Fred Thompson: The War in Afghanistan Has Been Lost

Oh boy, I wish Fred hadn’t gone here but the said truth is someone had to say it out loud…

From the Politico:

Former Sen. Fred Thompson today intensified his party’s criticism of President Obama’s long deliberation over policy in Afghanistan, announcing that Obama’s delay signals that “the war has been lost” and that nothing the president now does will “make any difference.”

“It really doesn’t matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,” Thompson said on his radio show today.  “I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.

“Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case,” Thompson said.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has the audio here.

Ouch… Barack Obama made winning the war in Afghanistan a central part of his Presidential campaign and yet 10 months into term in office he’s still formulating a policy… Unfortunately, I think Sen. Thompson is right, President Obama lacks the temerity to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and is instead voting ‘present’ just as he has done with everything else.

Jim Hanson laid it out months ago Mr. President, wars do not end, they are either won or lost:

The buck stops with you Mr. President, it’s time to make a decision… Do we give our war fighters the resources they need to fight and win or do we cut and run?

Update (5:15 p.m.): Pete Hegseth has a good post over at The Corner that takes Sen. Thompson to task for his remarks:

Let’s go back to an interview Senator Thompson gave on Hannity and Colmes on May 1, 2007:

HANNITY: The biggest battle we have is this war on terror, this battle in Iraq. We have a really deep divide in the country. Senator Reid the war is lost. We still have to finish the job there. Where do you stand in general on the war on terror and, more specifically, in Iraq, and on the divide surrounding Iraq?

THOMPSON: Well, let’s talk about Senator Reid for a moment. Right before I came over here, I was sitting outside, getting a bite to eat, before we did our interview. A young woman [former Army captain] came up and asked if she could sit down and talk to me a minute. . . . I asked her what she thought about this. She said, “How in the world can anyone, any one of our leaders, declare war, declare that the war has been lost when we’ve got troops in the field? My friends are over there in the field. I know what they think about this.”

And, of course, it’s just like all other Americans think. The very idea that they would do this and undercut our efforts over there is unprecedented. And it’s not only unprecedented; it’s awful politics.

We should not be fearful of these people politically. We just need to concentrate on what’s right. What is right? We need to take advantage of any opportunity we’ve got down there. I’ve got a lot of faith in Petraeus. I knew him when he was at Fort Campbell when I was in the Senate. He tells me we’ve got a shot? We’ve got to take that shot.

I’m sure Senator Thompson made many similar comments in 2007, and he was right. Sen. Harry Reid’s statement was unprecedented, and it was awful politics. And if Petraeus says we have a shot, then we’ve got to take that shot.

In light of the above, what is Senator Thompson doing undercutting the mission in Afghanistan? Is the mission less justified? Is it less achievable? Or is McChrystal less capable? No. Senator Thompson’s issue with the Afghanistan mission is President Obama. And while I share many of his frustrations — indecisiveness, lack of will, unwillingness to articulate the need to win — none of them give him, or anyone, grounds to declare the war lost.

I have a lot of respect for Fred Thompson but the more I think about his remarks the less comfortable I am with them…  Pete Hegseth is right, regardless of our frustrations with the President Obama’s lack of action there are just some things that shouldn’t be said while men and women are in harms way.

Common Sense: Fred Thompson on the Economy

Fred Thompson delivers dose of common sense on the economy and our government’s “spend yourself to prosperity plan”.

Fred Thompson Drops RNC Bid for Return to Acting

Continuing with my catching up on things theme here…

It looks like the race for RNC Chair has tightened a little more.

I mentioned a few days ago that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s bid for appeared to be losing steam and now comes word that Fred Thompson is dropping out of the race in favor of a return to acting.

Putting aside the fact that I don’t think Thompson was ever really in the race that leaves Michael Steele as the only prominent Republican/conservative still in the running. Not everyone is crazy about him but I don’t think he would be a bad choice.

Unfortunately, I don’t think RNC members will choose Steele… I suspect they’ll choose a new chairman from within their own ranks… If media reports are right the top contenders among RNC members are:

• Robert M. “Mike” Duncan, 57, the current RNC chairman
• Katon Dawson, 52, the South Carolina GOP chairman
• Saul Anuzis, 49, the hyperactive Michigan GOP chairman
• Tina Benkiser, 46, Texas GOP chairman
• Jim Greer, 46, Florida GOP chairman
• Chuck Yob, 71, an RNC member from Michigan who is reportedly retiring from the committee.

Tina Benkiser is the only one of that group who is even mildly interesting to me… I’ll admit I don’t know much about her but at first glance she seems to have solid conservative credentials and she would bring young fresh face a Republican party that is viewed in many quarters as old and out of touch.

Poll Question: Who Do You Want As RNC Chair?

My initial gut reaction is Newt Gingrich, though, the more I think about it the more I’m leaning towards Michael Steele or Fred Thompson. As much as I like Newt he may be to polarizing for the job.

The choice between Steele and Thompson is tough one, I don’t think we could go wrong with either one, ultimately I think Michael Steele embodies the idea of “change” more than Thompson does so I guess you can put me in the Steele camp.

Who’s your choice? Tell us why in comments.

Krauthammer & Thompson

Charles Krauthammer like me isn’t the happiest of conservatives in this race but like me he understands what’s at stake. I’m no fan of John McCain but given the choice between him and Barack Obama it’s a no brainer… Barack Obama is not your fathers democrat he is a socialist.

Krauthammer writes:

Contrarian that I am, I’m voting for John McCain. I’m not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it’s over before it’s over. I’m talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they’re left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling “Stop!” I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I’ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The “erratic” temperament issue, for example. As if McCain’s risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago. Read the rest…

Suffices to say as much as it pains me I’m voting for John McCain.

On a related note the RNC released a new campaign video today. It’s not a your normal 30 second spot… It’s 12 minutes of Fred Thompson discussing what a Barack Obama presidency would mean for America and the world.

Thompson lays it out… If the democrats have their way they’ll take us back to the policies that led to the economic decline of the 1960s and 70s.

Fannie & Freddie…

I’m not in a writing mood today but I hate to leave this page silent so I thought I’d share a few must reads on the Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac bailout with you. First is the Op Ed by John McCain in today’s Wall Street Journal:

We’ll Protect Taxpayers From More Bailouts
By John McCain and Sarah Palin, September 9, 2008

The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is another outrageous, but sadly necessary, step for these two institutions. Given the long-term mismanagement and flawed structure of these two companies, this was the only short-term alternative for ensuring that hard-working Americans have access to affordable mortgages during this difficult economic period.

We are strong advocates for the permanent reform of Fannie and Freddie. For years, Congress failed to act and it is deeply troubling that what we are now seeing is an exercise in crisis management rather than sound planning, and at great cost to taxpayers.

We promise the American people that our administration will be different. We have long records of standing up to special interests and providing the leadership to change government and make it more accountable to the American taxpayer. In our administration, every agency and department will undergo rigorous oversight and review. We will require the highest standards of accounting, reporting and transparency ever demanded in government. Read the rest…

The second is Fred Thompson’s column in the September issue of Townhall Magazine:

The Dangers of Government Guarantees
by Fred Thompson, Townhall.com

I’ll bet it came as a surprise to most folks that the financial stability of the world as we know it depends upon the survival of a couple of outfits called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yet that’s what the so-called experts are telling us. Moreover, we taxpayers are now being asked to guarantee Fannie and Freddie’s tab, one that could make the $124 billion S&L bailout of the late 1980s look cheap.

So how did we get stuck with this bill? Well, Congress wanted to “do something” about what it saw as a “housing problem.” To them that meant that they should create an even bigger problem.

So Congress passed laws that made it easier for hopeful home-buyers to buy houses … even when they couldn’t afford them. Then the Fed and other regulators helped, in the form of easy money and loose credit standards for mortgages. Read the rest…

And the last is from the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s OpenMarket Blog:

Are Reporters Financially Illiterate? Fannie and Freddie Are Called “Government-Sponsored Enterprises” for a Reason
Posted by Hans Bader

Right now, the federal government, at a huge cost to taxpayers of perhaps $100 billion, is bailing out the two government-backed mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the so-called GSEs.  “GSE” stands for Government-Sponsored Enterprise.  But some reporters are financially-illiterate, because if you point out the obvious — that the GSEs are going to cost taxpayers billions — reporters will condescendingly “correct” what you said, by insisting that they are completely “private sector” entities (false) that have yet to cost taxpayers a dime (false).   (Back in July, the predicted cost to taxpayers of a bailout was already over $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  The cost could be up to $300 billion.  Moreover, the GSEs already “receive an estimated $10 billion a year in hidden taxpayer subsidies”). Read the rest…

The bottom line on all this seems to be every time congress gets a brilliant idea we get screwed… I mean stuck with the bill.