether this war is unpopular or not, reveals that there is quite a bit of echo-chamber stuff going on for one side or the other.
Simon went so far as to imply that I am living in a delusional social bubble.
And clearly, that's one of the two possibilities.
It is a little odd that I've somehow baited half of those here into taking the position that the war is enjoying broad-based, though invisible, support.
Oh I don't think people here believe the war has broad-based support. I think is America is unhappy with its execution but also wants to win it. Wasn't trying to flame or challenge you, I just don't understand the relevance of the "war is unpopular" argument, esp when I get better info from Micheal Yon than CNN.
Re: Roost:
Would you agree that you're in a small minority of twenty-somethings on this?
I'm part of the minority certainly. Whether small or not, I'm not sure. Depends on the cutoff. I'd guess around 30%-35% of my agewise peer-group could be viewed as positive on Iraq, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less. In political terms, that's landslide defeat territory, so perhaps that counts as a tiny minority.
Strictly speaking, though, only a truly tiny minority (incl. me) is affirmatively positive, and only a slightly larger minority is affirmatively negative. Most of my age cohort are, as far as I can tell, pretty apathetic on Iraq, like anything else, and have only weak feelings either way, particularly since all our soldiers are volunteers and there's no draft.
To be fair, though, my support for the war probably has a different "profile," as it were, from most other young war-supporters -- I'm not particularly patriotic. The aftermath of 9-11 was the first time in my life that I had ever felt a strong, emotional self-identification as "American," the first time I ever had any sense of amor patriae or whatever with respect to the USA. And even then, the character of my emotional relation to the nation and our people was (and is) more unser Vaterland or 我国 than "Mom, Baseball, and Apple Pie." Or the city on the hill, last best hope, beacon of light, etc. More melodramatic, more morbid, and also, I think, less idealistic.
That feeling has sort of ebbed away over the past six years. But as a result, I suspect that my underlying views on the war in Iraq are somewhat different from most of the other young war-supporters, who mostly seem to be patriotic in a way that I am not. Or, for that matter, the other pro-war commenters here in this thread.
Would you agree with Seven Machos that I am absolutely 100% completely wrong that this is an unpopular war?
You're right that it's an unpopular war. I think the public would be deeply upset by another set of humiliating Fall of Saigon images (or even Blackhawk Down images) -- that's the point everyone is making in response to you. But you are right that the public is also certainly feeling in retrospect that if Hussein didn't pose an imminent nuclear threat -- as he did not -- then we didn't have much of an interest in toppling him after all. There was a humanitarian case, sure, but it was not much stronger than the current argument that we should invade the Sudan to liberate Darfur (i.e. not terribly strong). And so a majority oppose the war.
Geez.
Fred
and
Fred
and
Fred
Some folks have been living in a cultural tornado shelter.
I'm still curious what the anti-war peeps would have done about Saddam had we not toppled him? Before 9-11, the consensus of Europe and the American Left was that sanctions should be lifted, since they were "only hurting Iraqi children". Saddam would have been free of US/UN scrutiny and would have continued his WMD programs, as well as his support for terrorist organizations. So what was the anti-war alternative to deposing him with force?
Freeman Hunt,
Thompson's ability to parrot righty cant doesn't absolve him of the charge of being substance-free.
Thompson's ability to parrot righty cant doesn't absolve him of the charge of being substance-free.
Sure it does, else you wouldn't need to craft a strawman to falsely accuse him of "parroting rightwing talking points"
Reminds me of the Left's challenge here, that I prove Saddam had WMDs, but not mention anything about finding those 500 arty shells of Sarin and Mustard Gas.
"Hillary can make the claim that she was co-President for 8 years..."
Yes, but what a sad joke. I suppose the wife of a Fortune 100 CEO who chats about the job over the dinner table can claim executive experience? Only if she wants to be considered an idiot. The Dems WANT to believe, so they do. That does not validate the claim or the belief, but it says a lot about the tendencies of idiots.
Thompson's height, demeanor and presentation add up to presence. That should never be discounted in a position like POTUS which spends a great deal of time "on stage." Throw in a good mind, some breadth of experience and reasonable policy preferences and you have a serious candidate.
While Thompson can be faulted for being an actor, he really can't be faulted for the parts that he has played as one. Someone above suggested that almost all of his parts through the years have been very similar. Well, the commonality in parts can be summed up in one word: "gravitas". Whether he was an admiral, an elected DA, or the president of the U.S., he invariably was the man in the room with the most gravitas.
I should add that his stint with Paul Harvey isn't going to hurt either. There are a lot of people now who associate his gravelly voice with the simple wisdom in Harvey's daily monologues/sales pitches.
Re: P Rich
Yes, but what a sad joke. I suppose the wife of a Fortune 100 CEO who chats about the job over the dinner table can claim executive experience? Only if she wants to be considered an idiot.
The reason the "co-president" argument has weight with Clinton II, while it would not with the wife of a Fortune 100 CEO, is that we know she was intimately involved in setting policy from the get-go. It was public knowledge that she devised Clinton I's major health care proposal. It went down in flames, sure, and lost the Democrats longstanding majorities in both houses of Congress, but it was her at work there. People joked about her being the President, and Clinton I just being her front man.
Her role was less prominent in subsequent policy work, during the Clinton administration, but I don't think any account has ever really contradicted the narrative that she was directly involved in helping to evaluate policy (whether for good or ill), and in formulating the White Houses's political responses to Clinton I's numerous mishaps. The signature phrase, "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" was her coinage, no? In the progress of her career, we've also seen her develop from a particularly abrasive and unskillful wonk (the Health Care fiasco in the early 90's) into a competent politician, even if she's still no better at relating to people on a human level and her basic will to dominate all life appears largely unquenched.
Senator Clinton was not a political wife in the Laura Bush mold.
Senator Clinton was not a political wife in the Laura Bush mold.
That's right. And while Hillary Clinton obviously was not elected "co-president" in 1992, it was clear to the public that she was not going to be a traditional window-dressing First Lady. In fact, I think its more than reasonable to argue that Bill would never have been elected President without his partnership with Hillary. She played a very substantive and public policy role in the Clinton I administration and she was very accomplished in education, private practice and public and government service before coming to Washington in 1992.
Say what you will about Hillary Clinton's suitability for the Presidency (I'm not a fan), but don't demean her by pretending that she's merely the arm-candy wife of an independently accomplished person who is now just taking advantage of his fame.
She played a very substantive and public policy role in the Clinton I administration and she was very accomplished in education, private practice and public and government service before coming to Washington in 1992.
Joe,
She was given exactly one significant policy job during the Clinton Administration -- health care. She was a catastrophic failure at it, alienating much of her OWN party along with basically all of the Republicans.
You're right that she wasn't an "arm-candy" Presidential wife. If she had been, there might still be some cause to hope that she'd be a good President. Since we've seen her in action, we already know she won't be.
past performance is no guarantee of future results
That made me laugh out loud since that is a phrase I use quite often in my line of work.
I really do hope the Dems nominate Hillary as the front runner. There is nothing so polarizing as a cold hearted woman who wants to "Take things away from you for the common good".
Most people that I know are Federalists at heart and would be more than happy to have the Federal Government butt out of our lives and take care of the BIG PICTURE. This is the message that I get from Fred Thompson. With this message I believe that he will draw in moderates from all sides of the political spectrum.
Roost -- You moved the goalposts. The war is clearly unpopular. It's unpopular because we had not been acting with enough violence and because Bush has been a foolishly awful rhetorician for years. No one likes to see Americans dying ever, particularly when they die in the service of fuzzy objectives or for something that is not in the national interest.
But unpopularity wasn't what you began with. You said: "America has pretty much made up its mind on Iraq being a big mistake." People don't think it was a big mistake. If they did, they'd want to just leave. People think it has been poorly handled tactically and rhetorically. To the extent that Kerry lost in 2004, it's because he showed that he could handle the rhetoric and the tactics no better.
The war and the coming wars in the Middle East are the most important issue in politics right now. Make no mistake about it. These wars are unpopular right now because people think leaders are handling them poorly, not because they think the wars aren't necessary.
Seven said...."These wars are unpopular right now because people think leaders are handling them poorly, not because they think the wars aren't necessary."
I, for one, am hoping you are correct here. I would love to think that most people understand the threat we are facing from the middle east, but I am not at all certain it is so. And we can put much of the blame squarely on Bush's shoulders if it is not.
If they did, they'd want to just leave.
I think a pullout now would be a mistake. We need to leave some kind of stability behind. But I still think invading was a huge mistake. It's a coherent position.
But I don't want to debate its coherence, I want to assert that its a common sentiment. When added in with the people who think it was a mistake and want out now, you have a large segment of the population. Certainly a majority of the people I come into contact with.
You say: People don't think it was a big mistake.
And I say we're living in different worlds. I never hear people complain that "we had not been acting with enough violence" in Iraq. I hear people say "We shouldn't even be over there" all the time.
If you think that its a common belief that we are losing Iraq because we aren't violent enough, well, I'm not too worried that you have your finger on the pulse.
The reason we even got to this point in the argument is that I said that the Iraq war hurts the Republicans politically. You either buy that or not, but it is widely accepted as conventional wisdom. The Republicans lost both chambers of the house. Bush's approval rating has been in the gutter for years now. You might make some substantive argument that the conventional wisdom is wrong, that the backlash against the Republicans is due to some other force. Corruption or something.
But I'd say the burden of proof is on you here, and telling me I ought to get out more doesn't cut it.
Chief --
1. My arguments have been entirely substantive. If you don't understand that, it's because you don't understand the word.
2. The Democrats were the ones who -- in 2006 -- claimed that the war was being handled poorly. The argument in a nutshell was: "We aren't against the war; we against the way it is being managed." Now, gosh, Roost, do you think that was just the handiwork of some brilliant candidates, or do you think that possibly some polling on whether people agreed with that sentiment was involved?
3. It is unheard of for the president's party to gain seats in an off-year election.
4. It sounds to me like Dennis Miller (see post below) basically said that he believes that we should engage more violently and forcefully in the war. I agree. And I think that when Americans say they are sick of the war, they mean that they are sick of the perception that we are losing the war. The only way to change that perception is to kill more people or destroy more property. Those are the two elements of war.
5. When you make the ridiculous argument that because everyone you know is against the war that everyone is against the war, and further for the reasons that you are against the war, the burden is most certainly not on me for anything at all. The burden is on you to stop foolishly arguing politics from your own personal experience.
It's unpopular because we had not been acting with enough violence
Exactly who and where should we be raining all this extra violence down on in Iraq. Should we be bombing more people, perhaps killing more civilians? Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds?
vet66 wrote:
I hope Newt runs on the same ticket.
Oooh, so do I.
Oooh, so do I.
So do I. Such easy pickin's. Three times married and serial adulterer Newt and lover of buxom blondes libertine Fred. Man, I would nail Lorrie Morgan in a New York minute the same as any other red blooded middle aged man who appreciates country music. But the Family values crowd might not be so amused.
And I say we're living in different worlds. I never hear people complain that "we had not been acting with enough violence" in Iraq. I hear people say "We shouldn't even be over there" all the time.
. . . Where do you live? I mean, generally, what's the culture of your area? Just to take one example, the single most insular political culture I've ever encountered was San Francisco. Other than the "Go back home to China" anti-Asian racism I heard people voice on the street as a student, the thing that sticks out most in my mind is that when I went in for an interview with a firm there some years ago, the building receptionist decided that a good icebreaker would be to engage in anti-Bush jokes. Clearly, the possibility that I (probably in part as a somewhat foreign-looking minority) might in fact be a Bush-supporter didn't enter his head. Depending on where you are, people may simply not voice certain opinions, just as, in San Francisco, Bush supporters evidently cover.
I've never heard anyone in conversation say flat out that we need "more violence," to be sure, but I have heard people complain that our military is hamstrung by ridiculous combat restrictions and lawyers interfering with target selection, and so on. I have also heard people complain that it was kind of dumb for us to let the Iraqis write their own constitution, enshrining their religion as a source of law, seeing as we did not give Japan that privilege, but instead wrote a constitution for them, and told them they had better adhere to it or else. And I have heard people complain that we are casualty averse or overly fixated on casualty figures. All these add up to more violence or a more aggressive stance generally -- and that is what I think the "more violence" mention is a proxy for.
You also might want to check out the story behind Fred Thompson's red pickup truck. That little piece of stagecraft might just come back to bite him in the ass especially when the front runners in Republican party begin to feel threatened by him.
fen wrote:
Reminds me of the Left's challenge here, that I prove Saddam had WMDs, but not mention anything about finding those 500 arty shells of Sarin and Mustard Gas.
Fen, as you well know, the shells you are referring to contained degraded sarin or mustard gas and were not in useable condition. A senior Defense Department official characterizes these shells this way:
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991; [they] are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
I have also heard people complain that it was kind of dumb for us to let the Iraqis write their own constitution, enshrining their religion as a source of law, seeing as we did not give Japan that privilege, but instead wrote a constitution for them, and told them they had better adhere to it or else.
Well, people who say this are, frankly, assholes. And I hate to play the chickenhawk card, but if you are so all fired up about this war, why aren't you serving in the military? My wife is 46 years old, she doesn't think this war is a particularly good idea, yet she will be going back for her third tour next year because it is her job.
Fred -- That's the problem. That's where the Democrats have a point, thought they won't follow their point to its conclusion.
We should have aggressively killed and destroyed when there was a window to do so, throughout the country and in particular cities and regions. There are still pockets where more violence is helpful, but the political situation allows for much less violence on our part now.
The Democrats' argument fails because the Democrats -- these Democrats -- would have done no better job at handling this messy war, though they may have done a better rhetorical job and they have had better support from the national and world press.
Ultimately, this is the problem that Democrats have: you want to have war without killing people and destroying property. It's absurd. It's like wanting to have a basketball game without nets or a ball. Normal Americans understand that war is sometimes necessary and always results in death and destruction.
Fred -- You are, frankly, stupid. I make this ad hominem attack because you are perpetually unable to take on substantive policy arguments and refute them, instead resorting to calling people names when you disagree with them.
It bespeaks an intellectually stunted mind.
You don't think this war is a good idea, why aren't you serving in some branch of the government to try to end it? The argument that only people in the military can make military decisions is fascist at its core and grotesquely un-American. Our generals must answer to people who are not in the military. May it always be so.
why aren't you serving in the military?
A) Don't be a twit.
B) Why should I? I'm registered for the draft, of course, if Charlie Rangel's diabolic plan comes to fruition, and I think I'm still within the call-able age range. But we have a volunteer military, so there's not much danger of that.
Now, people volunteer to serve in the military, and I respect them for it. But the military does not exercise exclusive control over its actions. The military is placed under civilian control for a reason.
I'm entitled to exercise my rights as a civilian, a citizen, and a voter, in directing the use of the military, as with all the other resources of the state. There's no more reason for me to enlist as a soldier, because I support the war, than there is for me to become a policeman, because I happen to support policing; or for me to become a diplomat, because I support diplomacy; or for me to become a spy, because I support espionage. To suggest that use of the military is somehow different -- or worse, that military service is a prerequisite for support for military action -- is, frankly, idiotic in a country like ours.
Now, that is not to say that there are not causes for which I would volunteer, even as an irregular (or whatever they're call nowadays). There are wars, that, if they needed to be fought, I care enough about that I would actually go in myself. But while I'm certainly a strong supporter of this war, this war is not one of them.
What Belfegor said. I would add that:
(1) for me, I did serve, as a diplomat;
(2) I don't think you served, Fred, so under your own dumbass theory you have must logically remain neutral at best;
(3) if the government needs me, it can either ask, in which case, I would likely go, or clamp its tentacles on me and make me go.
It's a stupid thing to say, said by a stupid person, who cannot engage in substantive debate.
"we've also seen her develop from a particularly abrasive and unskillful wonk (the Health Care fiasco in the early 90's) into a competent politician..."
Try, Plastic Woman. Underneath the facade is...more facade. And please, drop the notion that Mrs. Clinton had anything substantive to do with WJC getting elected. Ever. HE is a clever politician and is widely credited as such, she is the angry socialist lesbian wannabe snarling in the background. If she weren't Mrs. Clinton, she would be a complete nobody. Here's another of her illuminating quotes:
‘It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.’
A scary woman with an obvious hatred of federal principles, individual rights and responsibilities, free market capitalism - and pretty much everything that wears pants with a zipper in the front. Are you ready to live in the Socialist State of America with its revered Leader of the People, AKA Hillary Rodham Clinton? If not, better give some serious thought to what she is really all about and then find another candidate.
p. rich wrote:
[Hillary Clinton] is the angry socialist lesbian wannabe snarling in the background.
How do you know that she is a "socialist lesbian wannabe?" Can you cite a credible source for this information, or is this comment coming from your inner Ann Coulter?
balfegor wrote:
There are wars, that, if they needed to be fought, I care enough about that I would actually go in myself.
For example?
(2) I don't think you served, Fred, so under your own dumbass theory you have must logically remain neutral at best;
Well no, but I think this war is a horribly bad idea, yet I have sacrificed more for it personally than either you or balfegor. So your argument is kind of nonsensical. Yet you call me stupid. No wonder I was dubious you were able to pass the foreign service exam.
Balfegor is willing to let me and my wife suffer for this misadventure while he goes about his life and just tells us what a wonderful idea it is. Which is easy to say, when the war has absolutely no personal impact on you.
Fred -- That's the problem. That's where the Democrats have a point, thought they won't follow their point to its conclusion.
So now you're saying more death and destruction is not feasible. Maybe I'm just stupid and intellectually stunted, but I thought you were advocating a more violent approach (hardly the words of a diplomat). Now, you are saying it is too late for that. Which is it? I'm so confused.
why aren't you serving in the military
Balfegor and Seven gave good answers. I'll add mine: it doesn't pay well enough.
If the military has a shortage of qualified personnel, the correct solution is to offer more money and/or better benefits for recruits. Only a small fraction of the people who would make good soldiers are actually serving; most of the rest are just holding out for a better offer.
Well no, but I think this war is a horribly bad idea, yet I have sacrificed more for it personally than either you or balfegor.
You didn't fight in the war, so your personal sacrifice is nonexistent, unless you count paying taxes.
Your *wife* has "sacrificed", assuming you call "doing the job you're paid to do" a "sacrifice". I don't call it that. Anyone in the military can fight who we want, when we want, or kiss off and stop taking our tax money. The US military isn't Welfare.
Your *wife* has "sacrificed", assuming you call "doing the job you're paid to do" a "sacrifice". I don't call it that. Anyone in the military can fight who we want, when we want, or kiss off and stop taking our tax money. The US military isn't Welfare.
Hey Fen, how's that for the Memorial Day tribute to the troops you were looking for.
Its just fucking amazing how all your support and respect for the troops and their families goes out the window when somebody points out that this war is having a real impact on real people.
Fuck you Revenant.
Fred --
1. You are being obtuse, willfully or not. We didn't firebomb Dresden in 1950. No atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki in 1950, either. Atlanta was not razed in 1870. There was a time to kill and destroy. That time is past, absent a new cause, thanks to (1) real and positive political developments in Iraq and (2) political pressure exerted by the left.
2. War and diplomacy are not opposites. If they were, there wouldn't be an officer staff in every embassy.
3. I'm sorry you think the foreign service exam is so unreasonably hard. It's not, and all of our diplomats are by no means our best and brightest. Some are. Some aren't. Just like our plumbers. I'll take a Marine over a vice consul any day for virtually any task.
Anyone in the military can fight who we want, when we want, or kiss off and stop taking our tax money.
Oh and btw, even if a service member wanted to, you just can't get up one morning and decide to quit. The military doesn't work that way asshole.
And another thing, Fred. Revenant is right. You have no special claim to setting foreign policy because of your spouse. Just like that odd woman who had a son who died in Iraq and camped out in Texas has no special claim.
We are a representative democracy. You got one vote, just like me. Deal with it.
One more thing: it's a shame that people in the military are not told that they cannot quit like they can in an ordinary job. I think that's an unfair practice. We really should start telling people who join the military completely voluntarily exactly what they are getting into.
Poor you.
Eli--
Hollywood is a funny beast. It's more than left leaning in places, it's Berkeley-style Anarcho-Chomsky-Communist. However, there is a tempering influence: Hollywood is first and foremost a business. A lot of these Anarcho-Chomsky-Communists would write a script like Red Dawn if they thought they could sell it.
However, living there, hanging out there, working there, the rule seems pretty clear: If you disagree with the left-wing cant, you keep it to yourself--unless you're big enough (Gibson, Willis, Eastwood) to absorb the backlash.
That time is past, absent a new cause, thanks to (1) real and positive political developments in Iraq and (2) political pressure exerted by the left.
Don't blame the left for the disaster in Iraq, until January 20, 2007 the Republicans controlled all both houses of congress and the White House. They could have done anything they wanted (after all the president supposedly doesn't care about the polls). If he really cared, or actually had a clue what the hell he was doing, he could have done it. Blaming it on the left is bullshit.
Fred -- Let's break this down:
(1) You are against more violence in Iraq by the U.S.
(2) People on the left are against more violence in Iraq by the U.S.
(3) You have just suggested that leftist opposition to more violence in Iraq by the U.S. has not made it more difficult for the U.S. to commit more violence in Iraq.
Is this really your position?
And another thing, Fred. Revenant is right. You have no special claim to setting foreign policy because of your spouse.
I think I have a higher claim than those who are sacrificing absolutely nothing for this war, are unwilling to sacrifice anything, and even denigrate the sacrifice those who do, yet claim it is the most important struggle of the century.
Its just fucking amazing how all your support and respect for the troops and their families goes out the window when somebody points out that this war is having a real impact on real people.
My respect for any given soldier ends when that soldier begins acting in a manner undeserving of respect.
For the past sixty years every war this country has fought has been a strictly optional war, not in direct defense of America, which many people had misgivings about.
Now, either your wife is an idiot -- which given that she married you is a real possibility -- or she knew she was probably going to have to serve in wars she didn't agree with and signed up anyway. So the root cause of any complaints she might have is either (a) stupidity or (b) unwillingness to accept the consequences of her actions. In neither case am I interested in hearing you whine on her behalf.
And I'm certainly not willing to listen to you yammer about your "sacrifices" while you sit on your ass in front of a computer and let your wife face the actual danger.
Oh and btw, even if a service member wanted to, you just can't get up one morning and decide to quit. The military doesn't work that way asshole.
Its NEVER worked that way, dipshit. Did your wife not read the paperwork before she signed it?
Who has denigrated the sacrifice that people have made for the war? I don't recall a ton of conservatives protesting the war and defacing the graves of soldiers. I do recall leftist agitators doing it.
You have no higher claim. You have no special claim to opinions on the war. You have no right to attempt to censor people who make arguments for the war on the basis of their sacrifices.
It is comical that you think that you do.
One more question for you, Freder:
Does it bother you that your efforts to undermine American morale are making it more likely that your wife will be killed?
Just curious.
Is this really your position?
No, But I interpreted your statements to be that that we should have used more violence earlier. I am not sure what you mean by this but I assume that we should have committed more troops earlier to stabilize the country. I actually agree with you on that. From the day we invaded there have never been enough troops in Iraq. Shinseki was right from day one, but the ignorance and arrogance of this administration doomed this effort from day one. Blaming this on the left may be convenient and easy but it is a lie. It is Bush's war and the failure is his fault.
Now it is much too late. There is nothing we can do. All we can do is leave and let the Iraqis figure it out for themselves.
Do you read my posts? I said Bush has handled the war poorly rhetorically and tactically. That is harsh criticism. Handling those two things well was Bush's principal job.
The left was complicit in this failure because the left has been against the kind of death and destruction that was necessary. You people don't even want to have prisoners of war outside of the civil and criminal judicial process. Remember all the screaming about Abu Ghraib? Ever hear about Guantanamo? It's not Rich Lowry who is the most vocal critic on these matters. Is it?
This criticism creates a political environment that makes death and destruction harder to achieve. For you not to admit that is foolish.
Seven,
The real problem, in my view, has been not securing the Iraqi borders. The violence in Iraq is directly tied to the ease with which Iranian and Al Qaeda operatives can slip into the country.
The propaganda victories Freder and his ilk have handed the enemy (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, et al) have done a lot of harm, but their opposition to bloodshed has been irrelevant; increased bloodshed wouldn't have served our needs, I think. The latest lefty meme that the war "cannot" be won (for some magical fantasy reason they don't deign to share) is a much bigger problem, as it is preventing the increase in troop presence we'd need to make a serious effort at securing the country.
Now, either your wife is an idiot -- which given that she married you is a real possibility -- or she knew she was probably going to have to serve in wars she didn't agree with and signed up anyway. So the root cause of any complaints she might have is either (a) stupidity or (b) unwillingness to accept the consequences of her actions. In neither case am I interested in hearing you whine on her behalf.
Okay Revenant, you can insult me all you want, I don't care. I'm a big boy and I expect it. But don't you dare insult my wife or her service to this country. That is completely uncalled for. She may not believe in this war, but she believes in duty, honor and service, and she would never complain or hesitate to do what her country and constitution calls her to do. She is a career officer and is proud of her service and I am proud of her and all her colleagues no matter how conflicted I am about this war.
Unlike her (and maybe me--hopefully that is something I have learned from her), you know nothing about duty, honor or service. As for undermining morale, her opinion of people like you parallels mine.
You are one fucking asshole.
as it is preventing the increase in troop presence we'd need to make a serious effort at securing the country.
The reason we can't increase the number of troops is we simply don't have them because Bush hasn't bothered to increase the size of the military. I assume this is also the fault of "the left".
Okay Revenant, you can insult me all you want, I don't care. I'm a big boy and I expect it. But don't you dare insult my wife or her service to this country. That is completely uncalled for.
If you don't want people to comment on your wife, try not hiding behind her skirts.
You're the one who brought up her "sacrifices" has proof of your own alleged moral and intellectual superiority in the war debate. That made her fair game. You don't get to say "you're wrong because my wife is awesome" and then whine when people impugn her awesomeness.
Rev can be pungent. That's Rev's style. But I really have to agree with Rev. Fred, you opened yourself up to the criticism by claiming martyrdom and moral and political superiority because of your marital status. I would add that you are neither a martyr nore a person with a superior moral or poltiical claim.
The reason we can't increase the number of troops is we simply don't have them because Bush hasn't bothered to increase the size of the military.
Congress, not the President, determines the size of the military, although obviously Bush hasn't requested a build-up. I do fault the previous Congress for not doing this, as well as the current one for continuing to not do it.
I assume this is also the fault of "the left".
It is Bush's fault for not pushing for those things while the public would still have supported them. The Left deserves the blame for making it politically almost impossible to do those things now, even if Bush were replaced by a more competent leader -- the six-year propaganda war against America has done its damage.
Darn. I wanted to talk about Fred.
*sigh*
*If* anyone was pushing, heavily, for an increased military *and* followed that up by publically encouraging military service, then they might be able to complain that it hadn't happened.
As it is, Bush *has* increased the size of the military by approximately the same rate as it was reduced under Clinton. The problem, as it were, with waving a magic wand and making the Army "big enough" is that magic wands don't make NCO's. Only *time* will make an NCO.
So on two fronts those against the war in Iraq have no... moral standing I suppose... to chide Bush for not increasing the size of the military enough.
There are real, practical, limitations on just how fast the forces can be expanded in *this* modern military.
And the biggest contribution to *recruiting* by the "loyal opposition" has been to try to hamstring it at every turn, insulting those who enlist as victims of economics or uneducated or whatever else.
Somehow this is always someone elses fault. No words ever have consequences and nothing said by those anti-recruiters and slanderers has any effect on young men or women considering military service.
Suppose Hillary got up tomorrow and told young people to enlist.
What would happen to her political career?
So blame it on Bush, if you like. Doesn't make it even slightly *his* failing.
And I'd rather talk about Fred.
A scary woman with an obvious hatred of federal principles, individual rights and responsibilities, free market capitalism - and pretty much everything that wears pants with a zipper in the front. Are you ready to live in the Socialist State of America with its revered Leader of the People, AKA Hillary Rodham Clinton?
You and I are not the only ones who have had these thoughts about the comming socialist state should Hillary be elected (God help us all)
Enjoy this link :-0
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f213/Lugnut67/70572hillary-poster.jpg
Macho,
One last response, for the road.
I never made the "ridiculous argument" of your accusation. You say my conclusion was that everyone is against the war. The furthest I went was saying that a majority of people now believe that going to war was a mistake. Which I readily admit is speculation, but it seems obviously true to me.
It's not "foolish" to use personal experience to evaluate this. As the man says, you don't need to a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Even if ignoring my day-to-day interactions did give me better access to what other people think, there are plenty of other reasons to believe that (remember, this was the original point that I was 100% absolutely wrong on:) the Republicans are facing a tougher election in '08 than in '04, and the Iraq war is the primary reason for that.
It's not an extreme statement. It's value-judgement free. The republicans seem to tacitly acknowledge it, as well.
It's a stupid thing to say, said by a stupid person, who cannot engage in substantive debate.
That would make a funny t-shirt.
Balf,
I'm in St.Louis, MO. It's a red state, though of course the city districts go democratic. Anyway it's a far cry from San Fran. I lived in Madison for years, so I know how a liberal bubble can be.
This thread has really devolved, but I owed you an answer for not you know, insulting my wife or blaming Abu Grahib on my politics. Anyway, thanks for being civil.
Cyrus: Fen, as you well know, the shells you are referring to contained degraded sarin or mustard gas and were not in useable condition.
False. Some were degraded, some were not. They weren't all found in one batch - some had been thrown in a hole and covered with sand, others were carefully stored in underground bunkers. And "degraded" can also refer to their usefulness as originally intended: An arty shell may be too damaged to be fired for effect, but its chemical contents can still be harvested and put to other uses. So, the entire "not WMDs because they were degraded" meme is bunk. You wouldn't want to store them under your bed, Cyrus.
A senior Defense Department official characterizes these shells this way:
These were part of a WMD list that Saddam had admitted to posessing and had promised to destroy. When the UN asked him to provide proof, he claimed his dog ate the paperwork... [ie. records lost]
Besides, if Saddam had no interest in WMDs, where did the 500 come from?
Rev = The latest lefty meme that the war "cannot" be won (for some magical fantasy reason they don't deign to share) is a much bigger problem, as it is preventing the increase in troop presence we'd need to make a serious effort at securing the country.
The brilliant logic, courtesy of Lefty intellectuals, is the variant of their old "endless cycle of violence" meme. The new one goes beyond saying anything but turning the other cheek perpetuates violence. This one goes "The more you kill of the enemy, the stronger they become."
Lefties, most who never encounter military, pretend to believe that in their expert opinion that if you are beating the hell out of an enemy, they will only get stronger and more numerous. But, if you don't fight back and let them slaughter you, or fight badly --well, victory for your side is all but certain because the more of us the Islamoids kill in Iraq or Afghanistan, the stronger America becomes.
*****************
Freder - You have no special claim to setting foreign policy because of your spouse.
I think I have a higher claim than those who are sacrificing absolutely nothing for this war.
My, but you're a winner! Pushing 50 and a woman, I assume it is safe to bet that your wife is not a frontline fighter.
And politician pandering about "collective heroes and personal sacrifices" aside, your wife makes no more "sacrifice" than anyone else who voluntarily accepts a higher risk job for the pay, status, and/or benefits. Many, like miners, commercial fisherman, ironworkers, illegal drug dealers - have similar risks to military service. And you, the spouse, make no more "sacrifice" than the 'ho of some gang banger worried at home that he might get shot in a heroin sales turf dispute.
For the most part we respect and honor those doing the vital, risky jobs - but differently - the captain of a Bering Sea boat merits considerably more respect in the commercial fishing industry than an employee in the same industry safe in the rear, gutting fish pierside. And the spouse of the sea captain gets more respect that the woman whining about her fish gutter husbands "sacrifices" not being honored enough...
*********************
But don't you dare insult my wife or her service to this country.
You're the one dragging your rear echelon wife into the debate claiming others are wrong because "she serves!", and that there is some silly connection where you shacking up with her gives you "a higher claim" to being right in any discussion.
Don't drag her into your politics or claim your usual anti-American proclaimations are safe from challenge because they come from behind her "woman warrior" skirts. Setting her up as your stooge and cover is the actual dishonor.
Hey Fen, how's that for the Memorial Day tribute to the troops you were looking for?
I was looking for a tribute from the anti-war left who claim to support the troops but not their mission. I stopped waiting after 24 hours.
Its just fucking amazing how all your support and respect for the troops and their families goes out the window when somebody points out that this war is having a real impact on real people.
Freder, the problem is you're stealing your wife's laurels to prop up your political views. That would be like me insisting my foreign policy views should be given more weight because my sister serves overseas.
BTW, I applaud and respect your wife's service. You said she was stationed in Kuwait? What service and what does she do?
And I hate to play the chickenhawk card, but if you are so all fired up about this war, why aren't you serving in the military?
You really shouldn't play that card. Counterpoint - if you are so fired up about ending this war, why are you staging a hunger strike on the steps of Congress?
Remember Freder, I'm a former US Marine who served 12 years in an infantry MOS. Kuwait, Iraq, Somolia. If you believe people who haven't served can't support the war, then to be fair you have to say they can't criticise it either. I understand you're taking heat and are frustrated, but is that what you really want?
Seven: The Democrats' argument fails because the Democrats -- these Democrats -- would have done no better job at handling this messy war...
Yup. I keep asking them what they would prefer, and they keep ignoring the question:
"I'm still curious what the anti-war peeps would have done about Saddam had we not toppled him? Before 9-11, the consensus of Europe and the American Left was that sanctions should be lifted, since they were only hurting Iraqi children. Saddam would have been free of US/UN scrutiny and would have continued his WMD programs, as well as his support for terrorist organizations. So what was the anti-war alternative to deposing him with force?"
Along with questions about how they would handle the next war:
"What real evidence do we have re Iran's WMD program, and how is that evidence any better than what we had re Iraq"
I'm never going to get an answer from the Left, am I? Why won't they even take a swing at it?
/edit, should be
Counterpoint - if you are so fired up about ending this war, why aren't you staging a hunger strike on the steps of Congress?
Fen -- It has been my position for a long time now that when historians look back at history, they are going to see Clinton and Bush II as average presidents with very similar policies.
We have been at war with Iraq since 1991. I don't think that very many people at all, including virtually everyone on the left, really understands that under Bill Clinton, we were bombing Iraq very frequently and that our policies resulted in the actual starvation of many, many innocent people.
After September 11, we could have attacked any number of countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and others. We chose Iraq because, frankly, it was easiest. We were already at war with them. More importantly, we had to get our military completely out of Saudi Arabia but we had to keep it in the Middle East to take the fight to our enemies (which is a very large group of mostly transnational poltiical groups which mean us harm and destruction).
I firmly believe that Al Gore and Bill Clinton would have made the same decision -- to invade Iraq. Had a Democrat been president, this war would have enjoyed widespread political support.
As an addendum, a personal note: I was mechanically against our aggression in the Balkans under Clinton. This was stupid and reflexive because what Clinton did was right and our policy there was and is a good one. I like to think that I have learned my lesson and that Republicans would not have been so stupid to oppose a war that is very much in the national interest simply because it is waged under a president from another party.
Fen - I hate to say it, but Cyrus is right. There were effectively no WMD in Iraq, just leftovers from past conflicts pre 1995, or stuff that didn't exist or did exist but sloppy inventory practices failed to account for.
No different than the stray mustard and phosgene shells they are digging up every year in Germany, Belgium, and France. The Chinese unearthed a forgotten Japanese WMD depot with mustard gas and broke-down liquid anthrax.
As for the US, we are hardly pure. We had bad accounting on nerve gas making the existence of a few thousand shells and rockets problematic. We have lost some 11 nuclear bombs that US authorities will admit to, in the ocean, including one 10 Megaton baby lost somewhere in the mud flats off South Carolina in the 50s.
We lost some weaponized anthrax from Ft Detrick that showed up in the US mail system, and our accounting and inventory system cannot explain when it was lost, who had access to it.
So even America has a sloppy record with WMD, and you expected Saddam to be perfect??
300 small shells!! Forgotten!! Lodged in sand dunes 20 years ago in Iran-Iraq fighting!
Sorry, that does not make for any significant WMD threat.
Belgium had years decades after WWI when they were pulling more than that out of that country's soil.
And, *shudder* don't even go to the Soviet Union/Russia's accounting practices of their WMD stockpiles.
Compared to them and their WMD snafu, Saddam was conscientious.
If you are looking for a "ggod spin", Fen, I would go with "no meaningful quantities of WMD discovered in Iraq" but that " Saddam pulled off the biggest and dumbest bluff in history". Saddam had nothing, but told all his commanders up to the Republican Guard senior generals he had tons of the stuff - and they in turn told 6 separate intelligence agencies they existed. His bluff was to not make Iraq defenselss, get external enemies to believe it, until sanctions were dropped and he could rebuild some capacity.
It was a stupid bluff.
Freder: Don't blame the left for the disaster in Iraq, until January 20, 2007 the Republicans controlled all both houses of congress and the White House. Blaming it on the left is bullshit
Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Passed House 296-133, [81 Democrats voted for it]
Passed Senate 77-22, [29 Democrats
voted for it]
Cedarford -- I agree with everything you say except that Saddam was stupid in his bluff. I think he was rather brilliant. He had everybody convinced and his bluff combined with his shrewd dealings with Frane and Russia pretty nearly prevented our attack. Moreover, he was able to hide out for a very long time after we invaded.
Saddam was stupid in the sense that he was a petty tyrant who believed a lot of wrong things, but he was a wily and clever politician. You have to give him that.
It is unfair to bring up congressional votes. Democrats only voted for teh war and to fund the war because they thought their political careers depended on it, not because they understood that their votes made them responsible for the war. Clearly, they thought their political careers depended on their votes for the war because they thought people supported the war.
Today, when our resident leftists swear that public opinion has turned massively against the war, we nevertheless have a Democratic Congress voting to fund the war. If people are massively against the war, it can only mean that voting for the war is not politically expedient. It is, in fact, politically inexpedient. There is surely another reason besides public support for the war (which I am assured by the left does not exist) to explain why members of Congress are voting to fund the war. Right? Right?
Hello?
And Freder, if your Dems who voted in favor had instead opposed the war back then:
Passes House 215-214
Fails in Senate 51-48
Just now revisiting this thread...and the winner, for most outlandish and insipid post goes to...(drum roll please).....to
"Bruce Hayden who gushed:...
While Thompson can ... be summed up in one word: "gravitas". Whether he was an admiral, an elected DA, or the president of the U.S., he invariably was the man in the room with the most gravitas.
I should add that his stint with Paul Harvey isn't going to hurt either."
Mr. Speaker, I rise in nomination of that most elequent actor and voice over man, a graduate of Wassamata U., nearly 120 episodes of Mr. Knowitall, and sensational in duel roles as the voice of dudely doright and bullwinkle j.moose...talk about gravitas..talk about a voice...talk about reading words others penned for him...talk about instant name recognition
Well watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat...nothing up my sleeve....ooops, i'd better get me a new hat.
I think he just played U.S. Grant in this lugubrious, gory HBO TV-movie of "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," which I hoped was going to be good but (watching it out of the corner of my eye while working) had the impression was, rather, much the same sort of reverential tripe as most other revisionist westerns. But I should really watch it to be sure.
Anyway, I just think people are going "Actor + conservative = Reagan." They're so desperately looking for a Ronnie replay. Move on, guys. It's a new century.
oh and FEN...try try try try and be accurate please. Read: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/bush.resolution/index.html
The resolution was to disarm Iraq in accordance with the UN resolutions requiring Saddam to give up his WMD programs - remember collin powell's speech? the dummied up "evidence"? the outright lies? remember that speech?
So this Bush's war is democratic "shared"??? are you insane? are you completely nuts?
Not one oversight hearing...no allowable dissent...read that to be republicans...with almost perfect party voting, voted for the action in both houses..just about enough to carry it flat out as noted above...and you say democrats "share the blame"???
you do remember the lies bush and company visited on congress - the "shared and flawed intelligence"..the slam dunk mentality...and you bitch and moan about democrats? i would rather think you should be screaming your brains out about lying to the American people, getting 25000 plus shot up and another 3500 dead and this simpleton bastard not having the decency to attend one funeral and the prior secretary of defense sending out "auto-signed form letters of sorry". ... and all because he didn't want coffins and funerals in a photo-op reminding everyone that people are dying because this jerk wants to thump his chest and be the decider.
Fen. i'm sure god loves you but you are the most brazenly politcal hack on this board. You should be ashamed at trying to pass off such a weak game on here.
I'm amused by all the scoffing at the fact that Thompson's campaign is based on his charisma and celebrity status. The two Democratic front-runners are relying entirely on charisma (Obama) and celebrity status (Hillary) to make up for their lack of substance or credentials. Fred's qualifications are a bit on the thin side, but they're better than either of the likely Democratic nominees.
sooo Revenant...your argument or thesis is "my guy is a pile of shit and smells more robustly of shit than your guys pile of shit".
just trying to lay it out in terms you can relate to.
i wake up mad at you republicans every morning because NPR reports body counts. you can google me, "hdhouse,funerals" and that simple post to an obscure yahoo board long gone is still out there.
That makes me mad still. Your claptrap "well clinton...yada yada" responses are over. they are yesterdays answers...and you guys have been given a pass on them.
why don't you just say Thompson is weak but the rest of our guys are worse. thats the truth. afraid of the truth? well you guys are gonna go 40 more down in the house and 10-12 in the senate...how do you like them polling apples?
"How do you know that she is a "socialist lesbian wannabe?" Can you cite a credible source for this information,...'
Well, Cyrus, let's begin with her choice of undergraduate school - one infamous for its feminist leanings and girl-on-girl activities, her body type, her frequent and virulent disdain for males (long pre-Monica history here, see my site); her political partnership pretending to be a marriage (try imagining it a heterosexual romance, try really hard...); absence of the personal in her carefully manicured image; her anti-democracy admiration for socialist activism (early mentor, disappeared college paper a clue also); her frequent, thinly veiled references to the homogeneous "masses" and equality of outcome;... Do your own further research, dude. Questions are lazy.
>>>
dust bunny queen
Thanks for the link. That should be posted large on the side of buildings. Otherwise the True Believers can just ignore it and all it accurately depicts.
hd, mad isn't healthy.
It really isn't.
And it makes it harder to fix what's wrong. For one thing, it leads you to make mad arguments and mad arguments are usually weak and almost always fail to persuade since they rely on being mad.
The problem with rational arguments is that you've got to admit that other people have similarly rational reasons to disagree with you.
hd: "Just now revisiting this thread...and the winner, for most outlandish and insipid post goes to...(drum roll please).....to"
And sure, Amba is right that people are seeing Ronald Reagan because they want to see Ronald Reagan.
But those things do matter in a very real way. It's why charisma matters and why it matters that Bush doesn't have any. It's why the fact that Clinton had quite a lot (I'm told) was one reason he was considered an effective president.
Now, getting all pure about this little popularity contest we're going into is a shame, really, because the anger in the population at this dire and horrific tragedy of somehow getting the wrong person elected is more damaging to the country than a charismatic but middling competent President would be.
In fact, a president that speaks well, scripted or not, and is able to communicate well, scripted or not, is probably more important in some ways than a president who is some sort of policy genius.
Policy geniuses can always be hired.
p. rich,
Yeah, ok... Are you seeing someone professionally about these little voices in your head?
Asked and answered, Cyrus. Facts get your panties in a twist?
Lefties are so good at self-identifying. No rational points, just rants and personal commentary. You should adopt a disguise. "Thinking person" is a good one...
sooo Revenant...your argument or thesis is "my guy is a pile of shit and smells more robustly of shit than your guys pile of shit".
My point is simply that it is silly for Democrats to complain about Thompson's "lack of credentials" when the Democratic front-runners (Clinton, Obama, and for that matter Edwards) have even thinner credentials than he does.
I wake up mad at you republicans every morning because NPR reports body counts.
Is this the part where you pretend to care about dead American soldiers for some reason other than their political usefulness?
why don't you just say Thompson is weak but the rest of our guys are worse.
Polls indicate that the current Republican leader, Rudy Giuliani, would handily defeat the leading Democratic empty suit, Hillary Clinton. So it isn't a question of the Republican field being weak; it was weaker, from my perspective, in 2000 (because everyone assumed Gore was impossible to beat) and 2004 (because Bush was the incumbent).
I support Fred Thompson's entry into the race because I happen to like Fred Thompson. His credentials are, as I noted, shaky, but if Hillary's the nominee (all but guaranteed at this point) then Fred's still the lesser of two evils on that front.
thats the truth. afraid of the truth? well you guys are gonna go 40 more down in the house and 10-12 in the senate...how do you like them polling apples?
The apples must have fermented, because you're clearly high.
hdhouse: you do remember the lies bush and company visited on congress - the "shared and flawed intelligence"..the slam dunk mentality...lying to the American people ...not having the decency to attend one funeral and the prior secretary of defense sending out "auto-signed form letters of sorry". ... and all because he didn't want coffins and funerals in a photo-op
hd, you're the one who resorts to lies and distortions to maintain that Bush "lied"
Remember your pal John Edwards? He claims he was skeptical of the intel and went back to Clinton officials to confirm it. They told him the same thing Bush did: Saddam has a WMD program. How do you square that with your mythology?
And its hysterical to hear you accuse me of being a partisan hack.
i wake up mad at you republicans every morning
No HD, you just wake up mad. If we didn't exist, you'd be hating the Jews or the Gypsies instead.
hardly Fen. I'm not a racist or a bigot. Are you?
Are you still clinging to that poison ivy vine of Bush told the truth? Are you really? I admire your loyalty but honest to god, you can't be that foolish.
Edwards was mislead. The last Clinton intelligence estimate that he worked off was 4 year's before Bush's. Are you saying that Bush was so uncurious that he just took an old briefing and took this country to war based on old intelligence? is that what you are admitting to? It's what you said. So I guess so.
Fen....the problem with you is that you have very little fact in your pint-sized bag of tricks and you are not really a very skilled debated now are you? So you are out of your depth, so to speak...something of a little kid swimming in the adult end of the pool. It's ok provided that you learn as you go. But don't keep bringing that weak game ok?
I mean, Fen, is that the best cheese you got?
Post a Comment