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”
Sorry but Thompson said that in relation to a demand to withdraw US troops, something that even you support. Thompson was totally out of line here and trying to appeal to the Hannity GOP base. Throwing out “the MoveOn crowd” may rile up Republicans like “the religious right” riles up Democrats, but in this case Fred Thompson was talking about Reid supporting something that most Americans clearly support: setting up a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. That’s not extremist left-wing.
The right needs to get riled up. To counter the BS the left is throwing at us daily as some sort of perverted truth.
If you shout it loud enough and long enough then it becomes true. Time for the right to start shouting back again.
Somebody How may times has Bush said Iraq is “making progress” and stood in front of banners (“Mission Acomplished”) or brought in generators to speak in NO. Both sides are guilty of BS.
Thompson’s correct, of course, and it’s no surprise the Usual Suspects are angry, and dishonest (e.g. Daily Kos).
Elrod…and I’ll suggest you’re parsing the context down to suit your point, as is understandably your wont. In my listening to the entire interview, I took that sentence to be addressing the whole of Reid’s personal manner of conducting “loyal opposition” and not merely the objective argument over military strategy.
And if you want to do a battle of the polls, take a wild guess at Reid’s latest approval rating.
Rudi- don’t let the winger off that easily!
Also- “Scooter just got caught up in the Justice system for ordinary memory lapse- everyone forgets something.”
“We know that Saddam has these weapons now and we know where they are”
“When they stand up, we’ll stand down”
“The British government has learned of an arrangement for Saddam Hussein to buy uranium from Niger”
“If we wait we may be facing a mushroom cloud”
“the US attorney scandal is just a witchhunt by the Democrats.”
“Valerie Plame was never covert and so was not covered by the law”
There has been an organized campaign of disinformation by the right since right after 9/11. It always amazes me why anyone would believe the administration or its allies in the media after so much of what they have put out has been blatantly false.
But 55% of Americans agree with the substance, no matter what his poll numbers show. And Bush never pays any attention to the polls so why should Reid?
mvdg- This outrage is misplaced. Reid is recognizing that we are on a disasterous course- he didn’t put us on it- manipulated intelligence from Tenet, Feith and Cheney did.
The administration said in January that they were giving the Iraqis 90 days to show progress. (Condi) All throughout this misadventure we keep hearing that we should know something in 3-4 months. The deadlines pass without anyone acknowledging that they know anything.
Now they’re going to give Maliki’s government until September to show progress. Realistically, is there any chance that this will happen?
Reid’s approval numbers are much higher than Bush’s – both in Nevada and nationwide.
But to the point of Fred Thompson’s whine about “taking cues from the left wing of the Democratic Party”, I’d love to know what “larger context” he means. That the left wing of the party is pushing for disengagement from Iraq? Well, sure. But it so happens that the left wing of the party is where most of the country is on this matter. Maybe not on other issues, but on Iraq the center and the left in America agree that the US should withdraw as soon as possible.
Kim: the only thing Reid is recognizing is that he can score some political points.
It’s nice to see that Harry Reid and MoveOn.org have an extremely left wing base that encompasses 60% of the American public. They should have no trouble winning each and every election from here on out.
It’s not surprising that a politician from the Right would try his hand at labeling (it’s what they do) what the Left and Far Left is and how everyone fits in.
Should the Left worry about these definitions in the Netherlands, though? Maybe they should inform themselves right away, so when they’re called a Dutch Far-Leftie, they’ll know how to react.
MvdG- Which is what candidates on the right like Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani are doing when they speak out against Reid and say that the country will go on defense if Democrats win. Thompson knows Reid is highly unpopular with the right wing base, who despised him before he made his comments, because he and Pelosi represent their 2006 congressional loss.
Aren’t you even curious why none of the GOP candidates have come out (except for McCain and Ron Paul) with any plan to win in Iraq if/when the surge doesn’t work? Because they know any deviation from Bush’s policy would aggravate their base.
Parroting the ‘majority’ is pure denial and a lie in hopes the weak-minded will climb aboard.
In fact, we do want our soldiers home, HOWEVER, we will let them complete their victory of bringing down a mass murderer and would be assassin.
For the reasonable, there is a video to help us appreciate the mental midgets of the lunatic left;
Regurgitating The Apple: How Modern Liberals Think
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev030507a.cfm
Chris, Elrod and Kritter need not waste their time trying to understand their affliction…Take two aspirin and call the Darwin Nominee Hotline.
Definitions to remember:
Telling it like it is = I agree
Just scoring political points = I disagree
Winghunter,
Why is it that Bush and the Republicans (and the most of the Democrats actually) don’t want to turn over Iraq to a UN coalition for reconstruction and peacekeeping?
That is what the majority of the population supports. In fact, most of the population thinks that the Iraq war is lost.
Actually, much more angering was Thompson’s statement: “They’re as near to investing in defeat of their own country as anything I’ve ever seen. ”
This is pure Dick Cheney. Oppose the Bush plan or call for a redirection of US troops toward the fight in Afghanistan – as all Democratic plans have done – and you are “invested in defeat of our own country.” Joe Gandelman has done a nice job over the last few years explaining why that kind of rhetoric turns off moderates and Independents.
If Fred Thompson wants to be the Dick Cheney candidate and attack the patriotism of the Democrats he can go to hell as far as I’m concerned.
He can join Rudy there too.
Luckily, most of the public has seen through the BS mountain that these “statesmen” are building. Through no action of their own, the Democrats are now seen as tougher on defense and more trustworthy on the war in Iraq.
What astonishes me is that anyone believes the President when he says he working to fight terrorism overseas. Reports from our own military and intelligence agencies before the war said that invading Iraq would increase worldwide terrorism. And now that the invasion is a hellish reality, those predicted increases have come.
Yes, Thomsons is “mainstream” by taking a position only 33% of Americans support.
And Reid, Kos, and Move On are “far left” by taking a position 60% of Americans support.
Welcome to Bizzaro world.
Amazing mind reading ability you have there MVG.
Reid is “scoring political points” and Thompson is “telling it like it is”.
With nary a shred of evidence to support either claim.
And when trying to determine which of these two men are just trying to score cheap political points, it’s helpful to determine which of the two is about run in an election.
You can see whose Talking Points MvdG takes to heart, Davebo. Thompson is telling the GOP base exactly what they love to hear, as Giuli did last week, lol. Amazing how it gets conservatives’ adrenalin pumping when you say that the Democrats are only interested in America’s defeat.
BTW, OT, the “Surrender Monkey” flip-flopping Condi Rice is meeting with the Syrians today. Guess she forgot that we don’t talk to states that sponsor terrorism. I don’t hear the cries from the right accusing her of treason, which they directed at Nancy Pelosi 2 weeks ago.
It really is farcical isn’t it? 1984 was supposed to warn us, instead it has become a Foreign Policy for Dummies guide for our dear leader’s administration.
So what? First of all, pandering to the right is a Repub specialty so why the concern over the pot calling the kettle black? Second, I dont see the Dems in Congress pandering to the left. If anything the Dem congressional position on Iraq is cautious, responsible, and at odds with what the left of the party wants which is complete withdrawal now. I would ask Thompson and the others to explain to me when and under what conditions a Congress can decide to terminate a war that in its judgment is bad for the country. We are not talking about micro-managing the generals on the field. We are talking about the fundamental political question of whether or not to continue an occupation or a war that is damaging us badly. Just because we started it does not mean we cannot also end it if we decide we were wrong and are absorbing more damage than the whole thing is worth anymore. Sen Webb was right. This war was won 4 years ago. The occupation goes on and on. The Brits occupied India for over 100 years. And they STILL couldnt prevent a bloodbath when they left and they were basically thrown out.
Finally, consistent with the responsible positions of our congressional reps, I would ask the left: what if the doom-sayers are right and we leave and a bloodbath breaks out that threatens the entire region? What do we do then? How do we withdraw NOW in a way that does not result in cheering insurgents trumpeting their “victory” over us. Do we bring the troops home or redeploy ala Murtha to be ready to act if needed while we rebuild our strength. I am not saying I agree with the doom-sayers necessarily, but I think it is irresponsible to brush aside their fears. We must be careful and anticipate the worst as we end our occupation, and be ready to defend our vital interests if need be because, whether we like it or not, we have vital interests in that region.
Like I said before, invite a true UN coalition into Iraq to run things. We still have carrier groups in gulf, so we can strike wouldbe terrorists at our plreasure.
Not possible, but not really important either. The Iraq war is mobilizing violent/radical segements of the Middle East population. That is unlikely to change until we leave.
Kritter said
Which is rather amazing given that MvdG agrees with Reid regarding Iraq and disagrees with Thompson.
Talk about being internally confused.
And this..
Yes, for the reasonable, got to the Heritage Foundation.
I guess I should be happy he didn’t suggest Malkin’s Cheerleader video.
I actually think Thompson’s comment is far worse than Giuliani’s. Rudy just said that Democratic policies – and he spelled them out – would make American more vulnerable to attack. It’s a scare tactic, sure, but it’s no worse than saying old people will starve if this or that program isn’t funded. That’s why I agree with Kevin Drum that Dems should have replied by showing how Rudy’s policies make us less safe. Instead many Dems just whined about it.
But Thompson’s comment is far more insidious because he’s suggesting that the Democrats are actually traitors, rooting for America’s defeat. He isn’t just questioning the judgment or policies of the Democrats but the patriotism of those like Harry Reid who call a spade a spade and demand withdrawal from Iraq. I won’t stand for that kind of crap.
Is masturbation better than real sex? I think that is up to the individual(s), but the entire premise of the Thompson-LeftyLib smackdown and most of the comments are the political version of jerking off.
I know that labelholics cannot get out of bed in the morning if they can’t call everything they see right, center or left and that pathology runs rampant at politically-oriented blogs, but there are many things of profoundly greater consequence than this utterly inconsequential flapdoodle.
Enjoy, folks. But please clean up before turning off the lights so that the rest of us don’t slip and fall on your mess.
This post is crap.
Michael, you are flip flopping on the issue being discussed for the sake of backing the new Reaganesque idol of the moment in whatever leaks out of his mouth.
This is pure politcal talking point in action, while Reid is advocating doing what the MAJORITY in this country is asking to be freaking done and calling that politcal pandering????? I call it doing the job by a 2/3rds margin, unless the public doesn’t matter to you in a democracy, or does it matter to you now?
Pyst- You nailed it.
MvdG- most of the time you can look at both sides- but in this case you are buying into the right wing propaganda, but excoriating the left for representing what most Americans have believed for a long time.
There is plenty of evidence that the country was manipulated into this war by an alliance of the VP, head of the CIA and the president. They had many warnings that this would happen, as it did to the British in their post-WWI occupation. They bungled the occupation from the start and have mismanaged billions of dollars and wasted hundreds of thousands of lives. For what? So that Maliki can crush the Sunnis and establish a Shiite led regime that alligns with Iran? That’s not worth one American life or one American dollar.
Taking the position of the majority of the country as opposed to the 20% that back Bush and his war efforts is not pandering to the Daily Kos crowd. Plenty of conservatives who are not currently in Congress have had the integrity to admit that Bush’s policy is a failure- which is what Reid said. Do they hate America and long for her defeat??? Here are a few-
Gerald Ford, Jeanne Kilpatrick, W F Buckley, Henry Kissenger, Andrew Sullivan. Why do you think the Republican debates are being held at the Reagan library? Because the Republicans are forced for partisan reasons to defend Bush’s position, but are embarrassed by him. He and Cheney have destroyed decades of work by our State Dept career officials, and the next president will have to repair the damage.
Kritter,
I’d add that plenty of still serving conservatives have also taken Reid’s position. And a lot more will do so leading up to November 2008.
Ron Paul (ok, really a libertarian) was against the war from the get go, Chuck Hagel has apparantly seen the light. And 13 democrats voted against the funding bill but I haven’t seen any liberal setup a website to campaign for their replacement.
psst….Michael, here is an important nuance that the antagonists would like you to overlook…….despite the poll sentiment for “withdrawal”, the Dems simply cannot convert that into an equal showing of preference for their presidential candidates over Republican contenders.
What this blog and even the recent Democratic debate would have you believe is that the next election is about George Bush. But, unlike the partisans here, regular voters seem to have no problem understanding that Giuliani and/or Thompson are not George Bush. Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates do not run as well against them as they would against the incumbent administration so they simply choose to run against the lame duck administration and hope no one notices.
Giuliani and Thompson do not have that sleight of hand available to them, so they choose to go after someone who will actually be, of or for, office for the next election. Sure, this rhetoric annoys the hell out of the anti-Republicans above. The more important question is does it really go out of bounds to the average American? So far, it does not seem to be.
casualobserver,
That has nothing to do with the inane comment by Fred Thompson. Instead of defending him, you’re shifting the subject to Democratic presidential candidates, something no one here even mentioned.
Well, on the subject of Iraq, they are exact copies of George Bush.
And Iraq is by far the number one subject to those regular voters you’re talking about.
Well, Shaun has this one nailed.
It’s called “sleight of hand”, Chris!
OK, one attempt at nonpartisan sincerity…….first, let’s separate partisan “rhetoricking” and world reality.
Neither Fred Thompson or I (I’ve heard his comments, so I know we agree) believe we should cut the rug out from the US Armed Forces giving counterinsurgency strategy at least a trial shot. After all, any future conflict will most surely involve the hide and seek warfare we’re facing in Iraq. Yes, Bush/Rumsfeld/Casey/Abiwhatever executed wrongly and the American public is now behind you because of that (BUT, not because they’ve converted to pacificism per se). Repeat…..not because we went to war, but because we bungled the war. If Petraeus wants to September 1, we’re betting the ranch he manages something positive by then and we’re not giving in before then.
So, what is a Republican to do in reality for 2008? “OK, a Republican administration badly prosecuted the WOT, therefore, the only fair thing for us Republicans to do is to agree with everything a Democrat now says and yield the Presidency to a Democrat” ? No, the Republican is going to play to the point the American voter is hardly equally sympathetic to badmouthing American prowess and indirectly, US troop competence (the “war is lost” comment), nor equally sympathetic to the notion of actually holding troop funding hostage to a withdrawal timeline and finally, not equally sympathetic to someone (or a political party representative) who might just be sounding just a little bit like a quitter moreso than a go-getter in terms of future antagonistic events.
Like it or not, Chris, Harry Reid has opened himself up for this type of opposing party rhetoric and Fred Thompson just drove through the opening to play to those things above that the American voter still seems to be making its mind up about.
It’s political hardball, not policy wonking on a blog. Get used to it, it’s only going to get rougher from here on out.
Isn’t this just the way the right deflects blame and distracts attention from the lack of progress that we are making in Iraq? If you look at the past 4 years its possible to detect a distinct pattern:
The president makes policy on the war, and Congress funds it with the view that the funding will lead to actual progress in 4-6 months. The 4-6 months goes by the policy is reviewed and the progress on the ground is found to be wanting. Anyone who dares notice and complain is labelled a defeatist for not supporting our president, the troops, our country in a time of war.
This rhetoric is not new- it is just being picked up by the GOP’s presidential candidates, so that they don’t have to come up with any real answers as to why the Iraq policies always fail.
Someone should ask Fred Thompson why, after over four years, we’re still funding this war off budget with emergency supplemental spending bills.
Kim: not at all. I know that you read my blog and I am sure you know that I constantly say that both parties do it. Both the Republicans and the Democrats. Political pandering is what they do best. That is the frustrating thing with politicians: in the end they care less about what is good and more about how they can win elections.
“Majority”: say it long and often enough and I am sure it will be true one day.
Kim,
That comment about Rice was one of the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. The last I checked, it’s the Secretary of State’s job to conduct diplomacy with heads of state and the complaint with Pelosi going there was that it’s not the Speaker of the House’s job to carry a message to foreign leaders. And since you’ve been one of the people who’ve been screaming about the Bush administration’s refusal to “talk to our enemies”, isn’t it a bit absurd for you to now criticize Rice for doing exactly what you’ve been calling for (and of course, ignoring the fact that ‘talking’ can be done in many ways and has different effects at different times, it’s not as simple as ‘talk’ or ‘don’t talk”)? Sheesh. Never miss an opportunity to criticize, I guess, even if it doesn’t make sense.
Yes, MvdG usually you do.
Then why come out with a post titled “Fred Thompson tells it like it is” while portraying Reid as pandering? That’s what’s setting folks off.
The rhetoric is always used to keep anyone from asking what we can realistically expect to achieve or noticing that none of the benchmarks have been met by the Iraqis. I’d have much more respect for these candidates if they came out and said they’re worried about starting a regional war by withdrawing troops. But I’m sick and tired of hearing how the Democrats are obstructing the Iraqi government’s last chance for a stable democracy. Maliki isn’t even trying to establish a unity government- he’s letting the US fight the insurgency for him while he purges the army of officers that have actually tried to curtail sectarian slaughter. They’re not planning to share power in any meaningful way- that’s why there’s never any progress.
CStanley,
I agree that Bush shouldn’t be criticized for sending Condi to talk to Syria’s leaders.
What does deserve criticism is promoting her to Sec. of State after her horrible performance as NSA.
But then, that’s nothing new to this heckuva administration.
CS-The reason Condi’s trip was notable was that all along this administration has deemed talking to Syria and Iran as appeasement as you are very well aware. Now out of the blue, they decide it isn’t. Its always about the politics not the policy with this WH. So all of a sudden this is good foreign policy?
GOP congressmen have visited- in fact one accompanied Pelosi on the trip, with nary a word from this WH. They singled out Pelosi because she is already despised by their base- it was politics, plain and simple. She said nothing against Bush – and did not try to set policy. Whether or not you or any other Republican like it or not, she is a political leader of this country, and as such deserves the president and Vice President’s respect.
Kim the problem with that argument is that you assume that this trip comes out of the blue and that it is politically motivated. I’ll give you the political motivation inasmuch as any State Dept tries to score good foreign policy points in order to shed favorable light on the administration (remember Clinton’s attempt to pull off a Palestinian peace accord at the end of his term). That part is true, but not a bad thing because it just means they’re seeking good outcomes- of course they also want the credit if they succeed.
But out of the blue? Says who? You know, all along when people were saying “we should talk!”, I’ve known that we’d come to this point when the administration sets up the situation and decides it’s the right time for a meeting and then you guys say “Oh! Oh! I thought they said they wouldn’t talk to them!” It’s so ridiculous and overly simplistic to say we should or shouldn’t sit down for bilateral talks with any nation’s leaders (I thought that conservatives were the ones who are always accused of seeing things in stark black and white??) It all depends on the circumstances and whether or not we’ve been able to create leverage in order for the talks to bear fruit. Nixon knew that when he went to China (read Kissinger’s account of this sometime and you’ll see what I mean- Nixon didn’t just decide to go, he set up a situation so that he COULD go).
BTW, Kim, it’s not just Republicans who were unhappy with Nancy’s shuttle diplomacy. Or has the Washington Post become part of the vast right wing conspiracy? (I don’t think Rupert Murdoch owns or controls that paper yet, does he?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html?nav=rss_opinion
I don’t object to Rice going, I don’t object to Pelosi going. I object to the way for years, anyone who even mentioned talking to Iran or Syria was accused of Chamberlain-style Hitler appeasement, and made out to be either a fool or a traitor. Bush objected strenuously when the surrender monkeys put it in the ISG report -probably because it was supported by Democrats, lol. Then surrepticiously, Rice, just for the heck of it, ends up in Syria talking to their foreign minister. Tell me how that equals a coherent foreign policy. And why are you not strenuously objecting -as you have agreed all along when the policy was NOT to talk to them???Oh but you think its all part of some grand plan.
I’m sorry but this administration didn’t think it needed a post-invasion plan for Iraq or to keep adequate forces in Afghanistan, so I don’t think they are sophisticated enough to make sure that the talks work or not. Bush is no Nixon-who had a brilliant mind for foreign policy. And Condi- though she’s making a sincere effort is no Kissinger. There hasn’t been a coherent foreign policy since 2001, mostly because of inter-agency feuding between State, Defense, Cheney’s office and the CIA. That’s why they are looking for a war czar, and also why they haven’t found any takers.
BTW- WaPo used to be a liberal newspaper- but they are no longer. I get it every day, and read their editorial page every day. I’m not saying they’re right wing, but they definitely supported the neocons, and still support Bush’s Iraq policy.
MvdG: “Kim: not at all. I know that you read my blog and I am sure you know that I constantly say that both parties do it. Both the Republicans and the Democrats. Political pandering is what they do best. That is the frustrating thing with politicians: in the end they care less about what is good and more about how they can win elections.”
MvdG: “Fred Thompson tells it like it is”
Hope you got paid for propoganda like that LOL.
MvdG: “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’.”
The 65+% that want us out of Iraq are the mainstream…read a friggen poll man.
MvdG: “Never ask an extremist whether his views are extreme.”
Got any cute quips about egotistical blowhards for yourself while you’re acting above it all? LOL
Shill one second for your ideological favorite, then the next come back with the otherside being big bullies for taking offense, then next play as if you are somehow above doing anything of the sort.
Pure ego grandstanding with that last quote, I puked in my mouth a little when I read it.
Kim,
CS definitely seems stuck in the past on her opinion of the WaPo. I haven’t seen a liberal opinion come from them for a while now.
Michael, how long ago did you start following American politics? In spite of your agreement with Thompson the truth about the political environment in this country is that the far right that is the only power in the Republican party now has had mouthpieces calling anyone who disagrees with them socialists, Communists, radical leftists, traitors and other equally misleading names for years. Thompson’s comments are just a continuation of the strategy that they’ve followed for years. The Daily Kos and MoveOn are hardly the only groups that have been subjected to Republican diatribes.