Posted on 10/27/2007 4:42:33 PM PDT by BGHater
Republican Fred Thompson warned Saturday that suggestions the U.S. could maintain a long-term presence in Iraq "would not be a good development," and he conceded that mistakes were made that are only now being rectified.
President Bush has suggested there could be a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq, very similar to what the nation has in Korea. But Thompson, who has been a reliable supporter of the war in Iraq thus far, was leery of a long-term presence in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It's hard to see that far in the future, but I would certainly hope not, that would not be a good development," the presidential candidate told The AP. "I would not want to predict that. I don't know why he did."
While Thompson said there are U.S. troops on long-term deployments in places like Germany and Korea, he said "of course not" when asked if a similar deployment should happen in Iraq.
"I don't think that's desirable," said Thompson, though he did leave an opening. "What might be necessary in the future, you can never tell," he said.
Asked to assess the prosecution of the war, Thompson was able to find faults.
"I think we clearly didn't go in with adequate forces the first time," the former Tennessee senator said. "Clearly we didn't understand the nature of what we were facing and that it was going to take a good while in order to get control of the situation."
His described his definition of success in Iraq:
"The average person being able to go to worship without fear of being blown up. ... Political leaders being able to meet without fear of being blown up. They key is stability, and that would signal a level of stability we haven't had."
Like most Republicans, Thompson pointed to signs of success in Iraq and said there's evidence a surge in the number of troops is working.
"There seems to be a level of reconciliation at the local level that we haven't seen at the national level, but everything seems to be judged at the national level," said Thompson.
Thompson has warned that the nation faces in Iraq "kids" who make improvised explosive devices, and it would be a bad signal to lose to such a foe.
"They are being made in large numbers by youngsters along the border there and they are doing a lot of damage to us," Thompson said. "The perception that America could be defeated by this and these people, obviously not alone, for that to be such an integral part of the success of our enemies would be a very damaging thing I think to the perception of our will and our abilities."
Thompson was in Iowa, where precinct caucuses traditionally launch the nominating season, to speak a Republican Party of Iowa fundraising dinner. The most recent candidate to jump into the GOP contest, Thompson proclaimed himself satisfied with how the opening phases of his campaign have gone.
"I think we're as good as we have a right to expect at this stage of the game," said Thompson. "The more deeply they look at it, such as with likely voters, we're within a couple of points of Mayor Giuliani. Considering the amount of time and money my opponents have spent, you've got to feel pretty optimistic."
He dismissed suggestions he runs a campaign that's less intense than his rivals.
"I don't feel the need to impress the national media with the details of my schedule," said Thompson. "I do things my own way, at my own pace."
In his Iowa swing, Thompson's only public appearance was a Saturday night speech.
"We have a very full campaign schedule," said Thompson. "The bottom-line numbers would bear out that we're doing something right. I'm comfortable with that."
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has maintained a lead in most national polls among the Republican contenders, though his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stands are at odds with many in the conservative base of the Republican.
Thompson dismissed that early lead, saying voters are only beginning to focus on the race.
"There's still a lot of game to be played," said Thompson. "I don't think that lead is as great as it was, in terms of his numbers."
Things will change, Thompson argued, when voters begin to focus on the views of the candidates.
"Let's just say there will be more focus on everyone and everyone's positions," Thompson said. "I'm sure there are a lot of voters out there who are really not clear on the positions of all of us, and that includes Mayor Giuliani."
“Thompson wary of long-term Iraq presence”
Good.
I don’t think he’s said anything kooky. It’s probably the way most folks feel about the war. He’s not saying we need to pull out, nor is he saying that going in was a mistake. I think he realizes the need to be there, there are just things that could have been done differently, as we know happens with all military engagements.
No, Thompson wants to win quickly and bring our troops home shortly thereafter.
Ron Paul appears to favor immediate surrender and retreat.
There sure are a lot of arm chair generals and secretary of state’s on FR. Everyone thinks they know everything about Iraq and the Middle East in general. I suspect the reason that Fred is “leary” is that he thought the reporter was talking about a “long term combat role.” He will likely come out with a clarification, I would expect.
According to the article, he was specifically asked about setting up a role for our troops in Iraq similar to what we have in Korea and Germany. We need to be there as long as we need to be there — he’s repeatedly said we need to win the war.
But why would we want to specifically plan to be there for the next 60 or 70 years, minimum?
Guys, my first post was sarcasm.
“I suspect the reason that Fred is “leary” is that he thought the reporter was talking about a “long term combat role.” He will likely come out with a clarification, I would expect.”
Good! Maybe he can clarify this statement.
>>>”I don’t think that’s desirable,” said Thompson, though he did leave an opening. “What might be necessary in the future, you can never tell,” he said. <<<<
My bro sent me this.
QUESTION: What were the official results of a telephone poll, which asked whether people who live along the Mexican border think illegal immigration is a serious problem?
ANSWER: 29% of respondents answered: “Yes, it is a serious problem.”
71% of respondents answered: “No es una problema
seriosa.”
Build Duncan Hunter’s fence!
I think this is a smart tactical statement -- I also think it's smart to diminish the stature of our enemies by calling them a bunch of kids with IEDs (even thought Joe Biden disagrees). It seems to me that unlike some other candidates, Thompson is aware that the statements of presidential candidates can have an effect on the war.
Related:
Rumsfeld Denies U.S. Seeks Iraqi Bases
Says U.S. Has No Plans For Long-Term Military Presence In Iraq
NEW YORK, April 21, 2003
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the U.S. has inspection teams inside Iraq searching for evidence of weapons of mass destruction. (AP)
(CBS) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is strongly denying reports that the U.S. has plans for a long-term military presence in Iraq. Rumsfeld said published reports about the U.S. seeking access to military bases in Iraq are just "not so, not so."
Rumsfeld insisted the reports – which appeared in Monday's New York Times – are "enormously unhelpful," since this conveys an impression that the U.S. is trying to "occupy" Iraq.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/21/iraq/main550350.shtml
This article is NOT a transcript of the interview. So it doesn’t really show the context in which Fred was asked about this “presence.” I’m not taking this to prove that Fred doesn’t believe we will have a long term presence in Iraq. In this article, there is no direct question and answer to that issue. The article refers to what they say Bush has said, but they don’t say that was specifically asked of Fred in this interview.
Again, you think it would be a good thing if we were in Iraq 60 or 70 years from now? That’s the kind of “long-term” he was asked about.
These are the key passages, in my view:
While Thompson said there are U.S. troops on long-term deployments in places like Germany and Korea, he said “of course not” when asked if a similar deployment should happen in Iraq.
“I don’t think that’s desirable,” said Thompson, though he did leave an opening. “What might be necessary in the future, you can never tell,” he said.
Gosh. You’re clear and concise, and make cogent arguments for your position. Are you running, by any chance?
"While Thompson said there are U.S. troops on long-term deployments in places like Germany and Korea, he said "of course not" when asked if a similar deployment should happen in Iraq."
"similar" is the critical word here. It seems to point that Fred is making a judgement that he shouldn't make at this point.
If I were running, I’d be more careful about typos — I see in my last post, I didn’t even manage to spell “the” correctly... :)
Ah, you’d have staff who know how to use spell-check.
;-)
Who are you supporting these days? Is it Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter?
:))
*************
Oh, thanks for the heads-up. It's so hard to tell anymore.
As if we don't have bases in that part of the world. Just what in the world has been all the base construction in Kuwaiti and the United_Arab_Emirates been for.
Don't forget the base we've had in Bahrain for years...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.