Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Fred on Harry & Fred Crosses The Pond

To the four or five people who regularly read this blog, you know how many times I have called for our political leaders to begin directly taking on the outrageous statements of Give 'Em Surrender Harry Reid and his far left band of power hungy surrendocrats occupying the darkest recesses of Congress. Why is it not surprising that the one man to step to the plate and start challenging Reid by name is Fred Thompson:

Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Let me take a few moments to put this in context.

First, Harry Reid voted for the war, like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and the region from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I have friends, both Democrat and Republican, who questioned the decision at the time, but the Republic made a commitment based on constitutional and democratic procedures. So they are now a hundred percent committed to moving forward in a way that’s best for our country. None of them, by the way, believe surrendering to the forces of terror in Iraq is what's best for our country.

Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we're the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.

And why shouldn't they think that? Reid has led the attack on the administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.

I suppose that's easier for some than admitting that they've flip flopped -- but the fact that Reid says this sinister Republican plot is going to help him elect more Democrats ought to be raising a few flags. Saying General Pace is incompetent doesn't even rank near the top of his bizarre statements.

How could anyone possibly believe, as Reid charges, that our commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, is out of touch with what's going on. Surely someone in Reid's position would know that Petraeus is briefed daily on all aspects of Iraq -- from civil to military. Surely he has to know that Petraeus is a true warrior scholar who literally wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency warfare.

But Reid's comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.
Read the entire article here. On other matters, in a bit of very Reaganesque political theatre (British spelling used deliberately), Fred has flown across the pond to, among other things, seek the blessings of Britain's Iron Lady, the former staunch Reagan ally, Margaret Thatcher. While there, Fred will be delivering a speech on foreign policy:
Thompson will deliver the foreign policy speech, "Strengthening the Transatlantic Alliance," on Tuesday at the Policy Exchange, a conservative think tank based in London.

It will stress the importance of American alliances abroad, his advisers said.

"The speech is mostly about the unique and special relationship between the U.S. and the U.K," an adviser said on condition of anonymity, because the prospective campaign has not publicly announced details of the address. "It is about how we have a responsibility to stand together and lead the Western democracies, protect our civilization and stand together for freedom."
Read the entire article here. This is a genuis bit of political theatre and substance on Fred's part. Making the visual tie in with Reagan's closest ally is powerful theatre. As to the substance, as the few people who regularly follow this blog know, I could not agree more with the position Fred will espouse in his speech. The US is the child of Britain in terms of its laws, politics and economy. Thus, the US and the UK are the most natural of allies. And as the history of the last century has taught us, as we together go, so goes Western Civilization.

6 comments:

billm99uk said...

Scott,

If you want to know what Maggie is doing these days go over to http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to last Sundays entry. Interesting coverage.

kawbwebz said...

Scott,


I've been writing to various "statesmen" candidates and congressmen and the like to reply to Reid but no one had the guts. It makes perfect sense the Fred would be the one.

HAIL TO THE FRED!

I needed that.

ChairmanMao said...

Kawbwebz,

I agree with you that Fred(perhaps Right said Fred would be a good nickname) would be the one to do something like this but not for the same reasons. He is not currently a member of Congress so that gives him a lot more freedom to criticize them. Also he has a history of what can be seen as personal attacks. The freedom to speak issue is understandable but the "personal attacks" have me worried about how he will act if elected.

scott said...

Chairman, please define a "personal attack." I do not see such an attack in Fred's essay on Senator Reid.

Do note, also, that the entire terms of American political debate have changed with the emergence of the far left net roots and their control over much of the Democratic Party.

They use a toxic mix of untruths, truths and twisted facts put into simple messages - unsupported by fact - and then repeat them ad infinitum. And they often are personal attacks to begin with. The meme that Bush lied to get us into the Iraq War has been repeated so often that it is now accepted as reality by a large segment of the population, and it has done untold damage to this country. Yet not once have I heard it challenged.

If an elected official is lieing to the American people - for example, Harry Reid saying that we should leave Iraq because Petraeus said there is no military solution - then he deserves and in fact needs to be called to acount by name and in no uncertain terms and with all the facts laid bare. That is such an insipid bastardization of what Petraeus said - its not even half of the Petraeus message - that I actually was dumbfounded upon hearing it the first time, refusing to believe that Reid and his pals would adopt such a transparently false meme. Calling Reid to account for saying that, pointing out that he is not being honest, and reasoning from there that he is willing to sacrifice our national security for partisan political gain, is not a personal attack. That is desperately needed honesty to the public.

The fact that no one from the President on down, with the exception of Lieberman and occaisionally Cheney, has undertaken to do this is not a mark that Republicans are acting appropriately. Quite the opposite, it shows that they are either craven or inept at communications, and further, that they lack a basic understanding of mass communications. Goebells told us half a century ago that a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth.

I am not advocating that anyone begin name calling or ad hominem attacks. But to fail to respond to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Jack Murtha each and every time they utter an outrage, and to fail on each occasion to call them to account for being less then honest with America on the single greatest issue facing this nation today, is a complete failure of leadership and responsibility on the part of our elected officials.

scott said...

Bill: Nice to see the Iron Lady being appropriately feted on the 25th anniversary of the Falklands. That was a good moment for Britain.

ChairmanMao said...

Scott,

I didn't think this was a very strong personal attack but I do think its significant to his campaign. I recently had the theory that Fred might build a campaign out of people and not positions. From what I know, while Fred was in Congress he was not behind any magor legislation or very dynamic. Being seen as weak on actual positions might encourage his campaign to take a different route to gain popularity. A campaign built on people America doesnt like could be very effective for him. So far we have Michael Moore and Reid. Not a very long list right now but it would be interesting to see if it grows after he officially gets in the race.

BTW did you ever get my email?

 

View My Stats