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."
I may have to if Paul doesn't denounce these fricking moonbats who are hijacking his campaign soon.
Amen! EEE you have the passion now you just need to have the perfect candidate to use it on.
>>
Duncan Hunter will soar as more people get acquainted with him and his stellar record.
>>
He’s running out of time. This was said about GW Bush and Steve Forbes in 1999, and Forbes had a lot more money to spend. He did not do so well. Hunter doesn’t even have what Forbes had.
Stranger things have happened. The scenarios point at Romney. He is the most competent and best funded. He won’t be viewed as an extremist. He did a stint in Massachussetts, which will get him a second look from all moderate independents. His positions are all published and provide balm for conservative concern. The only real question anyone can have is his abortion stand and the only impact a president has on that is USSC nominations, which have to pass the Senate anyway.
He’s the best qualified guy running on either side, including Richardson.
Put a fork in Thompson. He’s done.
I agree with you 100%. But I'm saying 60 or 70 years because what Thompson was asked specifically, according to the article, was whether we should do something similar to what we have in Korea and Germany -- where we have had troops for 60 or 70 years, and no end in sight.
I agree with Thompson that that would not be a positive thing. If I'm remembering correctly, part of Rummy's transformation of our forces was to try to get away from extablishing post-war bases and never leaving (ala Korea and Germany). Of course we have to stay until the war is really won -- and Thompson himself has said that over and over. But planning to be there permanently is IMO not the best way to use our military resources.
It's a staging area of sorts with a U.S. Navy presence.
Well, to be honest, IF I had to choose from the current top poll candidates, I would have to go with Romney. Just for the reasons you stated. The others leave me stone cold. I don’t trust Romney much either, but he has the best resume. I would have to hope that his conversion on social issues is genuine. If it is, he would be acceptable to me. But that does worry me.
But!! I am sticking with Hunter all the way. IMO, he is by far the best candidate.
That's the reason why Condi Rice needs to stop watching football and get to work on a Treaty. Normal country-to-country relationships. There are a lot of things like bases and stuff that must be agreed to by countries. It's a contract that every other country can see clearly. Both countries can make changes to the original treaty if they both agree to. Usually signed over a quaff of wine and some stinky cheese.
You can send Hunter money here:
www.gohunter08.com
for the sake of our country. It’s still early.
We can’t make our decisions according to poll #’s.
December 11, 2003
“In a head-to-head match-up between Dean and Congressman Richard Gephardt, 43% of Democrats would now prefer Dean as their nominee while just 32% would prefer Gephardt. Before Gore’s announcement, Dean was preferred by just 36% to Gephardt’s 31%.”
snip from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gore_news_boosts_dean_in _polls
And it was John Kerry who ended up being the Dem nominee.
Funded by Government of Iraq.
Not on the US Dime.
This was started 10 months ago.
He didn’t propose it.
He saw it working and is now trying to claim it.
The Iraqi PM proposed and funded the plan to rotate IA units thru training and combat zones.
As I said, your favorite politician pulled an old stunt:
“Find and parade and get in front of it”
“That’s the reason why Condi Rice needs to stop watching football and get to work on a Treaty.” LOL
“Usually signed over a quaff of wine and some stinky cheese.” LOL again.
The US has a hefty check to pass over before the ink is dry in the tune of millions or billions of dlrs. We always seem to get the short end of the stick.
I understand we were asked to vacate our bases in Saudi Arabi. So since we freed Iraq, you would think it was okay to build bases as we have in other countries like Japan, Korea, etc.
Don’t know whatever happened to Joe Biden’s initiative that passed last year in the Senate that opposed permanent bases in Iraq. Guess we would have to define permanent.
Who knows what games they are playing. So yes, if it is Rice, Gates, Bush, someone work it out so we have/don’t have permanent bases and can finish the job.
onedoug wrote: “Put a fork in Thompson. He’s done.”
Wish I had a dollar for every time some fool has said that over the last few months...
AuntB wrote: “Have you noticed how his numbers have fallen once he finally got in the game?”
have you noticed how Duncan Hunter’s numbers are still well under 5% after being in the race for nine months?
Abcdefg wrote: “Please define ‘win’ in this context.
Victory, as defined by Thompson, is “when normal people can go to worship without fear of being blown up” and “when political leaders can meet without being blown up.”
I thought he said little kids were making them.
Regardless how rich you wish you were, I’ve contended numerous times before this that I don’t think Thompson has the energy, despite his rapier like pen, to go the distance in this thing. Wheather I’m another of your fools is irrelevent to the issue. The nomination’s the subject. Were the elction here in CA tomorrow, I’d vote for Hunter. But we’ve got awhile. We’ll just have to see how they appeal. My opinion now is that Thompson’s out of it. I hope he’ll change my mind, but I doubt it.
“Later on in that article, Rudy says he is running because we need his leadership. For what? to doubt our ability to win a war?”
Yeah, some leader.....paper tiger.......
“Why didn’t he just say that? He’d have been a lot better off.”
Better off than what? He’s running first or second in most reputable polls and even supporters of the most obscure candidates must admit that he’s been in the top tier since he entered the race.
UNFIT --- to be Commander in Chief..
I need to study his position in a bit more detail before I make a final determination..... If he is not 100% committed to FIGHTING and DEFEATING Al-Quida in IRAQ.. 99% is not good enough... If you want to be Commander in Chief.. there better be NO DOUBT in your mind that the FRONTLINE in the war on Terror is BAGHDAD, IRAQ... PERIOD !!
He basically says “git ‘r done, bring ‘em home” a variation on Reagan’s “we win, they lose” them and now he’s all but “cut in run”?
Two days ago he was great on immigration, today he makes a rational case for ending the war, states there are and have been issues, something that has been rehashed time and time again on this very forum, and he’s doomed? Please, I don’t know of any conservative who thinks we should be there with anything short of a small security force after we win this thing, which BTW is something FDT pointed out, up to even stating a worthy goal for victory. It would be nice for Iraqis to go about their business without being blown up. I know I enjoy a day out running errands without high explosives myself.
So Fredheads, keep them on, he is doing what he always does and speaks the plain truth. The rest of you know that’s true, or perhaps you want 160,000 Americans there for 50 years.
Anyways Thompson himself did add that “What might be necessary in the future, you can never tell,” so I think anyone can see that is a reasoned response. I would hope we could do away with the need for anyone there, we have Air craft carriers and other presence in the region and the Iraqis themselves have made it know they would like us to leave at some point.
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.