Part 1: Fred Thompson on "Meet the Press" = Honesty

Well, if I like nothing else about Fred Thompson it is his absolute honesty on subjects.
He does not shy away from risky topics, nor give pat answers.

Tonight I watched him on MSNBC's "Meet the Press", and I must say, I am impressed.
With no other candidate can I say I agree entirely with what they have to say. While I know you can never have everything you want or hope for, it is refreshing to share so many views.

Let's see what he had to say. You can read the entire transcript from the interview here.

Note: I had originally planned on posting the entire interview with my thoughts about it when he was on, but I found that it would take too long, and be too cumbersome of a post.
Thus, I will be writing a series of posts about Fred Thompson on "Meet the Press".
This first one will deal with the part of the interview on Iraq and Pakistan.

On Pakistan:

"MR. THOMPSON: I’d be saying learn as much as you can about the situation to all my people ... We’ve got two competing serious considerations there. One is the rule of law, which we’ve got to stand for, which he’s going against right now. And the other is the fact that it’s one of the most potentially dangerous situations in the world for us right now. He is an ally in, in a, in a very sparsely populated place as far as allies are concerned. There’re not many of them in that part of the world. Even parts of his own government do not have our interests at heart ... I do not know exactly what Musharraf sees or thinks he sees to cause him to do what he has done, but we need to understand that this is a nuclear country. We could face a real nightmare scenario by seeing these radical elements, or these terrorist sympathizers, take control of that government and have that nuclear capability there on the border of, of Afghanistan when we’ve got so many troops there."

"MR. RUSSERT: We have provided President Musharraf $10 billion in American aid since 2001. Should we suspend that aid?"

"MR. THOMPSON: Not now. I know that it’s been mentioned by our people. He’s been told that that’s at risk if he, if he did what he, in fact, did. Everything’s going to be on the table. I think we’ve got to play hardball with him, but understand that ... they were making progress, apparently, toward a civilian government. You know, former Prime Minister Bhutto was coming back; they had had discussions ... It looked like things were going well. Then terrorists attacked Bhutto when she was there, and she had to leave the country again. So now he’s reacted to that and, on balance, we have to make sure that whatever happens that we do not see total instability in that country in, in that government and we do not see a takeover by a radical Muslim elements or terrorist sympathizers."

"MR. RUSSERT: Because of the uniqueness and precariousness and the sensitivity of that country, would we allow President Musharaff, General Musharaff, to continue under martial law because he’s our ally?"

"MR. THOMPSON: Well, when you say we allow the head of a country to stay the head of a country, you know, that’s, that’s, that’s kind of a mouthful. I don’t think we ought to look at it like whether or not we allow someone to stand or not. The question is what’s our relationship going to be with him? What kind of support are we going to, to give? Hopefully that situation won’t stay that way. I don’t see how it could. I think it’s going to move one way or another.

I think our job right now is to make sure that we know all that he knows and the reasons why he’s doing what he’s doing ... Let’s make sure that we properly analyze our own intelligence there and work toward moving that situation toward a civilian government.

What he’s doing, I’m afraid, is alienating those in that country who might be on the fence, who might be somewhat moderate when he, in effect, declares martial law and suspends the constitution. He’s working against his own interests, perhaps. But again, he knows his own country ... it’s too early to be making broad pronouncements about that part of the world right now."

I couldn't agree more. While I am pro-war(when necessary), we are already in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is the looming threat of Iran going nuclear and requiring intervention. So right now we need all the allies we can get, not another enemy who wants to blow us up with nukes.


On Iraq:

"MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. You said the other day that “I think the policy we’re engaged in now is the right one,” and then added this, earlier, this, couple of years ago, talking to Larry Kudlow. “It’s just a matter of staying the course. And as long as we have the will to stay—and it’s extremely important, I think, to our future security that we stay—we’ll be OK, and we’ll work our way through it.” Is that still your view?"

"MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. I think so. It seems to me like, at the end of last year, we were losing the war. It seems to me now, in the last five months, that there’ve been a lot of good things happen there. You know, we just got through Ramadan, which is one of the worst periods for us historically, and there’s less violence than in the last three years there. By any measure, in terms of the sectarian violence, in terms of the military deaths and injuries and attacks, Baghdad over the last several months is in much better shape, and the area around Baghdad. We know a lot of, a lot of progress has been made out in other provinces. Around Baghdad I think car bombings have gone down over 80 percent. There’s some reconciliation apparently taking place out in the country. Not enough is happening among those—the political leaders in Baghdad, for sure, but that doesn’t mean progress is not being made. So the Sunnis are turning away from al-Qaeda. They’ve—they’ve had an opportunity to live under them in some of these places and localities and seen their brutality. They don’t want that. They’re turning toward us. Reconciliation between Sunnis and Shia and other parts of the, of the country there.

... I think that we’re making substantial progress there ... nobody knows what’s going to happen, but this would be the worst time in the world to start talking about deadlines or cutting off funding or getting out prematurely. I would like to see nothing more than our troops start coming out of there, but as a part of a success scenario. And I think that’s a realistic scenario that the generals on the ground there have in mind."

"MR. RUSSERT: But staying the course, the status quo, can that be our strategy? What is our exit strategy? How long would you stay there?"

"MR. THOMPSON: Well ... it’s not a stay-the-course when—in, in terms of what’s been going on there. What’s been going on there’s been quite negative. It is a—giving us an opportunity to succeed. You know, we’ve got to, we’ve got take yes for an answer. We got to take success as a, as a reality when we find it. We’ve, we’ve seen a lot of negativity, and rightfully so. But now that things are turning, even those in some of the think tanks around town are not pro-war by any stretch of the imagination have stepped up and said, “We’re making real progress.” We see the headlines that, that are, that are changing now. The stakes are too high, Tim. It’s not, it’s not a matter of, of just Iraq ... we’re being tested. The whole world is watching to see whether or not the American people have the will and the ability, the unity, the determination to, to succeed in any front that we happen to be engaged in, and this is a front in much larger war. We—we’ve provided stability ever since the end of World War II in the world. Some people—some countries have not gone nuclear because of us, because of our strength and stability we’ve provided. We don’t want to see Iran fill that vacuum that we would leave there. We do not want to see the Saudis, for example, to go nuclear in response to what they perceive Iran is doing, and especially if we pulled out of, of that area. So now of all times when we’re seeing so many good things happening there and so many good reports from generals who we respect there, we should, we should not be thinking in terms of deadlines."

"MR. RUSSERT: We should plan on being there several years."

"MR. THOMPSON: Well, I don’t know what several years means. I mean, we, we just don’t know. We, we hopefully can be a buffer for a while after we pacify the place, and average people can go worship without fear of being blown up. And we can be a necessary buffer there for a while, but I would hope that it would not be, you know, indefinite. You know, we’ve read too many historians who’ve talked about great nations in times past that many of them were empires. We don’t call ourselves an empire."

"MR. RUSSERT: But you oppose withdrawing any troops right now."

"MR. THOMPSON: Well, I, I, I think we ought to stay on the course that we’re on. The scenario that’s planned, as I understand it, involves a withdrawal of troops next, next spring or summer as a part of the success scenario. But I don’t think that we ought to, to be armchair generals and say that a few more or few less ought to be the, the way to go when we’ve got people on the ground who apparently now know what they’re doing."

"MR. RUSSERT: You made a comment the other day in South Carolina, said, “Fred Thompson said the Iraqi insurgency is made up of ‘a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices,’ and suggested that the appearance of losing to such an enemy would harm U.S. national security.” As you know, we’ve lost 3,834 kids; 28,385 wounded or injured, 65 percent of them by these improvised devices."

"MR. THOMPSON: Yeah."

"MR. RUSSERT: It’s more than just a bunch of kids."

"MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. Well, that’s, that’s not exactly what I said. I mean, I, I don’t minimize the fact that, that we’ve got terrorists coming in from Syria ... from Iran and, and other places, in Saudi Arabia, pouring in there. We, we have Sunni-Shia violence; there’s no question about that. I’ve never disputed that. Al-Qaeda, although I think they’re back on their heels now, still strong there, there’s no question. What I said was, the—when I’m talking—I was talking about will and unity and the perception that we’re going to have around the world. The fact that friends and foes alike are looking to see what kind of a, of a, of a determination that we’re going to muster in, in dealing with this thing."

"MR. RUSSERT: But you should not trivialize..."

"MR. THOMPSON: And I said..."

"MR. RUSSERT: You shouldn’t trivialized as a bunch of kids."

"MR. THOMPSON: ...and I said, and I said—well, let me finish. I said the United States of America could not be perceived as having been run out of Iraq with our tail between our legs because a bunch of kids on the border there making improvised explosive devices. The—as they’re going to recruit future al-Qaeda young men, they’re not going to get into the nuances of the various factions that are our enemy down there. They’re going to go say, “Look, you can do, you can do exactly what your brothers did. You can be a part of us. We brought them down. We brought the United States of America to its knees.” And, in large part, it is because of young people making—they call them improvised for a reason. I mean, they’re, they’re pretty low-tech kind of operations by people probably with not much education, and they can be taught to do this, and they’re causing great damage to us. And you go to places, Brook Army Medical Center and so forth, they don’t handle no one—nothing but burns and amputees, and you see what’s, what’s, what’s been done there. They’ve, they’ve, they’ve demoralized us in many respects. They’ve hurt us badly. There’s, there’s no question about that. It should not be minimized.

But the point being, these young people that I’ve talked to know what they’re doing, and they know that they’re doing something good for their country, and we need to understand that, too. And we cannot let the perception be, and the new potential recruits for al-Qaeda be convinced of the notion that these young people like this can bring us down."

I couldn't agree more.
Personally I don't think that in the overall scheme of things our helping in Iraq will change the countries of the Middle East(or the rest of the world for that matter), or their attitudes toward us. But it will buy us, Israel, the rest of our allies, and the other nations in this world who are also being targeted by radical Muslims the time they need to prepare for and understand their enemy.

I'm not saying all Muslims are our enemy, or even that most Muslims are.
What I am saying is that the leaders of the Islamic world have been consistently turning toward more radical viewpoints, in an attempt, I assume, to bring about what they perceive as world peace. I am not a scholar of Islam or the Koran, but, from what I hear, the moderate Muslims have stated that this is not what Islam is about - I pray this is true, and hope that this form of Islam becomes the dominant form in the Middle East.

But if a more radical form of Islam should become dominant, and if it seeks (as most radical Islamic groups do) to forcefully convert the entire world to Islam, destroy Israel, and impose there leadership on every nation in the world, then we must be prepared to defend not only our way of life, but that of every other nation in the world.

"MR. RUSSERT: As you know, we’ve lost 3,834 kids; 28,385 wounded or injured, 65 percent of them by these improvised devices."

That is true. And I feel for the families of those who have paid the highest price for our country,
But when I think about it, those numbers do give me a sense of hope. They indicate that our troops have been well trained, and know how to survive. In the 9/11 attacks alone approximately 2,750 people lost their lives. It has taken more than 4 years to reach that number in Iraq. And if you count all the terrorist attacks since 9/11, there have been at least 4 times the casualties - and that is assuming all those attacks have only caused one casualty each. Don't believe me? Check out The Religion of Peace, it states that there have been more than 9900 deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11.
It wasn't so long ago that a war would claim 10's of thousands of lives, in a single battle.

How many people in this country truly want another 9/11, or worse, a nuclear strike?
Another 9/11, if it hit a source as crucial as the WTC's, combined with the 9/11 attacks themselves would cause more death and suffering than the entire Iraq war up until this point.
While that is a sobering prospect, a nuclear strike would be far, far worse.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if NYC, LA or Chicago were hit?
Answer: There would be at least 100's of thousands of casualties - possibly millions - and many many more injuries.

I'm not saying that this means we should go around putting our troops into these kinds of situations just for the heck of it, or that there death is any less saddening, but, our soldiers, who have willingly fought and died for our country, have saved more lives than have been taken in this entire war.

Highly motivated kids are not our enemy, this is true. No child has ever been "evil" at heart, they can only be made this way through teaching, brainwashing or through traumatic events. But the monsters behind these terror groups that are in the Middle East have taken these normal kids, who are poor, hungry and deeply zealous about there religion, and have turned them into killers, killers who's only intent is to follow there masters to war, because they believe this will make the world a better place, and that if they die they will go to place where not only will they no longer be poor or hungry, but they will have a place of honor.


What would happen if we just suddenly pulled out and gave up in Iraq?
All the sacrifices by our troops, and all the protection that they have given us would be meaningless.
The radical Islamic terrorists would see it as a victory, and recruiting would be off the charts.
Other countries in the region would have less to fear and would become more bold.
Terroristic regimes would regain there control of Iraq and Afghanistan, causing pain and loss of life to their civilian population for their support or, at the least, their cooperation with us.
Iraq and Iran would very quickly gain or regain their nuclear ability, and would be free to create vast quantities of other WMD's.
Every free, democratic country in the Middle East would face renewed pressure to conform to the tyrannical system of government of the radical groups.

How can anyone possibly believe this is what is best for our country?
It would be the exact opposite.
I fear, though, that this is the course that will eventually be taken. And it should scare any sane person what this world would become like.