Crossposted from Flopping Aces
Looks like we can be certain that Fred is out:
I spoke to one of my Thompson sources.
He’s still with his ailing mother. “He’s just being a good son.”
He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time.
He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson.
I am also told, “he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position.” At an “appropriate time” he will outline his plans for the near future.
This source believes that the race has demonstrated that whatever happens from here on out, the GOP has to stand for consistent conservative policies across the board.
At one point, I asked this source if the attitude was, ‘if you can’t be Reagan, be Goldwater,’ and the source responded, “exactly.”
If I were a betting man, I would bet on him departing the race in the not-too-distant future.
Many who have been betting the man would endorse McCain most likely have some egg on their faces now, and the whole Carl Cameron, Fox News, “he has been after a VP slot all along” meme was wrong also.
Fox News wrong once more. Shocker.
Sad, sad news but we all knew it was coming with his third place finish in SC. Now we all have to pull up our bootstraps and work to defeat Hillary/Obama at all costs.
UPDATE – 1131hrs PST
From Fred:
McLean, VA – Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President:
“Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.
Sad news.
also:
A New NATO?
The Secretary of Defense recently described NATO as being ineffective in its current state to fight a War on Terror. Instead the organization is still in the Cold War mode:
Gates told reporters at the Pentagon that allied forces from the UK, Canada and the Netherlands have “stepped up to the plate and are playing a significant and powerful role in Afghanistan.”
But he also said, “We have to acknowledge the reality that the alliance as a whole has not trained for counterinsurgency operations even though individual countries have considerable expertise at and success in this arena.”
Now five senior Generals have something to say on NATO themselves.
A manifesto written “by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists … following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.”
What are the proposals?
The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the “imminent†spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists…
The five commanders argue that the west’s values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:
- Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
- The “dark side†of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
- Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential “environmental†migration on a mass scale.
- The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU…
To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new “directorate” of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU “obstruction” of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:
- A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.
- The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.
- No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.
- The use of force without UN security council authorisation when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings”.
In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato’s future is on the line in Helmand province.
“Nato’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan,” said Van den Breemen.
Your damn right it is. Has the organization become just as useless as the UN or will it remake itself? If they cannot even wage war effectively against the Taliban in Afghanistan how could anyone rely on the organization to still be that wall against threats to the west?
Of course the news being spread about this manifesto is the fact that they call for, at least discussions of, pre-emptive nuclear strikes against a spread of nuclear weapons by terror groups.
Some would say its the new deterrence tactic used by the west against the USSR, mutual destruction and all that. But I doubt it. The USSR were not fanatically crazy. They didn’t yearn for their deaths to meet all those virgins, but we all know one threat that definitely does yearn for that.
No, as Wretchard explains, this is more then deterrence:
It is about committing to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMDs at all costs. The reason Lord Inge’s remark that “to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence” is so significant is that it brings the trigger point back from second-strike or launch on attack to one in which WMD acquisition itself becomes the casus belli. It is almost a form of pre-deterrence.
No other recent political development has underlined the destructive effects of the Left’s opposition to the War on Terror as much as this manifesto. To now stake the safety of the West upon pre-emptive nuclear attack rather than endure the constant sniping of the Left exposes the full bankruptcy of the “pacifist” position. This alternative may take the world to the brink of a catastrophe. One wonders whether any NATO majority will have sufficient confidence in their intelligence agencies to order a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the basis of a warning. In all probability they will not. What will likely happen is that the West will be left waiting for the descent of the first nuclear blow in order to generate the political capital to strike back, and then in the only way they can — with atomic fires — in place of the men who could not be mustered to defend it under the galling fire of their critics.
Oh, we most definitely know that NO country will order a nuclear strike based on their intelligence. It just won’t happen. As Wretchard said, its going to take a nuclear bomb going off in a western city to pull our heads out of our asses and launch a nuclear attack, meaning tens of thousands will have to die before we truly understand the threat that faces us.
Sad but true.
Other’s Blogging:
Support the Baltimore Reporter.
