War on Terror Conversations: Fred Thompson [Video]
The PJ Media War on Terror Conversations
Because we think the War on Terror trumps all other issues in the current Presidential campaign, PJ Media is conducting in-depth video discussions with the leading candidates on this subject. Our approach is oriented toward open-ended dialogue on this one key issue, not quick sound-bites on many – unlike the numerous debates. This matter is simply too important. We want to give the candidates an opportunity to air fully their views and the public to hear them in as much detail as possible.
We welcome your suggestions and comments and will try to include them in future “War on Terror Conversations.”
The soundtrack for this video will also air on PJM Political, PJ Media’s weekly radio show on XM Satellite Radio’s P.O.T.U.S. ’08 Channel #130 – Thursdays at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.
To share this video, or to embed it on your own site, you can do so via Blip.tv by clicking here.
Transcript of video here.
What a soothing, thoughtful presence Mr. Thompson comes across as. Thank you, Roger, Bob and Andrew for an excellent first “conversation” in your series. Will Hillary! be joining you sometime soon? I understand she loves to “chat.”
He sounded and looked good. Great interview. Finally an opportunity to listen to a candidate – not just to soundbites, but to his real ideas. Well done.
Presidential.
I like both the style and substance of this interview….even down to the relaxed manner that Fred answers a question, “I don’t know there’s an answer to that.”
He’s a good man and candidate.
Thank you fellows for raising the tone and quality of the conversation.
We have to make this man president.
Fredheads unite!
http://www.FredThompsonForum.com
First rate interview better than anything of its nature I have seen on the MSM.
This is a from different Thompson than the one the media as been giving us. This guy I cold vote for.
It’s obvious that Fred Thompson has thought these matters through on national security, and he is sober and realistic about dealing Islamofacists in Iran.
I hope enough people can see that Fred would make the ideal president- deliberative, measured in his words, while speaking the truth unapologetically.
Excellent work. This is the best interview I have seen so far in the presidential campaign. If this were the Thompson we were always seeing, he’d be ahead in the polls. Too bad for him.
Very nice interview, good break from the usual Presidential Election hysteria.
I was amazed to hear Thompson say “I don’t know.” I’ve never heard a politician do that before. That’s impressive.
Decent responses. The guy sounds like he’s too much of a (semi-concealed) hard-liner. Also his response about Israel and Palestinians both having to want peace. WTF kind of limp answer was that? Does he think Israel doesn’t want peace? Why not clearly take sides? (for Israel, of course!)
Fred Thompson sounds impressive. I still remain loyal to Rudy Giuliani—but I have no problem whatsoever in supporting him if he wins the nomination. Thompson clearly understands the threat of Islamic nihilism. If nothing else, he would make a very good vice president.
Dear Mr. Simon: The interview I saw was deficient. I’m sorry to say, I think the interviewers were as much at fault as the subject. Two examples:
1. Senator Thompson said this nation needs to make a “financial commitment” to “rebuild our military.” The nation has three choices to do this:
a) borrow the money in the manner of Reagan and Bushes pere et fils.
b) raise taxes in the manner of the Clintons past and future (and then spend the dough on social programs and borrowq the money anyway)
c) cut spending elsewhere, not successfully done since Coolidge, nor even tried since Truman.
You could say that paying for the war on terror is an ancillary issue to fighting it. But after seven years of deficit financing, I think it has to take a higher place. I agree with the Winston Churchill of 1936. Talking about rearming Great Britain, in a time of great pacificism, he said, the country will always do its duty when the true facts are put before it. Stanley Baldwin did not agree, and the results are evident to us today.
Discussing this would be a first step in Senator Thompson’s intent of “bringing the people along for the ride.” He did not do so in this case.
2. But go back even farther: “rebuild our military.” Said forces are not just tanks and planes and ships. They are also men and women. I don’t know if you saw this article (via INSTAPUNDIT):
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2007/11/petraeus-picks-next-generation.html
General Petreaus is being summoned home to lead a promotion board in the Army, where the colonels of today become the generals of tomorrow. It is fair to say that colonel to general is the hardest step in an Army career. Picking future generals is a hugely important task. But is it important enough to bring Petraeus home? In August 1943, did George Marshall telegraph Eisenhower asking him to come home to help pick the next set of generals? Not hardly; Eisenhower had other tasks to do, e.g. winning the war. So why is Petraeus being brought home for this task? The article says it is because Petraeus’s presence is the only way the Army at large and the public, can have faith that the next set of generals in our country can have the right set of skills to fight the war on terror. If true, this is a horrific indictment of our Army, which requires prompt attention. What would Senator Thompson do about this?
Mr. Simon, your position on the war is sufficiently sturdy for you to ask the toughest questions. Tough questions from you will not be seen as “gotcha” journalism as practiced by such $5 million liars as Tim Russert against Mr. Libby. If the hawks can’t ask the tough questions, this nation is in a pickle.
I apologize for the enormous length and am ready to face any replies. But this interview didn’t do what it needed to.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
Gregory Koster,
Many of the questions you recommend asking would have been interesting. Others too that we had in mind. We had a long list. Unfortunately we had to cull. This is a presidential campaign. The candidates, as I’m sure you know, are scheduled down to the minute. We were lucky to get as much of Thompson’s time as we did. We made our choices of questions, trying to get a range. Perhaps your choices would have differed.
Warning!!!
The link to FredThompsonforums goes to one of the Paulian fake forums where they pretend to be supporters of other candidates and then advocate ridiculous positions and try to implicate the candidate. The reference at the top of the forum to “for North America” should give you a clue. Also notice the doctored photo with the extra dark circles under Fred’s eyes. There are examples of this for every Republican cadidate other than RP himself.
These interviews are an excellent idea, and I hope all the major candidates from both parties agree to participate.
I thought Thompson came across as thoughtful and presidential in this interview, and most of his answers were good ones. I was disappointed in his answer to (IIRC) Bob’s question about engaging American Muslims in the Long War. In fact,I’m not sure he answered it. Still, it was overall an excellent interview and a welcome addition to this overly long campaign.
Impressive interview. You just raised the level of discourse to Presidential election caliber. I support Senator Thompson’s candidacy wholeheartedly because he has the foreign affairs / national security experience to keep us safe.
Could you please include a transcript with these? My internet service sucks and I don’t fool with most streaming video. Thanks.
A transcript is being made and will be published tomorrow.
Roger and Bob:
Great job. That was a very good interview, and I look forward to the rest of the series. Thanks for your hard work.
And yes, anyone can quibble with how the interview was done. It’s just not that constructive, is all…
He’s believable. He doesn’t talk a blue streak which I find refreshing. I’ll vote for him!
He looks Presidential to me. Just a real guy – not phony.
While it may be true that some of those Muslims who engage in the slaughter of non-Muslims are ignorant of many things, it is not true that ignorance leads one to carry out jihad.
On the contrary, since the word of Allah (Qur’an) and the example of Mohammed (Sunnah) demand the faithful Muslim to war against all who refuse to convert or submit to the rule of Allah, it is the knowledgeable, devout Muslim who does so.
I want to vote for Fred, but I fear that he too is ignorant of the Source and Sustenance of our enemy’s bloodlust:
I was appalled with the choices we had in the the Republican party until Fred announced. The MSM would be somewhat upset if their candidate failed in her quest to regain the White House, but would be almost as happy if Rudy were to be the winner. Both Hillary and Rudy see eye to eye on most of the issues (anti-Second Amendment, pro-abortion, taxes), except the GWOT.
I’ve been a supporter of Fred since I heard he was considering a run. He is the leading conservative in the race, no offense intended to Mr. Hunter, but he is leading in the polls. Fred has my vote, and I hope all conservatives see through the sound bites the MSM is feeding us.
Amillenialist: As the spokesperson for our nation, it does not good to fuel the fire of our enemy’s hatred. If there is a good way to do it, it is to call all Muslims haters (even if it is directed in their religion) EVEN if they individually or as groups have no intention to do so.
Yours tends towards an ideological polemic, which is what Fred purposely avoided. I believe he is probably aware of the implications of what the Koran teaches. He’s also aware of the sensitivity of the subject. Unless we really go to war with the whole, entire Muslim world, such things will remain unsaid.
Some need be and will need to continue to be our allies, hopefully permanently.
In the ideological black-and-white world your position makes sense, but it does not make workable policy.
It’s one thing to not attack Muslims as whole. It is another thing to do what the British do and cede powerful positions to radicals.
Solid interview, two thumbs way up!
I find Freds honesty refreshing and rare in this day of the professional politician. For me there is only one choice for POTUS… Fred Dalton Thompson!
This interview seemed much better produced than some Thompson ads I’ve seen recently on Fox News. This is a case where the candidate appears way better than the campaign.
Add me to the chorus of PJM readers who are eager to line up and plant a big ol’ wet sloppy kiss on the aging hindquarters of Fred Dalton Thompson! He’s conservative, white, and old, so he’s the candidate for me!
I wonder if the Democratic candidates will talk with Pajamas Media. It will be interesting to see. (Good interview, btw… better than most)
RiverCocytus,
I’d like to respond to a few of the points you raise.
First, the enemy already hates us.
Second, if there are Muslims who would ally themselves with us out of principle and not expediency against those waging jihad, how would telling the truth about what their god commands “radicalize” them? Wouldn’t they want to reject or revise their interpretations of such texts?
A person’s accurately quoting my religion’s Scriptures never makes me want to kill. In fact, I’ve never wanted to bomb or burn down anything in response to someone’s misrepresenting Biblical texts.
If all it takes to enrage Muslims is accurately citing the will of Allah and his apostle’s example, how were they ever truly our allies in the first place?
Third, what evidence do you have that Fred — or any major presidential candidate — has any understanding of what actually motivates our enemies?
Fred’s reference to “ignorance” is not inconsistent with the UN’s announcement this week that any combination of the words “Muslim” and “terrorism” in the same calendar year is offensive, their utterance justifying the “re-education” of the person(s) responsible.
Lastly, whether or not we war against “the entire Muslim world” (and again, how does accurately citing Islam’s commands regarding non-Muslims “incite” to violence the faithful unless that is to what their religion predisposes them?), Islam is at war with us.
Imagine Winston Churchill claiming that it was a “tiny minority of unidentified extremists possessing no particular ideology” waging war against the civilized world rather than Nazi Germany. Would he deserve our admiration for his courage, or would he have been rightly despised for his Chamberlainian cowardice?
Justifying lying about Islam by calling it “workable policy” is craven appeasement and rewards Islamic intimidation and violence. Instead, we ought to “call a spade a spade.”