Thompson Runs to The Right By Michael D. Shear, Washington Post Staff Writer

DES MOINES, Sept. 6 — Fred D. Thompson took his bid for the White House to the campaign trail Thursday, vowing to compete aggressively for the support of Iowans and pitching steady, experienced and conservative leadership.

“I still have the same common-sense conservative beliefs I did when I ran in 1994,” the former senator said in a speech at a Des Moines conference center, a not-so-subtle reference to criticism about the changing positions of his main Republican rivals, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. …

In Thursday’s speech, he pledged fidelity to a series of conservative principles — limited government, an aggressive foreign policy and lower taxes — and promised a commitment to securing the borders and appointing conservative judges. …

A national anti-tax group Thursday proclaimed that his record has the “hallmarks of a pro-growth economic conservative,” but the Club for Growth cautioned that the senator has an “enigmatic” record on tort reform and must explain his support for limits on political speech.
– – – – –

A Conservative for . . . 1994? By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Fred Thompson, who proposes to be what Republicans need to overcome their malaise, may himself be part of the problem.

And the problem is that conservatism as a philosophy no longer produces ready-made answers to the quandaries that face the country or the voters. Republicans do not need to debate who is conservative enough. They need to argue about what conservatism is. …

Republicans, says [Tony Fabrizio, a neutral Republican pollster], who conducted a similar study a decade ago, are more conservative than ever but in ways more complicated than many appreciate. [mjh: Snicker. Guffaw. Yup, they’re deeeeep thinkers.]

That will make Thompson’s effort to become the Man for All Conservatives much more difficult. And Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman whose book “Reclaiming Conservatism” will be published in the spring, says that providing the backdrop for the contest is a conservative “awakening that we completely lost our way.”

This means that making conservatives feel good will not be enough for Fred Thompson. He needs to show where he will lead a movement shrewd enough to know that it is now in the wilderness.
– – – – –

ConservativesBetrayed.com
Fred Thompson, the Faux Conservative By Richard A. Viguerie

The American people want a President who will finally bring conservative values—honesty, faith, a belief in limited government, and respect for the family as the core of society—to the White House. After eight years of Democratic Big Government under Clinton and eight years of Republican Bigger Government under Bush, they certainly deserve a break.

They won’t get it with Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson is just playing a conservative for your consumption. In real life he’s a typical Washington insider.

Granted, most Republican politicians play that game to a greater or lesser degree. But Thompson does it so well that it becomes truly difficult to separate the acting from the reality.

Bush shows gift of gaffe at APEC summit | Politics | Reuters

Even for someone as gaffe-prone as U.S. President George W. Bush, he was in rare form on Friday, confusing APEC with OPEC and transforming Australian troops into Austrians.

Bush’s tongue started slipping almost as soon as he started talking at a business forum on the eve of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Sydney.

“Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction,” he told Prime Minister John Howard. “Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit.”

As the audience of several hundred people erupted in laughter, Bush corrected himself and joked, “He invited me to the OPEC summit next year.” Australia has never been a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Later in his speech, Bush recounted how Howard had gone to visit “Austrian troops” last year in Iraq. There are, in fact, no Austrian troops there. But Australia has about 1,500 Australian military personnel in and around the country.

Upon finishing his speech, Bush took the wrong way off-stage and, looking slightly perplexed, had to be re-directed by Howard to a centre-stage exit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0637479920070907?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/09/50_years.html

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction | Salon.com, By Sidney Blumenthal

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. …

CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was “excited” about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri’s information was at odds with “our best source.” That source was code-named “Curveball,” later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer.

The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. “Tenet told me he briefed the president personally,” said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush’s response was to call the information “the same old thing.” Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. “The president had no interest in the intelligence,” said the CIA officer. The other officer said, “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.” …

These taps “validated” Sabri’s claims, according to one of the CIA officers. The officers brought this material to the attention of the newly formed Iraqi Operations Group within the CIA. But those in charge of the IOG were on a mission to prove that Saddam did have WMD and would not give credit to anything that came from the French. “They kept saying the French were trying to undermine the war,” said one of the CIA officers.

The officers continued to insist on the significance of Sabri’s information, but one of Tenet’s deputies told them, “You haven’t figured this out yet. This isn’t about intelligence. It’s about regime change.” …

One of the former senior CIA officers told me that despite the certitude of the three Republican senators [Orrin Hatch, Saxby Chambliss and Pat Roberts], the Senate committee never had the original memo on Sabri. “The committee never got that report,” he said. “The material was hidden or lost, and because it was a restricted case, a lot of it was done in hard copy. The whole thing was fogged up, like Curveball.”

While one Iraqi source told the CIA that there were no WMD, information that was true but distorted to prove the opposite, another Iraqi source was a fabricator whose lies were eagerly embraced. “The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused,” said one of the former CIA officers. “The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/?source=whitelist

Kudos again to Eugene Robinson, this time for fighting the Republican re-write of history by people who weren’t even there. (Or were high at the time.) mjh

Eugene Robinson – Good Morning, Vietnam! – washingtonpost.com

But seeking support for the war in Iraq by reminding the nation about Vietnam? I’d feel better if I thought this was just some exquisitely subtle, deeply cynical gambit, yet I have the sinking feeling that Bush actually believes the nonsensical version of history he’s peddling. I fear the man is on a mission to rewrite the past. …

[Bush said:] “Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility — but the terrorists see it differently.”

Lest anyone think this was merely a random rhetorical spasm, outgoing White House political czar Karl Rove wrote an article in the conservative National Review last week that included this passage: “If the outcome [in Iraq] is like what happened in Vietnam after America abandoned our allies and the region descended into chaos, violence and danger, history’s judgment will be harsh. History will see President Bush as right, and the opponents of his policy as mistaken — as George McGovern was in his time.”

What?

For the record, the illegal U.S. bombing of Cambodia destabilized that country and boosted the Khmer Rouge, who eventually took power and exterminated those “millions” in the “killing fields.” The monstrous Khmer Rouge regime was finally ousted by . . . none other than the communists who took power in Vietnam after the American withdrawal. Oh, and it was Richard Nixon who negotiated and began the U.S. pullout. Gerald Ford presided over the fall of Saigon. Both of them were Republicans, as I recall.

And George McGovern, who never got to be president, was right.

Bush, Rove, Dick Cheney and the other principal architects of the Iraq war never served in Vietnam — in fact, they went to great lengths to put distance between themselves and the military adventure they now describe as both necessary and noble. At the moment, though, I’m less concerned about their hypocrisy than their distortion of history.

To say the United States should not have withdrawn its forces from Vietnam is to say that there was something those forces could have done — something beyond napalm, carpet-bombing, destroying villages in order to save them — that would have led to some kind of “victory.” Of course, Bush and the others don’t say what that special something might have been, because they don’t know. They’re seeing nothing but a historical mirage.

Bush seems to want to return to a golden age when America confidently threw its weight around wherever, whenever and however it pleased. The problem is that no such golden age existed. American power has always had its limits, and there have always been some wars that simply couldn’t be won.

Bush and his enablers seem to forget that it was Dwight D. Eisenhower — a man with a bit more experience in running a war than the tinhorn generalissimos now occupying the White House — who realized that the most we could achieve in Korea was a stalemate. [mjh: Curiously, the Journal left this one paragraph out without inserting an ellipsis. Was “tinhorn generalissimos” too galling?]

George W. Bush wants us to remember Vietnam? Fine, then let’s remember those iconic images — the Viet Cong prisoner being executed in cold blood with a pistol shot to the temple, the little girl running naked and screaming from a napalm attack. Let’s remember how little we really understood about Vietnamese society. Let’s remember how wrong the domino theory proved to be. Let’s remember how much damage prolonging an unpopular war did to our armed forces and our nation, and how long it took us to recover.

Thanks for the reminder, Mr. President. When you talk about “victory” in Iraq and the Petraeus report discerns a light at the end of the tunnel, we’ll think of Vietnam.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300802.html