An Almost Unforgivable Mistake That Should Not Have Been Made
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (119) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The departure of Mark Corallo from the Thompson campaign was a sure sign that what dazzled so many of us from the Thompson non-campaign was going to fizzle. And so it seemingly has with a mistake that should not have been. The Thompson non-campaign extravaganza is starting to take on the appearance of a same old-same old Johnny Come Lately campaign non-event.
Firing staff members when getting ready for the campaign is not, in my opinion, a big deal. But it should be noted that my understanding is, notwithstanding press reports to the contrary, it was Todd Harris, a new hire to the campaign, who made the almost unforgivable mistake on behalf of Fred Thompson.
And Fred, being the candidate, must take responsibility. And the campaign, being the campaign, should be questioned about why it is firing staff members to bring on more staff with better experience when the people with better experience are making almost unforgivable mistakes.
You see, I'm told it was Todd Harris who said that capturing Osama would be symbolic and that he should be tried with due process of law. Thompson himself, a day later, said Osama should be killed.
That's all well and good, but the first statement, regardless of who said it, should never have been uttered by any Republican Presidential candidate or his campaign.
One would hope that on the fundamental, driving issue of national security -- the issue that is driving so many as we head toward 2008 -- having to backtrack on the very basic issue of what to do with Osama would be unnecessary.
The first Thompson statement was a tacit endorsement of the Clinton policy this nation repudiated after September 11th.
And at this stage in the game, even Hillary Clinton has answered more competently on that subject that the Thompson campaign's first stab at it.
That the campaign required a second stab at that basic question makes me shudder with disbelief.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The primary season begins: What are we going to do with this "upper tier" notion? — Comments (71) »
An Almost Unforgivable Mistake That Should Not Have Been Made 119 Comments (0 topical, 119 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Not immediately executed, I can understand. But I would assume we would detain him as an enemy combatant, no trial required.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I don't think 'due process' means the same thing coming from Fred Thompson as it does coming from, oh, Chuck Schumer.
And I assume we would follow the procedures required in the Geneva Conventions should we not shoot him on the battlefield, personally, including giving him a hearing to determine status.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I value the information more than the personal revenge. This is a war, not a manhunt.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Let me guess, you're opposed to putting a terrorist in a cold room to get information?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
You can put them on a rack, put them in a freezer, put them in boiling oil--I really don't care. Terrorists have 1 right--the right to die and not necessarily quickly.
Hopefully we can have both, at least for a while (ultimately we'd probably want to execute him). Keep him alive and extract as much information as possible by whatever means necessary while making his life utterly awful every day. Sometimes we CAN have our cake and eat it, too!
they do, after all, know much more than we ever will about torture. Done properly, OBL could suffer immeasurable agony for an extended period of time.
Hey, I'd plop down the $19.95 for the DVD!
I think that DVD would outsell Girls Gone Wild! You could even have funny out-takes with the torture equipment malfunctioning and other hilarious bloopers. And you could dress him up in comically humiliating outfits -- like a schoolgirl or a Hassidic Jew. And make him ride a pig (considered unholy to touch). Oh, and speaking of pigs, of course we'd give him the Deliverance (movie) experience at least once a day, courtesy of the biggest, meanest, loneliest and most "amorous" inmate we can find (heck, we could have a "reality" TV show with a contest among inmates to see who wins the chance each day to p*rk him (had to bring in another pig reference). Oh my, so much to work with. Really gets one's creative juices flowing.
interruped by phone call. Remove "We may take every " from second para.
should read "The fact is that, if captured alive, OBL will be tried. Due process. There is no other option. To pretend there is another option is disingenious."
But I think that you are overreacting.
If we get a sighting from a Predator, or a sniper gets a clear shot from a mile away, by all means kill him. In point of fact, if we have actionable intelligence on his location, I'm not against using a couple of nukes inside some caves to drop a mountain on the [bleeped so I don't get blammed].
On the other hand, if as a result of storming his location and he waves the white flag (or finding his spider hole), the troops should follow the standard rules of war and capture him alive. After we've pumped him for all the information we can get from him, he should be put on trial before a tribunal like Nazi war criminals before him. Televised the whole time.
As for his capture being symbolic, that IS the natural result of what we are being told about him and his organization. If he isn't able to command direct actions, his capture is symbolic. That doesn't mean it is without meaning or without a major impact in the current GWoT.
He didn't merely supply a few bucks and the rah-rahs, so why is he still alive? Why is no one demanding bloody vengeance?
But Erick's broader point was the competency of Thompson's campaign. While this one minor episode won't make a difference, what does it portend for the future?
Fred Thompson promised us a different kind of campaign. He should answer the question completely and truthfully with no backtracks or apologies designed by a campaign staff. This would be a positive thing, rather than a breakdown in discipline which a campaign apparatus naturally fears. This campaign has to be about Fred Thompson, not some juvenile op. (I'm thinking of another campaign, right now.)
most people have sympathy for blind people, but I'll be more than happy to throw the switch, pull the trigger, or whatever else is needed to mete out proper justice.
As for you broader point, my point is that I don't think it was a misstep and therefore is no precursor to problems in the Thompson campaign. I think two people answered different questions with entirely appropriate answers. Kill him if that's our best option (predator drones and snipers aren't usually good for capturing alive), but if we can capture him and put him on trial before the world (and not have some liberal activist jurist(s) presiding at the trial) I'm not sure we don't gain more in the GWoT from that.
I don't think it is a mistake either. That being said, I can understand why some would think it was. The conventional wisdom is that if you want to appeal to conservatives, you express a desire to skin the monster alive.
Also remember Howard Dean's sentiments, some three years ago:
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
Dean added he is certain most Americans agree with that sentiment.
Later, Dean released a statement clarifying, "I share the outrage of all Americans. Osama bin Laden has admitted that he is responsible for killing 3,000 Americans as well as scores of men, women and children around the world. This is the exactly the kind of case that the death penalty is meant for.
"When we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice and treated in the same manner that President Bush is recommending for Saddam Hussein."
It could be considered a mistake to express an opinion which could be called similar to one of Howard Dean's.
Whatever.
It's going to be interesting to see how Thompson (and how his campaign) deals with gaffes and things portrayed as mistakes.
But what we all should remember is that on a political blog like this one, the more skeptical we all are of our would-be nominees, the better. Whomever gets the nod will be the person who stands between national security and Hillary Rodham.
is not what someone else defines for him.
I would like for Mitt Romney to answer questions completely and truthfully, especially how he sees the long war on terrorism. I would like for Mitt to explain his conversion from an pro-abortion advocate to a sanctity of life advocate. And I would like for his answer to not include "Reagan was pro-abortion." No answers forthcoming to this point. And little criticism about that fact, either.
The Thompson statement may or may not portend any future. He may or may not be successful. But the idea that some great chink has been discovered in the Thompson armor has been revealed is something of a stretch.
Barring something big from Fred Thompson, it is safe to call Rudy Giuliani the man-to-beat who will not be beaten. We know Rudy, and in the remaining months, Thompson's mistakes -- when he makes them -- will be magnified. His solution is more concentrated than is Giuliani's, at least until voters know what he portends.
I don't think you'll hear any explanations of anything from Mitt Romney, and I think it is possible that he's peaked.
I will work enthusiastically to promote Giuliani if he is the Republican nominee, but I'd like for him to explain what he meant here.
I will work enthusiastically to promote Thompson if he is the Republican nominee. Or for Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, etc. If there are issues, I hope the candidates or the campaigns address them.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I just don't think he will survive the base becoming more acquainted with his positions. A lot of people right now just like the guy on a personal level... heck, so do I... but I expect the issues (abortion, gun control, immigration, etc) to really hurt him when people get more serious about selecting their candidate, a few months down the road.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I assume we're going to be hit with every stumble that the Fred campaign makes.
Can someone give me a high level overview of the mistakes made by Rudy, Mitt, Mike, Duncan, Tom and Ron have made in the last 6 months? I need to get a note pad, first.
I only know one person who is PERFECT and he is not of this earth.
Of the big three,
Giuliani said you could be a strict constructionist and uphold Roe. He also said something that came off as weak on crime re: illegal immigration.
Romney compared working on his campaign with serving in the military overseas. He also apparently had someone on his campaign make a really bad anti-Fred website.
And now Thompson had somebody on his staff make a mild-sounding statement re: UBL.
Isn't the Internet age amazing?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
exploratory committee...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
What is the issue here? What was the misstep?
I guess Fred's staff was supposed to pretend that we're not going to want to capture and interrogate UBL, and just blurt out that we'll enact some scene from the Godfather with the guy upon finding him.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The only bad thing I hear about Thompson over and over again is that his campaign isn't up to snuff. This person or that person resigned or got fired. Now it's some nearly imperceptible verbile miscue.
Would it be possible to be any less relevant to the selection of a President?
Thompson is a pragmatic, plain-spoken Federalist. He's got my vote. I'm not worried about which polticial consultant got snuffed today. I'm not worried that he hasn't burned through millions of dollars or hasn't been campaigning 18 hours a day or making 13 stops in 32 hours.
I think you need to take a deep breath and get over all this campaign staff gossip.
Visit The Scratching Post!
The ability to run a campaign smoothly, communicate crisply and avoid PR fiascoes is very much relevant to the man's ability to govern (and prosecute a war) successfully in the Information Age.
Which isn't to say this particular episode is the biggest deal in the world, but the total picture of Fred's ability to do those things is hugely critical. Bush's poor communications ability and the poor quality of his second-term staff appointments has hobbled his ability to do his job, and we do not need a repeat of that.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
that Hillary runs the best campaign of the bunch. the most money, the least (public) controversy, the fewest mistatements. Which should be the case since she has been campaigning for the office since kindergarten.
I still don't want her for president.
Fair enough about proving one's communication and organizational skills. I'm still not that worried about it. I think he does a fine job communicating.
Visit The Scratching Post!
Is due process such a bad thing? I want Osama dead just as much as the next guy, but seriously, if he surrenders alive (doubtful), it would be dishonorable for the American soldier to shoot him on spot. That's the difference between us and them. If he's captured alive, he deserves a public trial in which the government presents its case against him.
Both the spokesman and Thompson are right. He should have due process. And then he should be fried/lethally-injected/hung/shot/burned-at-the-stake/boiled-in-hot-oil/drawn-and-quartered. And afer he is fried/lethally-injected/hung/shot/burned-at-the-stake/boiled-in-hot-oil/drawn-and-quartered, his head should be placed on a pike outside the White House. But we have to try him first. It's the American way.
not outside the White House. Perhaps outside the rebuilt World Trade Center. Maybe outside the Pentagon. But I think even more than those I would prefer outside his clan homestead in Saudi Arabia.
We did the right thing with Saddam, and he eventually got what was coming to him. The military could have filled him with a few hundred rounds of lead, but they didn't - they captured him and he got justice, albeit from the Iraqis (as it should have been).
Does he deserve to be fried/injected/hung/beheaded/etc. on sight? Probably, but that's not the way we do things in the United States, good or bad.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Erick, you've been a supporter of Fred Thompson all this time and now he's in the race and what do you do, you post something like this that only demeans his campaign efforts. Senator Thompson JUST got into the race. You need to give the man a chance. The Senator is a big boy and whatever came out of his mouth, came from HIM, regardless of what advice he was given by Todd Harris. At this point in time, OBL **IS** essentially symbolic. The guy could be dead for all we know. And, if he is alive, he needs to be shot on sight. We all know that Fred Thompson isn't going to be your average Republican candidate. He's going to be in your face and hopefully the American people will be open to that. It's not Senator Thompson's style to tiptoe around the issues so, Erick, you better get used to it. As far as Hillary is concerned, including her name in the same article as Fred Thompson is an abomination.
Hey Vote4, it's Erick's site and Erick's opinion and he can post what he wants! I'm the biggest FredHead I know, but Fred's campaign messed up big time and it's Erick's right to call him on it. Did you not shudder just a little bit when folks started to compare Fred with Howard Dean?
And I'm not some Rombot posing as disillusioned FredHead; check out my thoughts on Fred here at RedState or at BlogsForFredThompson.com.
Brad, I think the article was reckless and no I'm not shuddering at any comparison to Howard Dean where Fred Thompson is concerned. There is no comparison, but that aside, like I said, this has all just started and there's a long way to go. Nitpicking every single thing isn't going to help Senator Thompson's campaign.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Mr. Erick, sir, with all due respect, you've read way too much into this. Way too much. For heaven's sake, son, allow a campaign to be made up of human beings. If you don't like what's being "reported," wait until Fred says something on camera to address it.
As to the issue at hand, kingnavland is absolutely right. We didn't summarily execute all the Nazi leaders, and the United States of America is different than most other nations in one vital way that is quite germane in this discussion: We believe in the rule of law. We cannot defeat any enemy by becoming like him. If the day comes that we have bin Laden (or any more of his henchmen) in custody, we will follow procedures to get him to the executioner. He'll be thoroughly interrogated in the process. We will not drag his body through the streets of NYC, nor hang him from a bridge, nor behead him in front of a camera, though we may be sorely tempted.
Frankly, sir, I think you should apologize to the Senator for pounding on him like this.
Behead! That was the one I left out. Of course, we're going to have to behead him to stick his head on a pike.
Yes, when I read the remark, then the second take, it made me uncomfortable, not the resoundingly perfect tone I wanted to hear. But maybe that's my own problem with expecting perfection. As Pastor Dan points out, these are human beings,and we are a nation of laws.
I do understand the criticism coming from Erick and others, it's understandable, but a little over the top. May I suggest that the events yesterday and the date today may make all references to UBL and his disposition especially loaded right now? It is my take from reading a number of posts both yesterday and today that many of us are feeling pretty raw and angry--rightfully so. Beating up on our own and each other isn't going to make it better though.
As for Fred's remark, it occurred a couple of days ago. It was jarring then, but in the context of yesterday and today--and with UBL blathering on on his infomercial--it's especially so. Just my take.
I love the gravitas Fred brings to this, but he needs to be a bit more optinistic in his stump speeches.
I'm glad to see my FDT compatriots giving me as much love as the Romney fans.
Heh.
Seriously - I stand by my point. You don't nuance your Osama position and go into "due process" arguments when you are running competently for President of the United States.
If the people of the US can't think rationally when electing a President, then they're going to get what they deserve...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I think most of us here don't think in terms of political mechanics and tactics. So when you come out criticizing on those grounds, we're all still looking for the policy angle that's at issue, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's about keeping Americans safer by finding out as much as we can about the Al Qaeda terror network.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Honestly, Erick, what did you expect you would get? Warm fuzzies? Maybe YOU wouldn't nuance your Osama position as you say, but you aren't Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson is plenty competent and is only just beginning. The left is attacking him enough, to see you jumping on that bandwagon is highly questionable, especially coming from someone who has been supportive of him. If you're deck for Senator Thompson then BE on deck for him instead of waffling.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Oh, pffft. I await someone accusing me of hating Christians for daring to speak negatively of the Fred campaign. It'd be par for the course. ;)
"Franzbots"??!! Let's have no blasphemy here, sir. I'd try to comfort you by telling you that I won't tell Franz, but he is all-knowing so he already knows, even if he's been out in the Beckster's back yard the whole time. I suggest repentance ASAP.
The Prince doesn't need bots. Closest thing he's got to a bot is me. And he's made it very clear if I start "botting" he'll start biting. And I'm not healed up from my erred ways of yesterday. I'm sure in a couple of weeks I'll be able to walk without a limp and the stitches will be removed, but until then the ER photos will serve as a reminder not to mess with The Prince.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
supporting The Prince. He appreciates and he never forgets a kindness.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Well, now it's turned juvenile delinquent, so I'll say bye for now. It was good debate to this point.
Have a great day everyone!
was mentioned! It was the juvenile nature of the debate that demanded Franz be brought into the discourse, simply to elevate it back to seriousness!
My reply was made in response to Ericks comment about hating Christians, prior to the Franz comments. Just prior to that it seemed to start to break down.
Erick,
Have you tried to contact Fred? In the past, you have interviewed him and been very supportive, and I'm sure he could have explained his positions had you given him an opportunity. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but what is your motivation for such a harsh post. To me, your timing is a little suspicious, too. If you believed in Fred Thompson the way that I do, you could not have made this post. If you want to be fair and balanced, why don't you try to set up another interview with Fred, and let him speak to this.
You lose. You went personal against Erick. He wins. Game over.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I don't see anyone going "personal" against Erick. Erick posted an article that people are questioning because he has been a supporter of Fred Thompson, but is now posting negatively against him. I think many of us are finding it strange. Who wins in this really? Certainly, not Fred Thompson and I find that quite unfair coming from a so-called Fred supporter. Sorry, I call it like I see it.
Shelbysbest implied that Erick has an ulterior motive for making this post, suggesting that 'the timing is suspicious' and that he should try an alternate course of action in order to be 'fair and balanced.'
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
And that's a personal attack? I don't see it as such. Maybe he does have a motive behind the way he posted. I could see name calling or a threat as a personal attack, but shelbysbest simply made a suggestion that he may have a motive, hardly a personal attack.
My motivation is the integrity of this site. I've not spared my bytes on any of the candidates and Fred Thompson does not get a free pass just because I'm supporting him.
Look, I know and like Fred and Jerri both very much. But I'm not about to withhold being critical of the campaign on the front page of this site. I'd find it personally dishonest to do so when I think something needs to be said.
Going public how you have doesn't help him either. If you know Fred Thompson as you say, you could have contacted him directly, I would think instead of using the subject in your platform.
We try hard not to do that here. We criticize Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, etc, etc, etc -- and just because FDT is your guy (and isn't subject to *your* criticism) doesn't mean that he's miraculously exempt here.
Oh, and Erick does know them. He's not making that up. And a stauncher Fred supporter you're not likely to find -- but an important part of the primary process is the calling out of wrongs and mistakes on the part of your own people (when warranted) so that these wrongs and mistakes can be corrected before they become handicaps.
It helps, sometimes, to try to be objective -- though your username suggests that that's not a likely prospect.
I never said Erick DIDN'T know Fred Thompson. From what I've read in the past and what you've posted, Fred is Erick's "guy", too, not just MY guy. I still feel the article was recklessly written and since Erick does know Senator Thompson so well, he could have easily contacted him. Certainly, I am able to be objective while being a Fred Thompson supporter, but I'm not going to nitpick every little thing the man does. I don't feel his comments surrounding OBL was as significant as Erick makes them out to be.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends."
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
so maybe I am following Dumbledore's. (Not, mind you, that I would know Erick if I ran into him on the subway, I just know him better than I know Fred.)
I think Erick is seeing a problem where none exists.
This was a huge blunder that will be highly publicized. Howard Dean made the same exact mistake. If Thompson wants to win, he needs to be more careful!
First, Fred's trying to make the point that the war is bigger than Bin Laden and that killing him will not end it. As he said yesterday, someone else will just take his place.
Second, the question to Thompson that elicited the "due process" comment was whether he meant that Bin Laden should just be taken out & shot if captured alive. Thompson's reference to "due process" is the process you & others argued be set up for terror suspects. They go to Gitmo and, eventually, face a military commission. We don't summarily execute people, no matter how despicable they are.
I agree that, sometimes, Thompson slips into "lawyer speak" and needs to stop. But, it's only day five of his campaign. There is going to be some mild shakeout. If this is his worst comment, he'll be fine.
So well written and absolutely true, scfredfan. It's all in the beginning phases and right now Senator Thompson needs our support rather than so much criticism.
Exactly right scfredfan.
I've been (and still am) highly skeptical of Thompson's suitability as a general election candidate, and as someone who if elected could effectively take on the Democrats. But even I can see this criticism of Thompson is way off the mark.
Nothing in the campaign aide's statement suggests bin Laden gets a media circus in district court or the Hague. Due process for bin Laden is taking him out to be shot with no media coverage behind the latrine at Gitmo, after his military tribunal (and after waterboarding him etc. for whatever useful information he might still have after these years in his cave).
And don't even make a big deal of his tribunal or execution. About a week after he's dead, issue a brief press release mentioning the fact.
"You can't handle the truth!" I think there has to be a measured public response by Thompson or any other candidate and that may differ from how they really feel on this matter. I doubt Thompson would urge any military unit to take any extraordinary risk in capturing Osama alive for due process. OBL's due process could occur in seconds out in the field.
Jumping on a campaign like this does no good. If the same level of scrutiny was applied to everyone we'd have no candidates. Too bad the other side(Dems) doesn't have any standards or scrutiny, however.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Why are we trying to shoot ourselves in the feet by blowing this poorly phrased answer by a campaign staffer into something it's not? Of course if bin Laden were captured alive he'd get due process. Saddam with the blood of 500,000 or more on his hands got due process for God's sake. So would Osama. That said I hope, like I suspect Fred Thompson does, he's captured DEAD.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that Fred Thompson is still enjoying a bounce from his formal entry into the Presidential race.
In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Thompson is now the top choice for 28% of Likely Republican Primary Voters. Rudy Giuliani, who has been the frontrunner for most of the year, is close behind with support from 21%. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Senator John McCain each attract 12% of the vote. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee remains atop the second tier at 6% (see recent daily numbers
The only daily poll that counts is the official one on Election Day. Even the weekly poll numbers at Rasmussen bounce around a lot, and Rasmussen is one of the more reliable and most frequent pollsters-- Fred was ahead by a handful for ~5 weeks, then trailed by a handful for ~5 weeks, and we still have something like 16 weeks just to the end of the year.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
his defense consulting work in the case against the Libyan intel agents charged with destroying the airliner over Lockerby, I think he does favor the approach that includes official charges, procedings, and findings of fact over on the spot justice.
That bit of his past has more potential to hurt his chances than this comment noted by Erick.
think this will hurt him.
I mean I am no political expert but this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
What I like so far about Fred is it appears he is not afraid to say what he thinks and I admire that.
I would rather a person tell me whats on their mind so I can get a sense of what they stand for then to feed me some baloney that they think I would like to hear.
Honesty and some common sense will go along way to win my vote.
I think most voters will concur with the intent of your post. Which is why I think Fred will win the election.
Sorry to see what I believe is a total overreaction from you on this matter. Of course, I'm probably not welcome to say that here since I'm just a Fredhead. But "due process" does not necessarily mean Fred would view Osama as a criminal and not an enemy combatant. The context of his comments made clear to me he was just trying to say he was not advocating him being summarily shot upon capture.
But Fred is making folks nervous, and every word is being parsed. That's okay, it's "part of the game" as Fred says. It's still summer, and again, to quote Fred and further anger folks here, "in the summer, flies swarm".
"We are the land of the free. But if we weren't the home of the brave, we would not be the land of the free." -- Fred Dalton Thompson
You are more than welcome to say that, but I think we should bear in mind that the Clinton administration's policy was to arrest and try Bin Laden. The Bush administration's policy has been "shoot to kill."
The original campaign statement sounded like a re-iteration of the Clinton policy.
Fred may have technically just gotten in, but he's been running since about February and the campaign should know better than to say what it said.
The rush to correct it the next day was telling and appropriate.
Erick, plpease go over to BlogsForThompson.com. They have video of the actual question and answer. He was asked to clarify his comment that Bin Laden should be "caught and killed" and the reporter specifically asked whether he (FDT)meant we should just kill him as soon as we catch him. Thompson's response was, "No, we have due process to go through. The Pentagon, the due process needs to fit the circumstances they find themselves in. I'm not suggesting that those things happen simultaneously." Poorly stated, to be sure, but I believe he is clearly referencing the enemy combatant process, NOT the old Clinton "full access to US courts" idea.
I am a big supporter of Thompson, but my big concern over the past few days has been his lack of clarity in several of his answers and tendency to slip into "lawyer-speak." I hope (and believe) that this flaw will disappear as he gets into campaign mode.
That doesn't mean that Fred needs to have every nook and cranny of his campaign organization filled.
But at this point he should have a his team's starting lineup in place and be well-funded, on the road, on message, and CLEARLY making his case.
I might add you have an amazing way about you for getting peoples' attention.
Look folks, all the DFT and VFF, and BFF folks that have come here...remember please why you support Fred. [don't forget, of course, that I am right there with you...as many of you posting here already know]
Fred embodies the many things we have found lacking in other candidates...well, we Fred supporters at least...but this is not a fan club. This is an election for the most important position in the most important country on the planet at a time when the most important struggles confront us...and we need a man to take on this responsibility and we need him to get it right. Along the way, Thompson (like his GOP rivals) is going to make mistakes...and he is going to take some shots-some earned, some unfair.
We need to react to these as they come along, not like a fan club, but like a seasoned reasoned body of intellect looking to make sure the right man gets the job...and that he is reminded that he works FOR US...we don't work for him.
We know who we think should take on these challenges...we don't need to react defensively...we need to respond with facts. If this story were untrue, Erick would never have posted it. If this event needs to be held up to Fred so he knows we need him to do better in this area, the Fred I know of would be darn mad if we didn't tell him about it until it was too late to fix it.
Ease up folks-this is bad, and Fred needs his staff to get their act together. He's been in this race for many months (regardless whether the FEC officially knew about it) and we need him to have all this reorg stuff LONG behind him.
There's a campaign to win and he doesn't need to be distracted by stupid human tricks from within his campaign who are supposed to be watching HIS back...not the other way around. I want Fred in every bit as much as any of you...but fergawdsakes, he needs to get his organizations' act together. We need to be arguing policy, not nuance.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Haystack, I may be sounding defensive, but I don't think it's as bad as you & Erick seem to think it is. As I noted, above, please go over to the BlogsForThompson.com site and see the video of the actual question and answer. I believe it shows Thompson is referring to the enemy combatant process when he is referencing "due process." He has a disturbing (for a supporter) tendency to engage in "lawyer-speak" and seems to forget that the vast majority of his audience are not lawyers so his answers seem vague and confusing. Another example, when he was answering a question from CNN at the Iowa State Fair about gay marriage he started referencing "full faith & credit" without explaining what that means. THAT flaw is what he needs to be told about. I don't think anyone who has been paying attention to Thompson seriously believes he wants to give terrorists access to the courts.
while I might be personally concerned about what he did or did not say or mean, the bigger problem is with his handlers, staff, organization, communication breakdowns, et. al.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
that the problem is a bit more fundamental. Fred, right now, has a problem clearly stating what he is thinking sometimes. He needs to, quickly, transition into campaign mode where he can clearly and concisely say what's on his mind. Staff and handlers can't make the brain and mouth coordinate while he is actually talking. I'm seen video of him on the stump in TN and in interviews and he does so well. I am assuming he is just rusty from being out of electoral politics for five years, but he has to get on the ball, and fast.
However much we in the conservative movement might like him, I do not think the public is in the mood to elect another old, conservative, white man from the South.
A lot of us are underestimating the damage done by all the scandals, the over spending, the fumbled war plan, and the immigration fiasco.
A few months ago I came to the conclusion that Giuliani is the only one with much of a chance to beat Hillbama. And even then it will be close. Very Close.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I am beginning to think many of my fellow republicans are becoming as unatatched to reality as the left are. In case you didn't know the Republican party has pretty damn low numbers right now. And I don't see this current administration doing anything that will make people change their mind.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
damn low?...just wondering
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
When has a generic ballot, for example, EVER favored us? I THINK it did in 1994 when we won in an Earth-shattering landslide. That's about what it takes for us to beat the Democrats in generic polling.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Is as much like W as Hillary is. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, most of us Northerners are fully capable of distinguishing between different people who happen to fall into the category "from the South." W's main problem was his inability to effectively articulate and defend his positions in front of an audience. FT does not have that problem.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
but Thompson is not the articulate stemwinder many seem to think he is, he comes across as a fatherly figure, kinda funny, kinda quirky, and slow moving.
Maybe in normal circumstances, a good candidate, but not right now.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
we were denied in 2000, when Rudy dropped out for health reasons. Like Lincoln vs Douglas, where Lincoln lost the Senate race, only to come back and win the Presidential re-match, I would love to see Rudy beat The Hildabeast™ in 2008.
We need to react to these as they come along, not like a fan club, but like a seasoned reasoned body of intellect looking to make sure the right man gets the job...and that he is reminded that he works FOR US...we don't work for him.
Great advice for ALL supporters of ALL candidates. (Even the goddess-in-waiting.)
I have to disagree. Imagine what the reaction would have been if Thompson had said, "If he is caught he should immediately be executed". He would have been portrayed as a bungler right out the gate.
Due process includes determining what intelligence value a detainee has, and how best to extract it. If an execution is indicated, it involves assessing how best that can be handled to extract maximal advantage in terms of the manner in which it is carried out.
It may all be perfectly well for "some guy in a bar", or me for that matter (yep) to blurt out a salty series of epithets and demand Bin Laden be boiled in pig oil and slowly dismembered with tweezers but we expect more of those seeking leadership positions.
And Fred Thompson did not disappoint in this instance. Not at all. Cool, measured, and deadly accurate. Thank you Fred.
"While I believe he should be immediately executed on sight, that's not how we do things in the USA. If he is captured alive, he will be subjected to a speedy trial, undoubtedly followed by a speedy execution"
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
That's the bottom line. Bringing Bill Lacy in will prove to be the thing that makes this campaign run. Those of us who were around working with those guys in 1994 know this.
What I'm seeing here - and it is sad given the long time support of Redstate - is that there was deep, inside access to Fred's campaign to Redstate early on because of the "other" crew. Now that is different - people you guys know are gone - and you want to support them. I feel for the tension, but the '94 team knows how to let Fred by Fred. And that is what we need right now.
So... just let it be. Redstate will be dealt back in as this ramps up I'm sure. Right now, they need some people who can get the basics done (and hopefully not flop a statement or two).
Judging from a few of the comments on this thread, it's clear to me that it's not just terrorists who relish torture.
Personally, I have no problem with Thompson's original statement. Due process is part of what makes America great, and every person we capture should receive it. That's not to say that OBL deserves all the rights of a US citizen, but we shouldn't just throw him in a hole, and we certainly shouldn't follow BrooksRob's stomach-churning recommendations regarding a torture regimen. We're the good guys, remember?
It's just that most of us don't tap out these thoughts on our keyboards when they rush upon us.
Then again, the inhibitory centers of our brain often function less efficiently at 1AM than they do at 7AM the next morning. Which is why we've all had occasions when we've awakened in, umm...unfamiliar territory.
And certainly someone who stumbles across that scene the next morning may have...shall we say...a different perspective on the matter.
So put down your shotgun, TrackerNeil, and take a less censorous view on the preceeding thread. Your daughter isn't the same person she was yesterday. Since you can't unscramble the eggs, you may as well enjoy the omlette.
Umm...when did I recommend that the mods silence this person? He's got a right to speak, and so do I. I'm not getting the "censorship" you mention.
However, I was trying to write in a light vein to highlight that I really didn't believe that BrooksRob et al. were making serious recommendations for U.S. policy but rather that they were getting off on a late-night fantasy thread.
In other words, I was really trying to say to you not to take these statements as reflecting sober analysis.
About censorous:
First, I apologize for mispelling it; the word is censorious.
When I used this word, I was not thinking in the least about censorship - neither suggesting that the moderators silence anyone here, nor accusing you of wanting to engage in censorship of anyone's speech, nor even suggesting that anyone in this thread needed to be silenced.
It's unfortunate that censorious looks very much like censor, as it led you astray in terms of my use of the word.
Rather, I was using this word in the traditional sense of disapproving (in the root sense of censure). It is a slightly archaic word that artistically seemed to fit with the metaphor of the "farmer's daughter" that I had wandered into.
It's amazing how one word can be open to misinterpretation and get a conversation off onto the wrong track. Of course, I've been in your shoes many a time myself...
And yes, I agree that the U.S. should not engage in gratuitous torture of the Islamists we capture.
I confess I am not exactly certain what kind of torture you'd consider non-gratuitous. I assume that's the torture that yields information, yes? Truth be told, my objections to that are twofold:
1) Can we ever be really certain that what we're hearing from a torture victim is the truth? Or is it simply what he thinks we want to hear? What if he's really tough and is just *pretending* to be broken by pain? What if he really doesn't know anything of value? I'm not the only one to question the practical value of intelligence gained by torture; Slate has some really interesting articles about that, if you're interested.
2) I'm worried that if the United States starts torturing prisoners other nations may do the same to our soldiers. After all, if we can claim that waterboarding isn't torture we can scarcely object when other nations do it, yes? Call me tenderhearted, but if at all possible I'd just as soon not subject our men and women in uniform to that kind of threat.
3)I think this kind of policy degrades America's moral standing around the world, and in my view the willingness of other nations to follow our lead is one of our best weapons against international terrorism. When we engage in torture, or deliberately ship suspects to nations that do, we look like hypocrites of the rankest sort, and our enemies turn this hypocrisy into recruitment material
Perhaps I'm unrealistic, but in my view the worst damage done by the destruction of the WTC was Americans' belief in the principles that make this country great. We allowed a gang of terrorists to turn us into frightened children who are willing to spy on our neighbors, throw people into indefinite detention and engage in "tough questioning" techniques that would make Darth Vader proud.
That's my take on it, anyway. I believe in this country and I think we can best minimize the damage terrorists can do not by abandoning our principles but by taking them even more strongly to heart. We're not the world's sole superpower because we torture, after all. :-)
Suppose that OBL is captured alive. What exactly should any President do: Bush, Romney, Rudy, Clinton? Execute him on the spot?
The fact is that, if captured alive, OBL will be tried. Due process. There is no other option. We may take every To pretend there is another option is disingenious.
So the Thompson campaign made a mistake. Maybe. Perhaps you are taking the Obama position that we need to invade Pakistan, Iran, or wherever with the intention of killing OBL.
Thompson has made it clear that the war on terror is the long war, that it must be won, and that, as President, he would pursue the war until it is won. Are you going to get more from Rudy, Mitt, or McCain?
There will be more missteps all of the candidates. If this is the largest misstep by the Thompson campaing, he's in good shape.