Replies

One other thing: The ability to communicate the war aims of an administration is vital...an area almost everyone now agrees has been one of the chief failings of this President. He’s fallen miserably short in explaining what this war is about to the American people.

I must say that Thompson’s muddled pronouncements don’t fill me with confidence, either. In fact, they make me shudder.

But, Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee are no better. They’re babes in the woods when it comes to foreign affairs. And even worse, they don’t even know what they don’t know.

At a time when local successes are happening in Iraq because tribal leaders increasingly are seeing al Qaeda as teh occupiers (rather than US forces), how would it possibly be a good idea to make public statements that put the focus back on US-as-occupiers by stating that we plan to be in Iraq for the next 60-70 years?

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.

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