I'm sure Fred Thompson is a nice guy and believes in what he says, but what he says just makes him another bonehead among the other Republican boneheads contending for the presidential nomination.
I believe that there is a growing majority in this country that are sick to death of boneheads and are hungry for someone intelligent enough to lead us out of this mess and the bonehead thinking that got us into it and which would certainly dig us in deeper if another bonehead were elected as president.
Anyone that believes that Bush was right to attack Iraq and that it is right to stay there until the mission is completed and the Iraq government has the situation under control, and that it is right to just keep waging war until we've wiped terrorism off the face of the earth and are ruling the world by the force of our military might is a bonehead.
You can't find peace under the working philosophy of killing them all and claiming that it is just a war between the good guys and the bad guys.
Defend your country, yes, but not through needless, never-ending war that only begets more war.
As you defend your country in a legal and moral way, take the time to discover the true reasons that led our enemies to become our enemies.
To say that it's just because we're good and they're evil and want to kill us, is to think like a bonehead.
Root out and try to understand the true cause of contention that started this and then try to resolve the problem, even as you continue to search for those responsible for the original 9/11 attack.
At the same time get down off your high horse and realize that we can no longer have our way by using our military might and our cruel sanctions.
It is time for us to turn to a philosophy of respect for all nations and not sort them out in terms of those we consider evil and those we consider good.
Instead of using your military might and war to satisfy your need for oil, respect those nations that have it, and buy it the same way a man buys potatoes at the store.
Naman Crowe
namancrowe@yahoo.com
* * *
Sadly, it no longer surprises me to see opinion pieces like that of Naman Crowe. A growing number of people in our society seem to be losing the ability to hold a civil conversation or present any type of argument short of a mudslinging tirade. Mr. Crowe is certainly entitled to his opinion, but does he actually believe he's making a persuasive argument by repeatedly referring to Republicans as "boneheads"? Can you call someone stupid and in the same breath begin a lecture about respecting others?
If we are to follow Mr. Crowe's example, we should show greater respect to jihadists who are bent on spreading their radical brand of Islam than to our fellow countrymen. And we should have more compassion for those who choose to indiscriminately slaughter men, women, and children than for those who simply want to protect our country to the best of their ability. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Crowe.
I don't believe that I'm in the minority when I pledge my support to an individual who will not cower in the face of threats to our country and who will boldly stand up to evil, yes evil, regimes such as that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Here is a man who has vowed to wipe the nation of Israel off the map and would love nothing more than to destroy the way of life that we and the rest of the western world enjoy. Is there a better word than "evil" for such blind hatred? Our next president should be willing to take a stand against the twisted beliefs of Ahmadinejad and others like him. This is not a call for military action, but it is a call for courage. That's why I'm supporting Fred Thompson for President. Fred understands what we are facing on a global scale and has the gumption to make the tough but necessary decisions to ensure our continued freedom. I believe Fred can and will make a positive difference for this country, in both foreign and domestic policy.
Being plainspoken is great, but if your argument loses its credibility in the first paragraph, then perhaps you shouldn't be presenting an argument at all.
Brent Lambert
East Ridge
* * *
I found Naman Crowe's assessment of Fred Thompson rather amusing.
In our hype-based society there is a tendency on both sides of the aisle to wholeheartedly support candidates who have accomplished little but carry themselves as the "ideal candidate." Like Barack Obama, Thompson has spent relatively little time in government. Neither has led large coalitions to tackle difficult problems in our country. Sure, you can like both Thompson and Obama because of their writing and their ideas, but then you have to ask yourself, "what have they really done outside of bold stump speeches?"
Both candidates are embraced by the public as the "new face of politics" - a fresh approach to a system that has left the majority of the electorate disenchanted. I understand people wanting to attach themselves to someone with that kind of X-factor. Our political system has left many of us bitter and hurt. Clinton demoralized the Presidency; Bush abused its power. It’s natural to look outside of the mainstream arena for new blood. But I fear that placing so much hope and energy on inexperienced leaders will be disastrous for our country.
I wholeheartedly believe that we should be open to new ideas and new kinds of candidates, but a history of strong leadership should be one of the first criteria we look at when pledging our support. Thompson may be "the new Reagan" and Obama may be "the new Kennedy," but if you cast a vote for either on those grounds you ignore the grievous errors that both Kennedy and Reagan made during their terms - of which there were many.
Furthermore, you are not advancing a new approach to our country's problems; you are treating the Presidency as an icon of religious proportions.
Mr. Lambert's reply implies that a Democrat president would be soft on terror - an argument advanced by Rudy Giuliani a few weeks ago. I find this approach incredibly flawed because it suggests that Republicans hold a monopoly on our country's safety. As if Democrats don't love America enough to protect us from our enemies? Should we as a nation be so terrified of our enemies that we only vote for one party on one issue? What has happened to America the brave?
Finally, I found fault with Naman's statement that all the Republican candidates are boneheads. Both Ron Paul and Chuck Hegel (if he enters) are very intelligent, prudent individuals and would be fine leaders for our country if elected.
David Morton
* * *
It has become the way of life in the political world to make fun of and call those you are afraid of names. Liberal Democrats know that Fred Thompson will be a problem for any of their candidates, hence the name calling. Liberals have no agenda, cannot agree on a platform and are unable to debate the issues, hence the name calling.
We are still in Iraq; gas prices are still high; 11 Democrats voted against their own immigration bill, and then there is Congressman Jefferson. However, like the current occupant of the White House, this childish behavior will not affect Fred Thompson in any way.
Jim Arnhart
Ooltewah