An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Fred Thompson Tells it Like it Is
Well, Fred Thompson succeeded in pissing the left-wing of the Democratic Party off by saying that MoveOn and Harry Reid are “adhering, to the extent they can, to the most left-wing element of their base.”
Faiz and others can try to make themselves look like the mainstream all they can, but these people are even considered to be left-wing here, in the Netherlands.
Even Daily Kos repeats the talking point: they are not far left, no, they are ‘mainstream’ and those who disagree with their views are simply ‘right-wing’.
Never ask an extremist whether his views are extreme.
Cross posted at my own blog
54 Responses to “Fred Thompson Tells it Like it Is”
Because you are the one who is making it into a false dichotomy of “talk or don’t talk”, Kim. My position all along has been that there are times and situations when it would benefit us to have dialogues and other times when there is nothing to be gained from that. And although I anticipate that you’ll point out the short time period between Pelosi’s visit and Rice’s, neither you nor I knows what has been going on behind closed doors; it’s probable that the WH and State Dept knew back in April that Rice would be going, but that doesn’t mean that it was appropriate for a non-diplomat to intervene in the meantime. Pelosi’s flub of the ‘message’ from Olmert is a perfect example of why she shouldn’t have been there. Saying the wrong thing can give wrong impressions and can undermine the clarity of a message.
Jim: I never said the WaPo was liberal, I was saying that it can hardly be considered a conservative mouthpiece.
This is what I think, CS. The WH could not come out and announce a change in its strategy since just about everyone has been saying that they eventually will have to talk to Iran and Syria. Bush has shown that he doesn’t respond well to pressure even when he knows a decision or policy change is inevitable—the Rumsfeld firing is one example of this, hanging onto Gonzales is another. When others pressure him he does the opposite or holes up in his bunker.
The ISG has been urging this as have the Democrats. Even the Republicans must have known any regional solution necessarily would involve Iran and Syria. Since Christmas bipartisan coalitions have been visiting the region, including Syria. So Pelosi’s trip should have been no big deal. But Bush and Cheney wanted to score some political brownie points. So they ok’d the trip, let the State Dept brief her, then played gotcha when she returned home.
Cheney is the source of our isolation policy, he has been at odds with the State Dept over it, and Condi finally won out on the issue. Its not part of any great plan, as foreign policy has been in constant disarray with infighting and turf wars between the various agencies.
Well, you can think what you want and I can think what I want, Kim, but neither of us is privvy to the internal communications of State to know the actual truth of the matter. What is funny though is if you go back to the archives of this blog from the time when the ISG was released and we were all discussing “why not just talk to Syria and Iran as they recommended”, I explained my view that the administration was right not to jump into that but that I suspected that they would try to leverage a position to eventually be able to begin negotiating with them (I inferred this partly because Rice isn’t as incompetent as some of you seem to think she is and also because Gates and others who were on the ISG were not complaining that the administration wasn’t jumping to negotiate right away- Gates even made a comment, when asked, that he felt that the time had to be right before negotiating). There hasn’t been much movement on that (though the commanders say there’s at least been a decrease of influx of fighters via Syria recently) but the other issue here is that the recent conversation was NOT a bilateral negotiation. We still don’t have the leverage to get Syria to butt out of Lebanon or stop funding anti-Israeli terrorism, and we’re not going to back down on the investigation of the assassination of the Lebanese PM. So we’re not going to sit down for bilateral negotiations on broader issues, we’re just talking to Iraq’s neighbors at the request of Iraq’s govt, about border issues and other regional interests. If you really can’t see the difference then I’d say you are just blinded by the anti-Rice Dem partisan rhetoric. And I’m sure you’ll accuse me of quoting GOP talking points here but I’m just using common sense: There are correct times for negotiations and incorrect times. Why in the world would you give an audience to someone who is going to lie to you, and to whom you are not willing to concede what he’s asked you to concede? What is the point (particularly since these leaders will then use it as a propaganda tool)?
BTW, Rice has also said that she would talk to Iran about border issues too (but was snubbed by their diplomat) and that she’ll begin bilateral talks with them as soon as they swear off the nukes. So, I’ll preempt any criticisms of her if and when the time comes for that to happen and I’ll refer you back to this comment at that time if/when it comes.
Where in the world did you get this timeline? I distinctly remember criticisms of Pelosi’s trip before she went (though she wasn’t excoriated as some have said, she was mildly criticized). Then when it was clear that she was going with or without the State Dept’s blessing they went ahead and briefed her…what else were they supposed to do, just let her go off as a loose cannon?
Playing gotcha? I think we’re seeing a bit of projection here.