How...realy how, after reading/listening to Thompson’s reaction to Bhutto’s assasination can ANY of you think that he is the best man for the job. His ambiguous, uninspiring comments leads one to believe that he has a less than complete understanding of what is going on in this area and the implications that it holds for the international commnity at large. Just because he played roles of leaders on TV does not equate to real world executive experience.
Huh?
Let's see...first off, he didn't apologize for the assassination, like the Huckster. Second, he understands that we are in a war - unlike all the Dems and several of the Pubbies (who give it lip service) and Ron Paul (who is a nut). He understands that part of the war is the battle to control our borders (scratch Rudy, McCain and Huckabee), and he's got a great grasp of (and experience in) foreign affairs (scratch Mitt - who can also be scratched because he is constantly changing his positions, and Hillary will call him on it). So who's left standing, Duncan Hunter? Don't get me wrong, I'd choose Hunter in a second, but he has no money and an approval rating under 5% - so he has no chance.
Fred's title, "U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee" was not a courtesy title from a television show or a movie script - it is was courtesy of 12 years in the United States Senate (and the experience that went with it).
Fred does have his problems but then, so do most of the rest of the Republican Pack of Presidential Candidates. Fred's shortcomings are, I think, more of perception on the part of the voting public - us - we who have and will vote, than a factor of his lack of experience.
Just my opinion, mind and certainly one that Fred (or more specifically, his campaign staff) would do well to pay attention to (because I don't think I'm alone in my uncertainty regarding Fred's Drive and Determination).
Or do you just get paid to post “something”?
Wow do you have it backwards.
1998
The China Connection Is the Real Scandal
"Now we know why the Democrats were so vicious in their attacks on Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). Theirs were the committees that were closing in on the China connection, the scandal that can bring down the Clinton presidency, the scandal that has made Congressmen start to utter the T word (treason). A series of front-page news stories in the New York Times (May 15, 16, 17) essentially vindicated Thompson's charge that the Chinese Communist Government tried to influence the 1996 U.S. election with campaign contributions."
" In October 1994, Clinton lifted the sanctions he had imposed on China for selling missile technology to Pakistan. In early 1995, Schwartz sent a letter to Clinton urging that responsibility for satellite-export licenses be shifted from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, both Schwartz and Johnny Chung made more huge donations, in excess of $100,000, to the Democratic Party.
On February 6, 1996, despite reports that China continued to export nuclear technology to Pakistan and missiles to Iran, and over the objections of our State and Defense Departments, Clinton signed waivers for four U.S. satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets. On the very same day, Wang Jun (a "Chinese arms dealer") attended one of Clinton's now-famous campaign coffees in the White House and spent some time in Ron Brown's Commerce Department office. Wang Jun owns a huge stake in a Chinese enterprise that benefited from Clinton's waivers, China International Trade and Investment Corporation. "
I think Fred knows what he's talking about.
Yes, standard statements seem to be brought out when events like this happen even those of former US Presidents, but it doesn’t make the original statement less sincere or less authentic. As they always say, what can one say?