Fred Thompson: Criticism of My Wife Should Be Directed at Me

Its about time Fred started addressing the ankle biters. We are hitting the "dog days of summer" and it looks like the press is nothing but a bunch of moronic dogs who cannot even do basic fact checking.

I asked her to do certain things for me. She did what I asked her to do.”

The former senator said his wife’s actions, however they have been interpreted in the press, have been at his behest. “She always looks out for my best interests, and when she sees something that she knows I would not approve of, or is not in my best interest, she voices that concern — in other words, just exactly the way I would want her to. Now, some people don’t like that, especially some people who have their own issue with regard to the campaign, shall we say, and they take advantage of putting out anonymous comments and so forth.”

“She’s not going to become a public commentator and personality as a candidate’s wife until there’s a candidate,” he said.

Courtesy of Citizens For Thompson has the article summary

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson in England

Seems Fred Thompson is setting up his foreign policy credibility over in England. McCain in the senate betraying the nation and throwing tantrums, Giulini getting kicked off the Iraq panel, and Romney traipsing through Iowa, while Fred gives a major policy speech in London. Intersting strategy.

Differences of party and domestic policy are incidental, compared to the bigger considerations that define Britain and America as allies. On both sides of the Atlantic, what matters most are the commitments we share, and the work we are called to do in common. This work is based upon the principles we hold – primarily, the right of free people to govern themselves. We also believe that the rule of law, market economies, property rights, and trade with other nations are the underpinnings of a free society.

When historians of the modern era speak of the great democracies, of civilization and its defenders, that’s us they’re talking about – we and our democratic friends across Europe and beyond.

Courtesy of Citizens For Thompson News

Read More...

Summary only...

Democratizing the Campaign Trail (By Fred Thompson)

Once again Fred shows that he is a populist conservative - and that he "gets" the web as an intimate communications means, not a mass push media, nor anything that new for the sake of being new. He gets its that the individuals, not the group, are the basis for American Politics - and the Internet gives the individual a powerful voice.

E-mailed links to the [Obama-Hillary Brave New World] Apple-1984 Video spread through offices like a bad joke list. Millions watched it on the Web. Millions more saw it on news shows. One cheap, anonymous campaign ad got more attention this season than any expensive, professional commercial.

Over 100 million Americans reportedly watch videos online, at least occasionally. The Websites of citizen journalists, the bloggers, have become truly influential, with an estimated 75 million Americans reading them. Cheap software and computers put tools into the hands of teenagers that used to belong only to networks and studios. YouTube and other video-sharing sites provide a cost-free forum accessible by nearly anyone.

There's no question that this is democratization. Professional journalists and campaign staffers no longer control the political debate. Individuals can now make headlines and directly influence elections -- though some of the accountability that once existed is gone.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson

Catch the Podcast at his blog linked above. (Originally in print back in March)

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson on Venezuela

Fo those that have not been paying attention (and the MSM is at fault for not publicizing Hugo's dictatorial moves), read it and learn.

Well, he's done it. Hugo Chavez was already systematically silencing criticism of his autocratic rule through threats and intimidation. Journalists have been threatened, beaten, and even killed. Now he's shut down the last opposition television networks in Venezuela and arrested nearly 200 protesters — mostly students. It’s a monumental tragedy and the Venezuelan people will pay the price for decades to come. Americans are also at risk as he funds anti-American candidates and radicals all over Latin America.

The Rest of the Story...

It’s equally tragic that the U.S. is in no position to provide the victims of this emerging dictator with the truth. There was a time, though, when Americans were on the frontlines of pro-freedom movements all over the world. I'm talking about the “surrogate” broadcast network that included Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, often called "the Radios."

When Ronald Reagan was elected, he greatly empowered the private, congressionally funded effort and handpicked the Radios’ top staff to bring freedom to the Soviet Union. Steve Forbes led the group.

We can't know if Venezuelans would have chosen liberty over the false security of authoritarianism if they had been challenged to face the issues. I do know, though, that it's time for a new generation of Americans to stand up for freedom — like others before us. And this time, we’ll have a whole new set of media technologies.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at National Review

Where is the Bush administrations action on this? That's right, Jorge is too busy trying to cram a bad amnesty law down our throats to care about democracy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson on Israel... and Iran

Fred Thompson in his own words. Good job of explaining how bad things have gotten there thanks to Iran's Palestinian puppet terror organizations

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego — and bragged about it?

I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel’s restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza...

The Rest of the Story...

...We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy’s side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible.

More than 1,300 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza since Palestinians were given control two years ago. Israelis, however, have gone to incredible lengths to stop the war against them without harming Palestinian non-combatants. But make no mistake, Israel is at war. The elected Hamas government regularly repeats its official promise to destroy Israel entirely and replace it with an Islamic state. Hamas openly took credit for killing one woman and wounding dozens more last week alone.

The Palestinian strategy is to purposely target and kill Israeli civilians. Then, when Israel goes after those launching the attacks, Palestinians claim to be the victims. If Palestinian civilians aren’t hurt in the Israeli attacks, they stage injuries and deaths.Too often, they garner sympathy and support from a gullible or anti-Semitic media in the international community.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at the National Review

Read it all at the link - and consider the consequences if Israel fails to finish this off before Iran gains nukes.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson: I remember

Some thoughts for Memorial weekend

I remember when I was a kid; one thing was clear to me. The more I learned about the rest of the world, the luckier I felt just having been born in America. The more I learned about America, the more I appreciated what those who came before us built; and how exceptional they were.

Not that there aren’t other great places to live, but America is unique. It’s not just that we are the freest and most prosperous county the world has ever seen. America has also freed more people than any other nation in history.

[The Rest of the Story]

Over the years, a lot of people have tried to talk us out of feeling about America the way we do. Instead of pride in what America has done, they want us to feel guilty — generally because we have so much more than rest of the world. Of course, it wouldn’t help the rest of the world one whit if we had less — either of freedom or of prosperity. On the contrary, it’s our liberties that have made us prosperous and there’s no reason the rest of the world couldn’t be just as well-off — if they embraced freedom as well.

Almost always, when I talk to people who see America as the problem, their arguments are based on ignorance or an outright tangling of history. What they thought they knew about America and the world came second- and third-hand through people with axes to grind.

Less than half of college seniors knew that, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence. Less than half knew basic facts about the First Amendment. Half didn't know that the Federalist Papers were written in support of the Constitution's ratification. Only a quarter of seniors knew the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine.

This is our quandary. Memorial Day is about remembering. It’s about remembering those who died for our country; but it's also about remembering why they believed it was worth dying for. Too many Americans, though, have never been taught our own history and heritage. How can you remember something that you’ve never learned?

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at his ABC News Radio blog

Nothing I can add. Read it all at the link if you want more.

Read More...

Summary only...

Prescient: A speech to CATO in 2000 by Fred

This is pretty far sighted of Fred Thompson to see the very issues that are bedeviling the nation now, in terms of partisanship and a lack of leadership form both parties. Think of how the Republicans abused their power in Congress and failed to lead - earmarks, Foley, etc. Think how the Democrats are failing to lead now. Think how Bush has failed to lead in failing to rally the nation. Think of the immigration amnesty disaster that is in front of the Senate now with Bush's stupid backing. Then read below, from before 9/11...

Leaders, I believe, still have the responsibility of reminding the American people of what is at stake. We now have peace and prosperity, and people prefer not to be bothered by Washington, which has been so disappointing to them in many ways. However, the pendulum swings, and when our nation faces its next crisis, and when we need leadership, and we need direction, and we need inspiration, who in government are the people going to be willing to listen to if their leaders have so abused our most cherished institutions, including the rule of law.

That to me is the most important issue facing us today, and how we resolve it will play a large part in determining our destiny as a nation.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson speaking at the CATO Institute in 2000

Hat Tip to Turk at Kung Fu Quip

By way of DraftFredThompson.com. Amazing that he saw this coming.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Just Fred, May 22 podcast.

It is a very good thing we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when we did. We've just seen the transcripts of a hearing they held for the 9/11 mastermind at Guantanamo Bay.

He admitted responsibility for the September 11th attacks "from A to Z," in his words. And he talked about other plots, many of which never happened. The head of the ABC New investigative unit counted it all up.

Mohammed admitted to planning 31 attacks in 17 countries, including five U.S. cities. His targets included two U.S. presidents, one Pope, five major U.S. skyscrapers, three major landmarks in London, including Big Ben and Heathrow Airport, multiple civilian aircraft and several major financial centers, including the New York Stock Exchange; and several shipping lanes that are critical to global trade.

Eight of the 31 plots were actually implemented. Those eight, from New York to Istanbul, killed over 3,000 people and injured hundreds more.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at ABC News

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson on the Immigration Bill

As usual, great job by Fred in putting common sense out there.

Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem – secure our nation’s borders.

But there’s an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don’t understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday.

[The Rest of the Story]

I’d tell you what was in the legislation, but 24 hours after the politicians agreed the bill looked good, the Senate lawyers were still writing what may turn out to be a one thousand page document. In fact, a final version of the bill most likely will not be made available to the public until after the legislation is passed. That may come five days from now. That’s like trying to digest an eight-course meal on a fifteen-minute lunch break.

We’ve tried the “comprehensive” route before to solve the illegal immigration problem with a bit more care and deliberation, and the results haven’t been good. Back in May 1985, Congress promised us that it would come up with a comprehensive plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration and our porous borders. Eighteen months later, in November 1986, that comprehensive plan was signed into law.

Twenty-two years and millions of illegal immigrants later, that comprehensive plan hasn’t done what most Americans wanted it to do -- secure America’s borders. Now Washington says the new “comprehensive” plan will solve the problem that the last comprehensive plan didn’t.

The fact is our border and immigration systems are still badly broken. We were reminded of this when Newsweek reported that the family of three of the men, arrested last week for allegedly plotting to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix, New Jersey, entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the government’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork. Wonder how many times that’s been replicated?

Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens -- securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.

No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests. In fact, given Congress’s track record, the bill will probably get a lot uglier -- at least from the public’s point of view. And agreeing to policies before actually seeing what the policies are is a heck of a way to do business.

We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at his ABC News Radio Blog

My comments will sparse - I'm in catch-up mode.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson on the "Fairness" Doctrine

Solid reasoning here on how badly wrong Kucinich and the would-be speech dictators on the left are.

I had planned on talking a bit today about Venezuela. The president there doesn't like the way his media is covering him, so he's doing away with the free press. He's established rules on what he thinks is fair, and he’s denying licenses to television and radio stations that don't play by government rules.

I can't criticize him now, though. After all, how would it seem for me to complain about another country, when our own congressional leadership is trying to put the same sort of rules in place here? To do so, they're pulling the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.

[The Rest of the Story]

The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area -- so equal time rules were put in place.

As television and radio stations increased, it became clear that the rule was a bust. Instead of protecting free speech, it imposed costs on broadcasters that killed political discussion entirely. Why run the risk of dealing with anything controversial and having the regulators and the lawyers come down on you? Instead of talking about issues, news directors used stopwatches to measure candidates' airtime.

Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable and local access channels than anybody can keep track of -- the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, and it's absurd.

The real issue here is not what you "can" see or hear -- which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It's what you're "choosing" to see or hear.

Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio show "Air America" that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts -- because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.

The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bi-coastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.

Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?

Courtesy of Fred Thompson on his ABC News Radio blog

Why is the left always noisy about free speech until someone says something THEY don't like? Hypocrites.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson campaigns at NRA Annual Meeting

No, not the National RIFLE association - but the National Restaurant Association. Good words there, well received. Read below the fold for a warning on the Post-Iraq world and China as well.

CHICAGO - The immigration reform bill worked out late last week by Senate Republicans and Democrats will likely fail, former senator and possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson said here Sunday.

Thompson, speaking at the National Restaurant Association annual show, said the bill will not win the support of the American people because they don't trust senators' promises to block illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border into the U.S.

"Nobody believes them. It goes to the bigger issue of the lack of credibility our government has these days," said Thompson, who was greeted with shouts and applause from the 2,300 convention attendees who filled a ballroom at the McCormick Place convention center.

[The Rest of the Story]

Thompson also was harshly critical of China, saying the military and economic threat the country poses is among the critical issues - along with untamed growth in entitlement spending - that are not being dealt with while the U.S. is fixated on the war in Iraq. "I call it 'The Day After Iraq,' " Thompson said. "It's not a pretty picture."

He said China is "making deals with every bloodthirsty dictator they can" to feed its growing economy's need for energy. Thompson made the meatier comments during the question-and-answer session with audience members, which followed a 45-minute tale of his path from Tennessee lawyer to Watergate prosecutor, to actor and Republican senator.

The crowd of restaurant professionals ate it up, giving Thompson a standing ovation as he entered and another when his remarks ended. Kevin Mundy, who works for a Maryland restaurant company, said he thought Thompson was "being real." "It's just what the country is looking for - somebody who is going to cut through the political jargon and get to the point," Mundy said. Rebecca Eastham, a hotel management teacher at Oklahoma State University, found Thompson "genuine and down home."

The crowd even cheered when Thompson admitted to a questioner that he didn't know much about Indian gaming and "wasn't going to soft-shoe" on the issue. Among the loudest ovations came when the possibility of Thompson running for president was mentioned. Current speculation has Thompson making a decision in mid-June, a timetable that he did not dispute when one of his questioners suggested it. The idea that it was too late to get into the race that now has 10 Republican candidates is "baloney," he said. But he conceded that, to have a chance a candidate, he must enter the race "in a decent time."

Courtesy of Bill Theobald of the Gannett News Service (in the Lafayette IN Courier and Journal)

Good of him to point out that there is a world once we are done with Iraq and we need to start paying attention to it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson puts Micheal Moore in his place

Smackdown. I dream of the day when we have a conservative president who can joust like this!

Hat Tip to Draft Fred Thompson message boards

As the online gamers say "Owned!" - and by the way, you Micheal Moore idiots, the Montecristo cigars to which your Lardo Hero referred as "illegal"? Wrong. Montecristo. The world's most famous cigar trademark. Originating in Cuba, Montecristo, is now distributed in the U.S., is manufactured by hand in the Dominican Republic (As well as the Cuban ones)

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson's CNP Speech posted at National Review

Conservative Constitutional Federalism, the foundation for Fred Thompson's run for the White House. A great start. Below is an excerpt...

You can almost see Americans throwing up their hands. They’ve got to be wondering, how are today’s leaders going to lead us with regard to all these difficult issues if they can’t even agree on fundamentals — things that are supposed to bind us together.

Some of you may think that this is not a very optimistic outlook. I’m reminded of something my Daddy used to say: A man who walks around smiling all the time can’t possibly know what’s going on. However, I am optimistic. I think we all are. But as Americans, our optimism comes not from an analysis of how things are, but from our belief that we can change what we see for the better.

We have road maps — at least two of them in fact — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — to guide us. How can we look at the world without thinking about inalienable rights, and doing everything necessary to protect our country? How can we think of fiscal policy or even health-care policy without remembering the limitations appropriately placed upon government and the importance of individual freedom?

This is a message that needs to be delivered.

Courtesy of National Review Online

Go read it all - this in only an excerpt.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson at the CNP

The CNP is a very private, very important core conservative group. This is good news. Read below the ReadMore for a fantastic quote!

In yet another test of the viability of a late-start campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, Fred Thompson went before conservative leaders Saturday night to discuss law and order – for the nation, not a TV show.

People from the crowd of more than 400 said the topic played well because it goes to the heart of what unites economic and social conservatives.

Thompson was the keynote speaker at a dinner organized by the Council for National Policy, a group of many of the nation’s most influential conservative leaders.

[The Rest of the Story]

The event was closed to the press, but some of Thompson’s supporters provided The Politico with excerpts of his speech.

“Some of your friends, knowing that you are thinking about running for president, urge you to give a rousing campaign speech,” the potential candidate said of his preparations for the speech.

But instead, he said, he chose to discuss his “first principles,” focusing on one that he’s associated with through his television appearances: “the rule of law.”

“It is a sad irony that a nation that is so dedicated to the rule of law is doing so much to undermine the respect for it,” Thompson said.

“They [his principles] are based upon a respect for the wisdom of the ages, and a belief that human beings are prone to err -- that too much power must never rest in too few hands.” Ed: emphasis mine

... [A]ttendees said Thompson rarely looked at his notes and impressed the audience with his ability to make a folksy, conversational speech convincing.

Courtesy of Mike Allen at Politico

Sounds like Fred was a hit.

Read More...

Summary only...

Armed With The Truth: FDT on the 2nd Amendment

Good words from someone who has been a solid friend of the Second Amendment and to individuals to whom the rights belong.

Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high Court; but this means that we’re going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices. The New York Times has already fired the first broadside.

[The Rest of the Story]

...it is between those who see it as an individual right versus those who see it as a collective states’ right having more to do with the National Guard than the people.

Unfortunately, the article falsely portrays the individual-right argument as some new interpretation held only by a few fringe theorists. The truth is very different, as civil-rights attorney and gun-law expert Don Kates has pointed out recently.

From the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 until the 20th century, no one seriously argued that the Second Amendment dealt with anything but an individual right — along with all other nine original amendments. Kates writes that not one court or commentator denied it was a right of individual gun owners until the last century. Judges and commentators in the 18th and 19th century routinely described the Second Amendment as a right of individuals. And they expressly compared it to the other rights such as speech, religion, and jury trial.

The Times has simply replayed theories invented by the 20th-century gun-control movement. Their painting of the individual-right interpretation as a minority view is equally fanciful.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at NRO

Read it all at the link. And GOA, stop being bought off by Ron Paul, especially your web staff, you idiots.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson: Second Amendment

Solid defense of the Secondf Amendment as an individual right, and the need for good judges and federalism.

If you care about constitutional law, and everybody should, the big news is that it looks as if the Supreme Court is going to hear a Second Amendment case some time next year. The event that sparked this legal fuse was a case brought by six D.C. residents who simply wanted functional firearms in their homes for self-defense. In response, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s 31-year-old gun ban — one of the strictest in the nation.

Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high Court; but this means that we’re going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices. The New York Times has already fired the first broadside.

[The Rest of the Story]

A few days ago, the Gray Lady published a fascinating account of the case — fascinating but fundamentally flawed. In it, the central argument about the Second Amendment is pretty accurately described. Specifically, it is between those who see it as an individual right versus those who see it as a collective states’ right having more to do with the National Guard than the people.

Unfortunately, the article falsely portrays the individual-right argument as some new interpretation held only by a few fringe theorists. The truth is very different, as civil-rights attorney and gun-law expert Don Kates has pointed out recently.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at National Review

OK, anone want to say Fred's not a defender of the Second Amendment as an individual right? GOA, I'm looking at YOU!

Read More...

Summary only...

Tenet's Time with Tim

Good analysis by FDT of that dishonest disloyal butt-kissing idiot we had as DCI, he bungled 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq. Tenet should be in jail, not making the rounds selling books - thats my opinion of it from working in the military and classified world.

My attention was drawn to Tenent’s statements that al Qaeda is here and waiting and that they wish nothing more than to be able to see a mushroom cloud above the United States.

Naturally, the media emphasis is not on that. Its attention is on any differences Tenent had with the administration. The media’s premise is that Iraq should not have been considered a real threat to us and that the administration basically misled the country into war. While one may take issue with Tenent on several things, I was intrigued that on some very important issues, Tenent did not follow the media script when answering Russert’s questions.

[The Rest of the Story]

The CIA could have been on the short side or on the long side of the estimate. They have underestimated the capabilities of hostile nations before, such as North Korea’s missile technologies. Also, Tenent acknowledged that before the Gulf War, the CIA had underestimated how far along Saddam was on his nuclear program.

All of this hardly fits with the notion that Saddam posed no threat. As Tenent made the media rounds, he may have helped the administration as much as hurt it, but he was in no danger of having that fact highlighted by his interviewers.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at ABC News Radio

As usual, spot on.

Read More...

Summary only...

To the Shores of Tripoli

Wow.

From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.
We fight our country’s battles in the air, on land and sea.
First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title of United States Marine.

That’s from the Marine Corps Hymn, of course, and you can thank me for not singing it. When I was a boy, a lot of America kids knew that verse — and probably a few more. I hope they still do, but I get the impression that might not be the case.

... From beginning to end, in fact, the conflict lasted approximately 14 years. I couldn’t tell you, by the way, if the Barbary wars were ever described as a “quagmire” or “lost.” I won’t describe here the taking of Tripoli by courageous American soldiers. And I sure don’t have time to talk about America’s eventual victory over the forces of that era’s religiously justified terrorism.... Listening to the messages of al Qaeda’s leaders, you understand that they see their old defeats in very personal and contemporary terms. They are in a “long war” against us, even if we don’t know it. And they’re committed to winning it.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at National Review

Fantastic. I'm speechless - go read it all at NRO, I really cannot do it justice excerpting it here.

Read More...

Summary only...

FDT on Women's Rights - In Fundamentalist Muslim Societies

Again, more solid analysis. Get the feeling he is building a foreign policy portfolio?

Sometimes, you read or hear something, and an image forms in your mind that just won't go away. For me, one of those images comes from the 2002 news stories about religious police in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, who beat young girls trying to escape a burning school. Because they weren’t wearing headscarves and black robes, 15 innocent girls were locked in a blazing building to burn while firemen watched helplessly.

Not all Saudis support this sort of extremism, but many Muslim radicals reject the premise that women should have even the most basic rights. These include the right to vote, to work, to drive, to choose one's own husband, to charge a man with abuse or simply to move about without male escort.

Life for women under the Taliban and similar governments ought to inspire anger and indignation in everybody, especially human rights advocates. I'm constantly surprised, however, by the apparent apathy among many who say they care about the rights of women and other minorities.

I doubt, for example, that our television networks have spent as much time exposing the horrors of life for millions of women in pre-liberation Iraq and Afghanistan as they've spent covering Abu Ghraib. For some reason, everyday atrocities such as the endemic beatings, honor killings and forced marriages of women just don’t seem to be newsworthy.

[The Rest of the Story]

The other side of that coin is that we also rarely hear about dramatic improvements in the lives of women when they come about due to American actions. So let me take a little of your time to give you some good news that might have slipped through the journalistic cracks.

A new study from Johns Hopkins University indicates that, since the Taliban was ousted five years ago, Afghan infant mortality rates have improved dramatically. Every year, more than 40,000 babies live that would have died under Islamofascist tyranny -- and the statistics are still improving. The main reason, according to the study, is improved women's access to medical care.

Some people, including World Bank health specialists, say infant mortality rates have improved far more than the Johns Hopkins study shows -- because the data used is several years old. We know, for example, that the number of Afghan children who are getting vaccinations has doubled and redoubled in just the last few years. Similarly, the number of pregnant women receiving pre-natal care went up six-fold between 2003 and 2006.

In Iraq, the health care and educational statistics are even better. There are, of course, still many areas of life that need to improve in both countries, but we're moving in the right direction.

The next time I'm reminded of the suffering women endure in too many radicalized Muslim cultures, or apathy toward their plight back here at home, I'm going to conjure up the image of 40 or 50 thousand Muslim mothers smiling into the faces of healthy babies. You might try the same -- and remember, while you’re doing it, that these babies would not be alive today if it were not for the U.S. and coalition soldiers.

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at ABC News Radio

Another plank - this one will hit the liberals who befriend Islam right between the eyes.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson: The Myth of Cuban Health Care

Speaking Truth to the Lefty Powers...

You might have read the stories about filmmaker Michael Moore taking ailing workers from Ground Zero in Manhattan to Cuba for free medical treatments. According to reports, he filmed the trip for a new movie that bashes America for not having government-provided health care.

Now, I have no expectation that Moore is going to tell the truth about Cuba or health care. I defend his right to do what he does, but Moore's talent for clever falsehoods has been too well documented. Simply calling his movies documentaries rather than works of fiction, I think, may be the biggest fiction of all.

[The Rest of the Story]

While this PR stunt has obviously been successful -- here I am talking about it -- Moore's a piker compared to Fidel Castro and his regime. Moore just parrots the story they created -- one of the most successful public relations coups in history. This is the story of free, high quality Cuban health care.

Castro is now personally worth approximately $900 million. So when he desperately needed medical treatment recently, he could afford to fly a Spanish surgeon, with equipment, on a chartered jet to Cuba. What does that say about free Cuban health care?

The other thing that irks me about Moore and his cohort in Hollywood is their complete lack of sympathy for fellow artists persecuted for opposing the Castro regime. Pro-democracy activists are routinely threatened and imprisoned, but Castro remains a hero to many here. According to human rights organizations, these prisoners of conscience are often beaten and denied medical treatment, sanitation or even adequate nutrition.

If Moore wants a subject for a real documentary, I would suggest looking into the life of Cuban painter and award-winning documentarian Nicolás Guillén Landrián. He was denied the right to practice his art for using the Beatles' song, "The Fool on the Hill," as background music behind footage of Castro climbing a mountain. Later, he was given plenty of free Cuban health care when he was confined for years in a "mental institution" and given devastating, repeated electroshock "treatments."

Courtesy of Fred Thompson at ABC News Radio

Another great plank in the Thompson foreign policy.

Read More...

Summary only...