Only one candidate appeared presidential in responding to the assassination of former Pakistani Primer Minister Benazir Bhutto. At this critical time, there was only candidate you would want in the Oval Office. That candidate was Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson understands the worldwide threat of radical Islamic terrorism.

Thompson put this event into perspective in an appearance Thursday evening on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.” Thompson said, “This is part of a much larger picture. We are in a battle with Radical Islam who’s declared war on us. They are willing to do anything they can, including killing their own people in order to further their goals – which is nothing less than subduing of the Western world and foremost in that is the United States of America.” Mike Huckabee said that we need to bring the people that did this to justice. However, Thompson recognizes we are in a wider struggle against radical Islamic terrorists. “This proves again the mindset of the radical elements that we are dealing with. We are seeing this all across Northern Africa and various places. We’re seeing it across the Middle East and in parts of Asia including Indonesia and other places. We have to come to terms with that and do the things necessary to prevail.”

Fred Thompson understands the importance of American security.

The usual suspects in the “Blame America First” crowd have been critical of American foreign policy regarding Pakistan. Some have shamefully suggested that Bhutto’s assassination was a direct result of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s pressure on Bhutto to return to Pakistan. They claim that Pakistan is “not ready” for democracy and the Bush administration pressured Bhutto to return to Pakistan “too early”. Thompson correctly points out that we need to continue to work with Pakistan to keep it stable, fight terrorism and work towards democracy: “We have strong interests in making sure those nuclear weapons don’t get into radical hands. We have strong interests in getting the Pakistani government to help us in Western Pakistan, where the Taliban still resides, and we have a strong interest in democracy.”

Now let’s contrast Thompson’s response with that of his opponents.

Mitt Romney said that “A president is not a Foreign Policy expert”. He continued, “If we want someone who has a lot of experience in foreign policy we can simply go to the State Department and pick out one of the tens of thousands of people that work there.” We know that Mitt is not an expert, but the President needs to be.

Rudy Giuliani said that what Pakistan is going through reminds him of his own experience on September 11. To be fair, however, that is Rudy’s response to every question.

John McCain took the opportunity to score some cheap political points by criticizing Rudy for his lack of foreign policy experience. When given the opportunity, Fred Thompson did not criticize other candidates. Rich Lowry, co-host of Hannity & Colmes Thursday evening, pointed out that Thompson has foreign policy experience, as does McCain. Lowry gave Fred a chance to contrast himself with McCain and tell voters why he would be better than McCain on foreign policy. Fred said he did not want to put himself head to head against another candidate and explained that they share the same experience. Fred stated that both he and McCain met with Pervez Musharaf together in Pakistan.

Mike Huckabee expressed: “our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.” Apologies??? The Huckabee campaign later sent out an official statement to clarify his remarks. The MSM portrays Huckabee as witty, quick on his feet and a great communicator. The truth is that he is not an effective communicator. This is not the first time his campaign needed to “clarify” his statements. In the struggle against radical Islamic terrorism we need a President that gets it right the first time and communicates the right message to our allies and more importantly, our enemies.

Who was the most Presidential?

Only one candidate got it right without making excuses, without making the story about him, without criticizing other candidates and without dangerous missteps. People reveal their true character in a crisis. In this crisis, Fred Thompson revealed that he should be our next President.
| edit post
4 Response to 'Bhutto Assassination: Only One Candidate Appeared Presidential'
  1. Winghunter
    http://landofdafree.blogspot.com/2007/12/bhutto-assassination-only-one-candidate.html?showComment=1199031120000#c7795819313642026546'> December 30, 2007 at 10:12 AM

    To do your homework BEFORE you choose a candidate;

    Candidate Research Made Easy;
    http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/candidate_research_know_who_youre_voting_for/

     

  2. Anonymous
    http://landofdafree.blogspot.com/2007/12/bhutto-assassination-only-one-candidate.html?showComment=1199031300000#c8291920541055398698'> December 30, 2007 at 10:15 AM

    You're absolutely right. No one else besides Fred has a clue what to do in the White House.

    GO FRED!

    http://www.fred08.com

    Solution for Social Security, Strong and detailed Illegal Immigration and Flat tax plan...read all about it at his website.

     

  3. Rockyspoon
    http://landofdafree.blogspot.com/2007/12/bhutto-assassination-only-one-candidate.html?showComment=1200516120000#c892409892791957963'> January 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM

    That description of Romney's response was basically taken out of context. He had an excellent response if you'd include the entire dialogue. It's obvious you shill for Fred, who, in my opinion, is a great conservative, but doesn't have the energy a president needs to lead the country. Romney does. Please be more open and honest about the way you report politician's responses next time.

     

  4. Land of Da Free
    http://landofdafree.blogspot.com/2007/12/bhutto-assassination-only-one-candidate.html?showComment=1200516780000#c7550035609864123713'> January 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM

    It was not taken out of context. I watched his entire appearance on Hannity & Colmes from start to finish. His point was that the President does not need to be a foreign policy expert and that many people working in the State Department have foreign policy experience, with the implication that you wouldn't want one of them to be President. If it was taken out of context - then what was his point? Please explain what his point was, you wouldn't want someone to call you a "shill" for Romney.