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."
What I am thinking is that Thompson’s answers, as usual, are as clear as mud.
Why are you saying 60 to 70 years? I would plan on staying as long as there are threats in that part of the world. Better to be there preventing terror state uprisings than have to keep going back in over and over again fighting the same damn war.
>>
If you SINCERELY want competence, and I hope you do, Hunter is the guy:
>>
You’re right. He has it. When he has money too, he is a threat to win. But . . . not until.
Please define "win" in this context.
“I think we clearly didn’t go in with adequate forces the first time,” the former Tennessee senator said.
Fred is correct. We went in with what we had. Remember we went to war with Clinton’s army. Or what was left of our military after he destroyed it. I seem to be the only person alive who remembers even the democrats who now oppose the war after voting for it. In the run up to the war they complained that President Bush was taking too long to get started. He had to quickly reassemble our broken military and get them shipped out in a short amount of time.
“Please define “win” in this context.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917296/posts
I’d say we are just about there.
You don’t see me defending Bush much, but one thing he said at the outset of this thing was we’d be there a long time.
We have to stay long enough to leave it at least as good as we found it, if at all possible. We won’t win allies being surrender monkeys either.
And this, is right out of John McCain. “”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.”
I have a feeling that when the conservative base wakes up, they will start funneling money to Hunter. The base is searching, only they are looking in all the wrong places. First it was Thompson to the rescue, but that is fizzling. Now it is Huckaabee’s turn. The bloom will be off that rose, his record won’t stand up to scrutiny. Eventually, people are going to turn to Hunter. Duncan Hunter will soar as more people get acquainted with him and his stellar record.
That is the position of the Log Cabin Republicans.
I’m still waiting for Fred and Rudy to trot themselves on over to Iraq and see for themselves before they offer so much ‘expetise’. But then if you can’t make it to the debates, well...... I’ll trust the opinions of the guy who has had whatever kind of security clearance he had for 4 years as chairman of the Armed services committee.
Except that the Saudis won’t let us use the bases for attacking another Muslin country, like Iran, or am I mistaken?
The only one trashing Fred, is Fred. Have you noticed how his numbers have fallen once he finally got in the game?
Paul, but it's more of a strategic support because he's bringing in independents and libertarians back into the GOP. If Hunter's nominated I'd walk over hot coals to vote for him. I've always liked him.
Bahrain isn't part of Saudi Arabia it's a country all by its lonesome.
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.
PSSSST FREDDIE...
HOWSABOUT: THIS RELEASE
‘WE’RE STAYIN IN IRAQ LONG ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO BOTH WIN THE WAR AND BE ABLE TO LEAVE ENOUGH PERMANENT BASES THERE TO ENSURE THE
FREE FLOW OF OIL AT MARKET PRICES....”
SEE THATS WHAT YOUR STANCE SHOULD BE..
PUT THESE WORDS DOWN ON YOUR 3 X 5 CARDS..
‘IM FOR STAYING IN IRAQ FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES TO PROVIDE PERMANENT PROTECTION FOR THE FREE FLOW OF OIL AT MARKET PRICES...THE...LAST TIME I LOOKED..I CONCLUDED THAT OIL IS THE LIFE BLOOD OF AMERICA AKA THE GREASE OF DEMOCRACY. SO ITS VITAL WE WIN AND PERMANENTLY PROTECT OUR OIL SUPPLY’
......THANK YOU FOR YOU KIND ATTENTION...PLEASE ENJOY YOUR SALADS AND RUBBER CHICKENS....JEEEEESH
Why didn't he just say that? He'd have been a lot better off.
You bet!! Listening to Hunter in the debates or during interviews is comforting. He is what every other candidate wishes to portray themselves as, he knows his stuff. Hunter doesn’t hem or haw. The facts roll right off his tongue. Why are so many of our fellow citizens so slow to pick up on that?
Oops, my mistake, I thought it was. Will they let us use the base for that purpose, though?
“The only one trashing Fred, is Fred. Have you noticed how his numbers have fallen once he finally got in the game?”
So true! The fact that Huckabee is moving up testifies to that. Conservatives are still searching for their candidate.
I'm at a loss to understand your 'strategy'. Would you walk over hot coals for Paul? C'mon, EEE, join us in the hot coals for Hunter!
They simply haven't seen him yet. People really don't pay attention until right before the primaries. Why do you think some want Hunter gone NOW before he's well known? Sad, but true.
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.