Posted on 12/27/2007 11:35:07 AM PST by SJackson
The "Red Pickup" has 104 large in it ( that is $104,000+ for those of you in Rio-Linda).
Have you thrown your $25 in the back yet to help Fred?
1998
The China Connection Is the Real Scandal
"Now we know why the Democrats were so vicious in their attacks on Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). Theirs were the committees that were closing in on the China connection, the scandal that can bring down the Clinton presidency, the scandal that has made Congressmen start to utter the T word (treason). A series of front-page news stories in the New York Times (May 15, 16, 17) essentially vindicated Thompson's charge that the Chinese Communist Government tried to influence the 1996 U.S. election with campaign contributions."
" In October 1994, Clinton lifted the sanctions he had imposed on China for selling missile technology to Pakistan. In early 1995, Schwartz sent a letter to Clinton urging that responsibility for satellite-export licenses be shifted from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, both Schwartz and Johnny Chung made more huge donations, in excess of $100,000, to the Democratic Party.
On February 6, 1996, despite reports that China continued to export nuclear technology to Pakistan and missiles to Iran, and over the objections of our State and Defense Departments, Clinton signed waivers for four U.S. satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets. On the very same day, Wang Jun (a "Chinese arms dealer") attended one of Clinton's now-famous campaign coffees in the White House and spent some time in Ron Brown's Commerce Department office. Wang Jun owns a huge stake in a Chinese enterprise that benefited from Clinton's waivers, China International Trade and Investment Corporation. "
I think Fred knows what he's talking about.
Yes, standard statements seem to be brought out when events like this happen even those of former US Presidents, but it doesn’t make the original statement less sincere or less authentic. As they always say, what can one say?
He got it right and there's plenty of time left.
Telling the Pakistani's that your sorry a political leader has been killed seems alright. However, it does seem he's hedging his bets about who's behind it. I'm inclined to side with Fred on this. It is much more likely that terrorist scum are behind this than govt. forces.
“half of this country now thinks the Global War on Terrorism was contrived by GWB”
Don’t give them the cover of stupidity. They know better. They are liars and anti American.
He came out (with Van Halen playing in the background or something), stepped out, channeled Jimmah Carter, then asked for forigiveness for killing Bhutto.
It was bizzare.
How about this... the next time someone close to you loses a loved one, tell them "I apologize" rather than "I'm sorry", and see their angry and puzzled reaction.
Offering an apology where he should have offered condolences is completely tone-deaf, and probably speaks more to his underlying instincts to blame the US than to express sympathy.
He made some excellent and intelligent, observations. But, as counterpunch said in Post #2, “Too bad Fred waited until this week to start running for President”.
“The former Arkansas governor has admitted he had little foreign policy experience as chief of the southern state.”
But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
30002 = 9 million. You think ALL Americans will get the message then?
I’m not here to campaign, I’m here to discuss the issues and elections honestly with more or less like-minded people.
I’m not going to be in denial over Fred’s non-campaign for the last several months. It’s a fact. Yeah, the MSM had it out for him from the start, but he certainly made it easy for them, didn’t he? Now he’s starting to actually act like a political candidate, but it’s going to take a miracle of Biblical proportions to resurrect his dead candidacy. I hope he does, but honestly Fred is deep in deficit spending with his political currency. His campaign has been so disappointing that frankly, I am a bit angry with him. I don’t think I’m alone here, either.
The main point I have made time and time again is that Fred just has so far refused to sell himself, his credentials, his experience. People choose their party’s nominee largely on resume. Fred has a great one, but nobody knows about it. He hasn’t made a case for why he would be better on national security than Giuliani. He hasn’t made a case for why he’s the most qualified for the job in a world facing uncertainty about nuclear weapons in Iran and Pakistan. He could make these important cases, but he hasn’t. He has mostly wanted to talk about how he’s been conservative longer than the other guys.
He has failed to understand that the party is going to pick the candidate who has the most credibility on foreign policy first. The most conservative is a luxury and at best would serve as a tie breaker. All those people still putting Giuliani as the GOP front runner should be supporting Thompson. But none of them know he advised the State Department on matters of International Security and Nuclear Proliferation.
If Fred had been running an effective campaign, he would have been pounding that in almost as much as Giuliani has brought up 9/11. Instead he has never gotten past “I’m conservative.” That’s the first line in an introduction, not the whole pitch. Unfortunately, no one told Fred that. For most conservatives, when someone running for president says “I’m conservative”, the reply is “OK, so am I. But what makes you qualified to be Commander In Chief and Leader of the Free World?” So far, Fred hasn’t really made answering that question part of his stump speech.
LOL!
This is only one statement, and how much media play it get's we'll see. Obviously he started not only late, but slowly. However there's plenty of time if his campaign organization picks up the pace. A month before the bulk of the delegates are contested. He's a solid candidate, we'll see about the wisdom of a late entry.
mark
I agree.
I think we already do. I can't point to a source at the moment, but someone might have it handy.
Reading the link I thought he was saying he was sorry to hear she had been killed. If he misspoke and said he apologized for killing her I wouldn't read anymore into it than he's tired and goofed.
I'm not locked into any one candidate at this point. I'm not going to eliminate one for speaking poorly. In this instance I think Thompson made a better comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.