Fred Thompson Backs McCain

Washington Post ^ | 2/8/08 | Michael D. Shear

[NoGrayZone]

Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee

[not2worry]

McCain/Crist once Crist gets married.
——————————————————————>

Ain’t gonna happen...unless same-sex marriages become legal in Florida or Charlie does an Elton John coverup.

It’s been rumored for years that Crist is light in the loafers, and that George Hamilton tan isn’t going to do much for the Southern vote.

JMHO from the State of the Hanging Chad (formerly the Sunshine State)

BTW, I was totally disappointed that Jeb didn’t come out in support of Mitt. It could have possibly avoided this whole winner take all for McCain.

[Enchante]

"I prefer the Just war theory. Almost none of the criteria of the just war doctrine applied in the war we're now in"

As I said, I advocated the obliteration of Saddam's government before 9//11, and yes it was perfectly well justified under "just war theory" -- Saddam had invaded and conquered the sovereign nation of Kuwait in 1990, a (minor) US ally. We were perfectly well justified in coming to the defense of Kuwait and kicking the Soddomite forces out of there. One country is allowed under any reasonable interpretation of just war theory to aid an ally in its own self-defense. Saddam massively and continually violated the terms of the cease-fire that paused the hostilities in 1991...... we never should have allowed that situation to fester as long as it did, but a state of war continued to exist due to the actions of Saddam's government, including countless attacks on our aircraft overflying the "no fly" zones etc. We were fully justified at any time in resuming the 1990-91 conflict, and this time it needed to be waged to the elimination of Saddam's regime since he had proved unable to abide by the simplest terms of peace and armistice. Preventing him from stockpiling WMDs and supporting terrorists were just additional reasons added to the fundamental just cause, which was to complete the 1990-91 just war which had been interrupted but never resolved or ended.

[incindiary]

One of my points has been that truth is the most important thing. If you think that caring about truth is a leftist idea, then I feel sorry for you. I have also mentioned that I believe in the just war doctrine. Are you saying that it is left-wing to believe in the just war doctrine? I hope that's not what you're saying, because that would be like inadvertently saying that unjust wars are a conservative thing. And as a conservative, I would have to strongly disagree. At least that's not how it has been in the past. But maybe neoconservatism is different?

[incindiary]

Thank you for your civility and for explaining your position. I didn't mean to get into a big debate here, and I actually shouldn't be debating this, because someone told me that publicly debating the war could be a cause for banning. And I don't want that to happen, so I'll have to refrain from going on here.

But I do want to mention one thing. (heh, although this is kind of opening up another can of worms) You mentioned Saddam, you do know that we at one time supported Saddam? The point that Ron Paul has been making, which seems to fall on deaf ears, is that our policies and actions in giving aid to these people in the middle east who end up being dictators, is part of the reason we get ourselves into these messes. Wouldn't you agree that when we stick our nose in other people's business and send money to regimes that at one time are our "friends" and later turn out to be enemies, it isn't exactly a good policy?

[publana]

Of course it’s a good policy. It’s in our interests to do so. To bury our heads in the sand and not protect our interests is sheer stupidity.

Ron Paul does have a few compelling points. Isolationism is not one of them.

You do yourself nor anyone any favors by blindly following his mantra.

[DeusExMachina05]

Ahhh....nothing in the morning like the sound of heads exploding here at FR. Seems to be happening alot lately.

[incindiary]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... It's "good policy" to send billions of dollars and weapons to dictators who start off as our "friends" and later turn out to be our enemies? Please tell me that's not what you meant.

[Enchante]

The 1980s with the Iran-Iraq War was one of the many cesspools in the Middle East but I would not agree at all that we should not have sought to prevent Iran’s domination of Iraq (with 3 times the population base Iran had a very good prospect of defeating Iraq over time). History does not always allow clean and easy choices, but it certainly was plausible for the Reagan administration to seek to prevent Iran’s domination of the region, especially when the aftermath of the 1979 Islamo-Shiit(e) “revolution” was still so fresh and there was such internal pressure within Iran to “internationalize” their evil revolution.

US support for Saddam’s regime in the ‘80s has been greatly exaggerated, and overt military support and supplies were just about non-existent, but we did provide some valuable satellite intel which helped Iraq to defeat some of the Iranian hordes. That was a perfectly reasonable policy for the time and context.

If Saddam had then kept himself contained within his own borders, we then would have left him alone. We had no interest in further involvement in the region beyond just general support for economic and strategic stability. But he had to go and invade Kuwait, which was a play to completely dominate the region and the world’s oil supplies — if he had been left in charge of Kuwait then over time Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States would have been indefensible and Saddam’s growing power in the world would have led (if he played his cards right) to an extremely dangerous Saddamite superpower on the Persian Gulf.

Since at least Pearl Harbor it should be obvious that we cannot be oblivious to great changes in power and threats even far across the seas.

The reason it is “about oil” is purely in a strategic sense: we cannot allow Iraq or Iran to dominate the Middle East and dictate to us. If we think the problems of the 1980s - 90s - 2000s are bad, just wait until a Saddam or a Khomeini (as different as they are) could control all the resources from Kurdistan to Iran to the Persian Gulf to Saudi Arabia.

Yes, it is a balancing act and it’s very messy at times, but the Paulista alternative of playing ostrich and ignoring the whole region would be far worse, IMHO.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I’m saying your posts reads like talking points from the Paul/Kucinich fringe (I presume you are a paleo-isolationist, which is essentially indistinguishable from the anti-war leftists on foreign policy today). No Conservative wants an unjust war, which you know full well, and there’s been nothing post-9/11 in our conduct that has been unjust where we are concerned in that region of the world. As the other poster said, we haven’t nearly gone far enough. But bandying about phrases such as “sovereign nation” and associating them with Saddam’s murderous regime is repugnant. That just gives whatever tyranny under a given dictator moral legitimacy when they are entitled to none.

[NoGrayZone]

“Don’t know about 3rd party, but after McCain told David Letterman last year that our troops lives had been wasted, (by Bush, he implied), and of course he got his NYC applause, I knew he was a kook.”

Well, good luck voting for a lib just because he has an R next to him.

“WOT is the MOST important issue. Nothing else matters if you are dead.”.....Correct. I’m so happy you feel comfortable living in open borders. I know I know, mclame promised to secure them, he even said so in his taped recordings to everyones home!!!

Why am I being snippy? “too important an issue to waste your vote “. I am not wasting my vote. I cannot vote for any lib, being D or R. I WILL vote on all other issues.

[presently no screen name]

I am in full agreement, we’ve been had. It’s hard to disgest when ‘get out and vote’; your vote makes a difference, has been drummed in us.

Great post!

[NoGrayZone]

I voted for Romney in the Primary. That is about as far as I can veer left. I had no doubt that he would veer right once elected since he would want a 2nd term. Who would vote him in that 2nd term? We would.

Mclame on the other hand wants to be loved by the left and knows he would only have 1 term. THAT is a dangerous set up.

[presently no screen name]

Sounds logical but things are never how they appear.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Laugh at me if you like

"Laugh" at you? Hell, I may just end up nominating you for governor, provided you're willing to relocate! ;)

[exnavy]

The repubs are all worried about losing to Hillery. Whats the difference, Hillary Clinton or Hillary McCain?

[browardchad]

JMHO from the State of the Hanging Chad (formerly the Sunshine State)

I prefer "Flori-duh," thank you!

I'm hoping for Crist -- water seeks its own level, and he and McCain belong together.

Think of the photo ops if Florida (God forbid) gets hit with another hurricane: McCain and Crist leading the National Guard into the disaster zone, scattering dollar bills as they go -- priceless!

And remember, portable tanning beds are easy to transport.

On a more serious note, Jeb's non-endorsement was no surprise. He tries to maintain the image as his own man, but what brother, and the RNC machine, want, they get.

[incindiary]

Well, you forgot to mention one little bitty important thing. We helped put the Shah in power, and then look at what happened. That just goes along with my earlier point. The entire foreign policy has not worked, that much is clear, and continuing with it is not going to make things better. It makes things worse.

I never said anything about isolationism, and neither did Paul - those were your words. He does not believe in isolationism, he believes in a sensible and moral foreign policy, and going by the constitution. And only going to war for the right reasons, and when it is declared. That is not the same thing as being an ostrich.

[SandwicheGuy]

Fred is obviously not the man I thought he was. I’m sorry that I ever even thought of voting for him. I’m glad he left the race.

A disgusted ditto.

[Coldwater Creek]

Ya just never know what McCain will do. I just bet it will be a back stabber!

[presently no screen name]

have your marching orders

That's it. Although, they are truly lousy at their job. This must be their training grounds.