Will racist role hurt potential 2008 candidate Thompson?

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Scarborough_write…

Orion:

Thompson only played a racist role as an actor. The defeatocrats named a genuine head of the KKK, Robert Byrd, run the damn Senate. How conveniently you idiots forget – or is that just selective memory? You guys are just terrified that Thompson might enter the race. He'd kick all the dems' asses all over the place and you know it. Go on now.. your mama's calling you back in. You can't play outside with the big boys and girls until you grow up and learn how to communicate with them; preferably intelligently.

and actually…if that is indicative of the best dirt that can be found on Mr. Thompson… terrific.
The most damning thing that can be said is he took a tough and demanding role in a TV crime show 19 years ago as a villian… oh my. Oh Dear. No Clintonesque real estate scams or sexual escapades? No Bush like charges of partying hard in college and as a military fighter jock (OH DAMN HIM!.. was Tom Cruise et al all DEMOCRATs when they partied hard in Top Gun?)

I heard Senator Thompson got drunk once in college, and he even blew off some morning classes on Mondays.

ORION: if you are going to continue to pop in here, at least have the maturity to respond to arguments, post on topic, and stop with the silly insults and wild unsubstantiated claims and charges. If you want to sit with the adults at the big table, act like it.

FT is a good analogy for you wingnuts, talking points, catch phrases, insults and no substance. He is a facade and nothing more.

Funny ORION…. that is exact same opinion many of us here share about you…

“…catch phrases, insults, and no substance.” A Pelosi parrot “Facade, and nothing more.”

Again, you are invited to come to the adult table when able and prepared to offer something of intellectual substance or insight.

Max, out.

I like Fred Thompson more and more. He has a comfortable honesty about him.

I don't understand the allure of Fred Thompson. Why do you think he's the best candidate and deserving of 150% of your support?

Won't support of Thompson be further proof that in fact the Republican party is the party of Hollyweird (Reagan, Arnold, now possibly Thompson)?

as a group here Jeb, we are always open to thoughtful commentary. Do you have a better candidate, do you have a specific problem or conflict with Thompson beyond him being an actor following his years as a US Senator? Presuming you have reviewed some or all of the links of recent interviews and speeches, what for you is the area of concern? I find him to be rather refreshing in his approach, with a very respectable track record as Senator.

No argument that most of Hollywood Celebrity circuit is full of weirdness, but Reagan and Schwarzenegger are by far better than average, at least in my opinion. Arnold, jokes and bad movies aside, has been a forceful leader for a troubled California. You can however, toss out the rest of the celebrity bathwater (Penn, Hilton, Fonda, Baldwin, Schizty Chicks…etc)

I like Ron Paul. He accurately sees that Iraq is a complete and utter boondoggle. The rest of the candidates advocate a stay-the-course position that assumes money grows on trees and the military will magically re-generate itself after 4 years of being ground into dust in the deserts of Iraq. I think Paul's stance is a pretty ballsy stance for a Republican to take.

Ron Paul also respects the Constitution and Habeus corpus which isn't even on the radar of the other candidates.

In the case of Thompson, it just seems like people are clinging onto him because everyone longs for a the glory days of Reagan. If the Dems spent all of their time looking for candidates who were JFK-like, they'd rightly be criticized for their fixation and their constant looking backwards. Thompson doesn't have Reagan's optimism and spent 18 years (!) as a lobbyist.

I think it's time to look forward and time to find a new leader. A real one, not someone who plays one on tv.

I dispute your premise that Iraq is a “total and complete boondoggle” as well as that apparently being cost effective is how you yourself “rate” a military conflict..but then again, you probably haven't been there in the sandbox or had colleagues there. Based upon the skew of the major US media, the prevalent opinion is that nothing there is going right or getting better, and we have not made a single improvement. WRONG.

LTCPMax,

Please do elaborate. If 2 million Iraqis (almost 10% of the population) have been displaced since the invasion, that would strike me as a significant sign that things have gotten worse, not better. I doubt they're fleeing freedom.

Have you been there?

Do you have an opinion about Ron Paul or any bones of contention about my assessment of Thompson?

Your assessment of Thompson is superficial and not well supported by fact or history. Ron Paul has recently revealed that his logic and understanding of history is at best flawed, or at worst, seriously twisted and incomplete. We did NOT invite the 9-11 attacks by “bombing Iraq for 10 yrs.”

Been there, done that.

2 Million “displaced.” what is your source for that figure? What is the definition of “displaced” for that statistic, left town/home/region/country? Do you have a figure for how many Iraqi's Saddam killed or who disappeared during his last 10-12 years in power, perhaps? Would you consider statistics about how many children are now immunized and back in schools? How many thousands of Iraqis took the huge risk to vote in open elections, defying internal terrorist insurgents? How many thousands have joined the police force in effort to improve their country at risk to selves.

Is it perfect? NO. Are Iraqi people dying almost daily at hands of their own citizens, YES. Is there years of hard work in front of both us and the Iraqi people, YES. Did President Geo Bush tell us at the onset of the war in Iraq that this would take years and cost us lives? YES HE did. Do we change our mind and leave (again?), NO.

LTCPMax,

Here are some links for you. I hope you'll include some links to back up your own (missing) “statistics” and assertions.

Iraqi mortality on the rise, including women & children (from the widely respected Lancet medical Journal):

http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

Iraqi displacement:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ira…
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2895.shtml

Falling Iraqi educational standards (even if we're opening schools, as you say, it seems self evident that standards would fall if children are being kept home from schools that are closed because of rampant violence, right?):

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=72168

Are you denying that these issues exist? It seems that by looking at the data presented, it could be argued by a reasonable person that things are getting worse. Not because the military is doing a bad job – I don't think it's their job to police other countries and to build democracies, after all.

If the admittedly imperfect (there's widespread violence, after all) information is made available and compared to pre-invasion data, I bet we could have a better understanding if we're succeeding in our nation building mission, in the war on terror, etc.

Feel free to dispute it. I welcome your alternative viewpoints, but ask that you at least back it up, as well.

Jeb:

that report you cite from Lancet, Oct 04 was widely discredited as being poorly constructed and with faulty statistical modeling. It was also published fall 2004, with the invasion being in March 03. So… the data are old at best anyway, as the data collection of fall-winter 2003/4 has little to bear with today in Iraq anyway.

Your humanitarian/displacement report, rightfully highlighting concerns but itself admitting to no mass exodus and difficult data collection due to poor presence and absence of UN agencies/NGOs inside Iraq. I never argued that there wasnt a displacement problem or crisis, just asked you to better define what you were saying. Here is some actual numerical data from Nov 06 from the UNHCR:
UNHCR officials just back from the region reported that we now estimate there are at least 1.6 million Iraqis displaced internally, and up to 1.8 million outside the country in neighbouring states. Many were displaced prior to 2003, but an increasing number are fleeing now. Of the internally displaced, we estimate some 425,000 Iraqis have fled their homes for other areas inside Iraq this year alone – largely due to sectarian violence sparked by the Samarra bombings in February. And internal displacement is continuing at a rate of some 50,000 a month. This displacement amid the ongoing violence in Iraq is presenting an enormous humanitarian challenge and extreme hardship for both the displaced and the Iraqi families trying to help them in host communities. The enormous scale of the needs, the ongoing violence and the difficulties in reaching the displaced make it a problem that is practically beyond the capacity of humanitarian agencies, including UNHCR. And the longer it goes on, the more difficult it gets as both the internally displaced and their host communities in Iraq run out of resources.

Please bear in mind that these people are being displaced (mostly internally/regionally inside Iraq) due to internal violence and sectarian bombings. Are you actually suggesting the internal strife and violence will IMPROVE if the US/Coalition forces leave?

Education: yes, again, many problems. But that UN article you linked asserts that the schools ran much better during Saddams reign. No mention of access limitations for Sunni vs Shi'ite children during his regime. Just that the schools ran better…sort of like the trains ran on time in Nazi Germany too, in my opinion. Again, internal civilian bombings are the source of disruption of schooling. Are you suggesting if we pull the troops the schools will be safer?

The job of the military is to do what the civilian leadership of our country task them with. Free the oppressed, remove threats to our and our allies safety and security. Kill the bad guys. Support our allies. And yes, at times, serve as an occupation army and police force. Rebuild governments. See history under France/Germany/Japan/Korea. We tried same thing in Vietnam, unsuccessful d/t political considerations vs. military.

In closing, I can offer you the simple yet non statistical observation that most troops that have been there, in the sand, beleive they are making a positive difference. That they ARE making things better.

LTCPMax, thanks for your response.

I thought our military was not to be wasted doing nation building, but that is so pre-9/11, isn't it? Which nation do we rebuild after Iraq is all fixed?

Regarding France, Germany, Japan and Korea, it wasn't the military alone rebuilding them and we weren't being shot at on a daily basis by the people of those countries after the war ended. Does that fact escape you? If you're looking for a historical analogy, Viet Nam is more accurate than any of those countries you list above (they were engaged in a civil war, their government had little credibility & survived only because the US propped it up, etc.)

I'm suggesting that if we pull out of Iraq, the situation will remain similar to what it is now – except our troops won't be there getting shot at by everyone. There will be a continuing civil war, the Shiites will probably end up dominating the Sunnis, Iran and Saudi Arabia will compete for influence and we'll sell weapons to various participants and try to prop up the current government. The only difference is that we won't be there and therefore our troops will not be getting shot at by Iraqis, which seems self evident, does it not? They can't shoot at you if you're no longer within their range…

I recognize it's not an ideal situation. There's no solution to this mess and this is all on Bush's (the Commander Guy!) incompetent shoulders. The situation in Iraq has gotten worse every year we've been there and there is no evidence to suggest that reinforcing failure will do anything more than yield further failure.

If you have links to websites where our troops, in their own words, talk about how much of a positive difference they're making, I'd be most intersted in reading it. Frankly, I think they're being used and abused by a President who refuses to be held accountable for his collosal failures in leadership.