Say Anything Blog

Fred Thompson’s 3.3 hours of consultation and advice has at least forced those on the Left to acknowledge the reality of Islamist terrorism.  No small accomplishment, there.

Furthermore, it is those on the Left who continue to insist that terrorism should be dealt with as a criminal matter, rather than as a war.  Hard to keep a straight face making that argument and then suggest that the Libyans bombers ought not to have the benefit of competent legal counsel.  After all, that’s exactly the opposite of what the Left has squawked about with terrorist detainees at Gitmo?

Seems to me that considering all that Thompson’s 3.3 hours of consulting has accomplished, it was a bargain no matter what he charged.

Thompson’s best move would be to treat this silliness with the same creative disdain he showed Michael Moore.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

LOL, well Rob, (and all of us) we seriously need to take a look at ourselves and realize that defending even the 3.3 hours ... doesn’t look good. And, defending it makes us look as ridiculous as some of the leftards when they defend, not so logical, things their party does.
If, this issue happened to be anyone but a republican, we would be sure to point it out as being wrong.
I am all for Fred Thompson just like some of you others but, personally I’d rather act upon this with some responsibility, and be proud that I am willing to admit that I don’t like that Fred Thompson gave any time towards the defense. Sheesh.. what ol’ Fred did, doesn’t look or sit right with me and I wish he hadn’t done it but, I still support him as I did before.
Fred Thompson did a dumb move and I refuse to lower myself to a democrats level and deny I don’t like it simply on the terms he is a Republican. I don’t approve of it ... now, lets get on with life.

So, explaining how their counsel needed to proceed through the US legal system is a bad thing? How does this jibe with the whole Gitmo screech?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

So, terrorism is “just a bumper sticker”, except when Fred does a little consulting for some terrorists?  The lefties show their hypocrisy again.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

The real issue here are: 1) Was Fred able to bill for those 3.3 hours? 2) If so, was the firm paid for those billables?

If the answer to both inquiries is “yes” there is no problem.

The real “issue” here is leftie hypocrisy and propaganda.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

No one, has any, small, teeny, weensy, bit of a problem with this? I mean, does everyone find it just, fine and dandy?

No one, has any, small, teeny, weensy, bit of a problem with this?

With what?  A lawyer practicing law?  Please explain what you think is “wrong”.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Anna understands,it is part of the right that objects to Fred working for Libya.
The part that thinks Fred is the Messiah ignores the lobbyist career.

The left is not going to vote for him.

Woof=Anna?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Of course, this is all a lie.  Fred worked for a colleague, not the terrorists. Unless lawyer/client confidentiality has been breached, we don’t even know that what he did had anything to do with the actual defense.  So, once again, the “smear by association” tactic is used against a Republican.  What a surprise!

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Fine guys! Sorry, for even suggesting that a Republican could any thing that isn’t kosher.

I know darn well if it was ol’ lady lawyer Clinton or another demowit y’all would cackle about it til the cows came home.
But hey ... (or hay, in this case), have at it… lol, it’s all yours!

Anna,
Has your boss ever asked you a question that you wished you didn’t have to answer?  Did you answer it because you need your job?  Has he or she ever asked you to do something distasteful, but necessary? Like it or not, in order for the American justice system to work, evil people need defense attorneys.  If the Libyans were ever going to be tried anywhere but Libya for this, an American lawyer HAD to consult with their Libyan lawyer.  I wouldn’t hold it against Hillary Clinton and I don’t hold it against Arent Fox as a firm, much less Fred Thompson as an employee of that firm. The American Way is to make sure that everyone, even the worst of the bad guys, get the fairest possible chance.  I’m sorry that you don’t like that Fred Thompson, or any other lawyer, can set aside their personal distaste to serve a larger ideal.  I think that’s a quality that any potential POTUS ought to have.

Excuse me Mel, just where did I say I don’t like the idea of ANY LAWYER defending the “evil person”?

Anna is right, if this were Hillary we’d be pissed.  From what I’ve heard Thompson has stepped in it.  The difference is that we would expect a liberal to defend the enemy, but not a conservative.  Thus, we give Thompson the benefit of the doubt.. something we conservatives wouldn’t do if Hillary was being consulted.  Am I happy about what Thompson did? No way.  Am I still going to vote for him?  Very likely.

Am I happy about what Thompson did?

You don’t know what he did; all you have is implications.  Try facts.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Fine guys! Sorry, for even suggesting that a Republican could any thing that isn’t kosher.

No one has done that, which is to make the big generalization you did.  In fact, this is about a single action by an individual.  No need to generalize.
In fact, Hillary had done so much worse that there is no comparison.  The implication here is that Fred consorted with/lobbied for, terrorists.  No facts support that. All you have is a very indirect association and a boatload of implications.  Get real.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Could it possibly have been a case of ,

“Hey, Fred, What’s the downside of this? Do you think we might be stepping in a steaming pile here?
What do you think about it?

Just askin’.

robert108, If I don’t believe it was the best interest for Thompson to have participated in the defense so be it. Right or wrong the implications alone definitely bring on unneeded and irredeemable damage for him.
Furthermore, if you’re intent is to have a mature debate, suggesting I “get real”, is probably not for your best interest either.

robert108, If I don’t believe it was the best interest for Thompson to have participated in the defense so be it. Because of lawyer/client confidentiality, you don’t know what he did, so you are just making things up. Right or wrong the implications alone definitely bring on unneeded and irredeemable damage for him. This is what lefties believe; the facts don’t matter, only what we can imply to smear someone.  Shame on you!
Furthermore, if you’re intent is to have a mature debate, suggesting I “get real”, is probably not for your best interest either.  My mistake; I was trying to relate to you at your level.  I promise I won’t do it again.

Why are you so anxious to smear Fred?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Looks like Homer Stokes is the kind of fellow

who wants to cast the first stone.

- Well, I’m with you, folks.

I’m a forgive-and-forget Christian, and I say…

if their rambunctiousness and misdemeanoring is behind them…

It is, ain’t it?

Yes, sir, it is.

Anna,

I’m sorry, but you are dead wrong about this.  In the first place there are plenty of legitimate issues and points of contention regarding Hillary Clinton’s qualification, or lack of it, to be our next President and Commander-in-Chief.  Your suggestion that this would be one had this been Hillary instead of Fred Thompson is, to put it nicely, nonsense.

What this whole incident points out is the monstrous hypocrisy of those on the left who devoutly support the ACLU and its assortment of clients, such as child rapists, serial murderers, and psychopathic gang-bangers… not to mention all those Islamist terrorist currently housed at Gitmo, who then sniff sanctimoniously at Thompson over less than three and a half hours of consultation with the attorney for the Libyan intelligence officials named as the Flight 103 bombers.

Xavier,

Your suggestion, implying that Thompson ought to have considered the “downside” of this consultation is just plain silly.

In the first place, this took place over 15 years ago, and it is hardly likely that he would have considered that he might be running for President a decade and a half later.  More to the point, you might want to first be sure that he would have been allowed by law, the bar association code of ethics, or his firm’s employment contract to decline his colleague’s request for advice.  I suspect he probably was not free to decline… even if there had been a legitimate reason for doing so.

Finally, consider that Thompson’s work back 15 years ago might well have helped lay the groundwork for the eventual settlement, including $10 million to each of the 270 victims’ families, and Libya’s surrender of it’s joint Libyan/Iraqi/Egyptian WMD program.  Hardly a bad deal when you think about it.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The almost imperceptible touch of Fred saved all freedom loving peoples.

$10 million to each of the 270 victims’ families, and Libya’s surrender of it’s joint Libyan/Iraqi/Egyptian WMD program

Hallelujah!
The Lord works in mysterious ways.

I get it now, WOOF.

If it is a Republican President interning terrorists without trail, we are supposed to vilify the Republican President for abridging the rights of the terrorists.

If it is a Republican lawyer making sure that the terrorists right to a fair trial aren’t being abridged, then we’re supposed to vilify the Republican lawyer for aiding the terrorists.

Makings perfect sense!  LOL.

You don’t get it Carrick.

To link Fred’s small part 15
years ago as instrumental in
saving the free world is
Fred the Messiah Syndrome.

or:

It’s All Good

WOOF,

Your modest attempt at sarcasm is duly noted.  In the process you have managed to totally disqualify yourself from any sort of serious commentary about the Bush administration’s treatment of terror suspects… at Gitmo or elsewhere.  Any comments you might have about rendition, waterboarding, or flushed Korans will only get your laughed at for your hypocrisy.

But then, few of us take your comments seriously anyway.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One, My intentions were not to suggest that he should have considered the bad side implications back 15 years ago. I also never suggested the defense wasn’t necessary. Fact is, I didn’t say that.
I do see a problem with Thompson doing this and the matter being publicly unacceptable and leading to negative consequences.
I, also said,it looks bad and I refuse to deny that it does look bad! Well, I tried to say anyway.

____

robert108,

Woof=Anna?
__
Get real.
__
My mistake; I was trying to relate to you at your level.
__

I can only say, respectably note and thanks for the heads up!

Anna: I repeat, you don’t know what he actually did, so your judgment that he did something bad or reprehensible is pure fantasy.  So far, all you have is guilt by association, and a very indirect association at that.  Just trying to be thoughtful instead of reactive.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

BTW robert108’
Why do you continue to suggest I want to smear Thompson? I don’t and even if I could ... I wouldn’t. Believe it or not, I am on your side but, you refuse to see me as that.
Even you admit, the facts are not and will not be considered by all and that in part, is exactly what I am trying to point out. It is not the “matter” I have a problem with it’s the “situation” I find troubling.
Regardless, to what facts we have or regardless to whether we have the intellect to comprehend Thompson’s necessity to the Libyan defense ... is meaningless to how the situation looks to others. Not only will it be a negative issue totally distorted by the lefties, it will be misconstrued by many on their own. Therefore this situation does turn out to be unneeded and irredeemable damage to him.
Unrighteously so, this doesn’t make Thompson look good to some. And I am willing to admit, that is very very true.  (also meaning I won’t deny that fact)
___
Now, However my words may read to some, if I want to feel regret because Thompsom did this and now it isn’t looking good to those misinformed, I adamantly, feel it’s ok to do so, without anyone here, suggesting my opinion is incompetently below standards here, by any means insignificant here or even unwelcome here.
ps, and that includes those of you, who find it safer to tell me nasty things in pm’s instead of in view of others. Unfortunately for you, I am here to stay and you’re now blocked from my pm’s but if you still have a problem with me being here, pm someone with access to ban me instead.

Not only will it be a negative issue totally distorted by the lefties,The lefties distort things as a matter of course, without any supporting material, in most cases. it will be misconstrued by
many on their own.Only if they don’t take the time to think about the facts. Therefore this situation does turn out to be unneeded and irredeemable damage to him. I disagree.  This is just more phony Dem smear; since it’s unavoidable(they have no other strategy), the truth needs to be told unrelentingly.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Anna: I didn’t “suggest” anything about you; I asked you straight out about why you wanted to smear Fred.  If your answer was that you weren’t, why didn’t you simply say so?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108, LOL, It wouldn’t matter and you even know that.
Whatever I say, you find a way to disagree with me. 
I have no doubt that if I responded to your comments with, “Yes, robert108 ... you are 100% correct”, you would even figure out a way to disagree with that!

Anna: Despite what you believe, I don’t center any part of my life on you.  I asked you a question, and you still have not given any sort of an honest answer.  Instead, you display a wounded ego.  What’s up with that?(another question, btw)

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108, I am not sure what lil’ fantasy you’re having that makes you think I would even desire your attention let alone invite it. Trust me, your condescending arrogance is not a desirable characteristic others seek out.
As for my ego .. it’s just fine thank you, and of no concern of yours. Ironically, you couldn’t see past your own egotistical self to even realize I good-naturedly, expressed that it’s probably pointless for us to continue and this was a good time to cordially end it.
Now, how about you dismount off your high horse and stop being such an asshole… it’s not very becoming at all

I based it on this:

Whatever I say, you find a way to disagree with me. I have no doubt that if I responded to your comments with, “Yes, robert108 ... you are 100% correct”, you would even figure out a way to disagree with that!

The reality is that I don’t care what you project about how I would respond to you if you actually answered my question. I simply noted that you have yet to answer it.  Thus, any misunderstanding is your creation.  You could just answer my question, of course, instead of going through all your drama.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

That should be “self-centered drama”, but then maybe I’m being redundant again.  /humor

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

how about you dismount off your high horse

what? and fall to his death? that’s gotta be quite a fall! or, rather, it might not be the horse that’s the ‘high’ one.