Nixon: Thompson Dumb As Hell

Nixon on Fred Thompson: “He’s Dumb as Hell”

Posted by Trish | Jul. 8, 2007, 1:13 pm

Pres. Nixon didn’t want Fred Thompson as minority counsel during the Watergate hearings because he doubted the mental capacity of the future actor and lobbyist.

Nixon to Haldeman: “Oh shit, that kid!” Haldeman: “Well, we’re stuck with him.”

Thompson, then 30, was appointed counsel by his political mentor, Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker, the top Republican on the Senate committee. Thompson had been an assistant U.S. attorney in Nashville and had managed Baker’s re-election campaign…

Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called “dumb as hell.” Nixon did not think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the committee’s Democratic counsel.

This assessment comes from audiotapes of White House conversations recently reviewed by the Associated Press at the National Archives in College Park, Md., and transcripts of those discussions published in Abuse of Power: The New Watergate Tapes, by Stanley Kutler.

“Oh, s—, that kid,” Nixon said when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson’s appointment on Feb. 22, 1973.

“Well, we’re stuck with him,” Haldeman said.

The two were concerned that Thompson would be outgunned by much brighter lawyer John Dean, who was ready to desert their sinking ship. Appealing to Thompson’s strong partisan side helped him focus and prepare for the questioning.

Dean, the panel’s star witness, had agreed to tell what he knew if he was granted immunity.

Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not “very smart.”

“Not extremely so,” [Nixon lawyer J. Fred] Buzhardt agreed.

“But he’s friendly,” Nixon said.

“But he’s friendly,” Buzhardt agreed. “We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him, if Dean does appear next week, to do a very thorough cross-examination.”

Five days later, Buzhardt reported to Nixon that he had primed Thompson for the cross-examination.

“I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day,” Buzhardt said.

Later in the conversation, Buzhardt said Thompson was “willing to go, you know, pretty much the distance now. And he said he realized his responsibility was going to have to be as a Republican increasingly.”

That seems to be one lesson that got through Thompson’s thick skull and stuck.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Woodward Mea Culpa, well sort of....

Bob Woodward: Yes, I Should Have Probed Iraqi WMD More Closely
Bob Woodward
By E&P Staff Published: June 18, 2007 3:35 PM ET

NEW YORK: The venue was a bit odd -- an online chat marking the 35th anniversary of the Watergate burglary -- but it produced one of the clearest admissions yet by Washington Post editor/reporter Bob Woodward that he was among the many who fumbled the ball on pre-war Iraqi WMDs.

He also took issue with how a key Fred Thompson angle relating to Watergate is portrayed.

Woodward has written three books relating to the war, each one more critical of the effort than the previous one, but in the online chat at www.washingtonpost.com this afternoon he was asked about the media's performance while the run-up to the war was still underway.

A reader from Rancho Mirage, Calif., asked: "In light of Watergate, why did the "investigative" branch of the press miss so badly on the Bush-Cheney spin machine to justify Iraq? Was the lesson of Watergate wasted, or was the press serving the country well?"

Woodward replied: "I think the press and I in particular should have been more aggressive in looking at the run-up to the Iraq war, and specifically the alleged intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction stockpiles. To answer the WMD question before the March 2003 invasion would have been a monumental task, but one that we should have undertaken more systematically."

Later, in response to a similar question, he added: "I think we've learned a lot from Watergate and from the handling of controversy and scandal in all the presidents' administrations since then. At the same time, as I said earlier, I wish everyone would be more aggressive -- the press and the Congress, and in developing a fuller system of accountability. Hopefully those in government also would see the value of transparency. Speaking openly and honestly gets issues out on the table, and as Nixon himself once said, 'it's the coverup that always matters.'"

Another reader asked about Fred Thompson, who was an attorney for the Watergate committee chaired by Sen. Sam Ervin and asked the crucial question about whether Nixon kept tape recordings.

Woodward replied: First of all, when Fred Thompson -- who was the Republican cousel to the Senate Watergate committee -- asked Alexander Butterfield the question about possible tape recordings in the White House or Oval Office, Thompson, like a good lawyer, knew the answer -- because three days before the public testimony, lawyers and investigators for the committee got Butterfield to reveal the existence of the secret tape-recording system.

Though Thompson seems to get public credit for asking this critical question, it was the work of others on the committee staff who dug out Butterfield's revelation in a lengthy interview on a hot Friday afternoon on July 13, 1973.

On another note, Woodward was asked if was really friends with Carl Bernstein (they have had their differences).

He replied: "I just talked to him an hour ago, and we talk all the time and see each other regularly. He was down here visiting my wife Elsa and I last week while on his book tour for his Hillary Clinton excellent biography 'A Woman in Charge.' Carl and I indeed are friends and will always be friends. We look at lots of things very differently, but over the decades have become much closer."

E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Obama and Thompson lead in S.C.

Here's a mystery:

Why is it that the GOP, who never passes up an opportunity to furiously criticize Hollywood, flip their wigs over an actor/politician. Fred Thompson is no more qualified to be POTUS that I am. Sometimes I think the rank and file Goopers really do live in an alternate universe.

New polls shakes up the race

Non-candidate Fred Thompson: He leads in South Carolina (Reuters Photo)
By LES BLUMENTHAL
McClatchy Newspapers

South Carolina appears poised to shake up the 2008 presidential race, with Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Fred Thompson the frontrunners in a new state survey by Mason-Dixon.

With strong support from the African American community, Illinois Senator Obama has assumed a strong lead over New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the Republican side, Thompson zoomed to the top spot, slightly ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, even though he hasn't yet announced his bid for the GOP nomination.

The Mason-Dixon poll, made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News, offered disappointing news for two candidates who previously had been polling well in South Carolina. John Edwards, a South Carolina native who won the primary in 2004, was well behind Obama and Clinton on the Democratic side. Arizona Sen. John McCain, meanwhile, appeared to have lost many of his supporters to Thompson, and was far back in the GOP field.

Although it is still nearly seven months off, the first Southern presidential primary is proving a major attraction to candidates in both parties, who are spending extensive time in South Carolina.

Obama led in the new poll with 34 percent of likely voters to 25 percent for Clinton. Edwards was third at 12 percent. Sen. Joe Biden was at 2 percent; so was former Vice President Al Gore, who has given no indication of running but whose name was volunteered by some voters. Twenty-four percent were undecided.

Thompson, a television actor and former Tennessee senator, topped Giuliani by 25 percent to 21 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was next at 11 percent, followed by McCain at 7 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 5 percent. Huckabee has gotten strong notices in the last two Republican debates. Twenty-eight percent were undecided.

The new poll was striking evidence of Thompson's rise from nowhere in early presidential readings to potential front-runner status. Thompson’s first campaign swing as he edges toward a formal candidacy will be in South Carolina on June 27.

“Thompson could be emerging as the Southern candidate,” said Brad Coker, managing director of the Mason-Dixon poll.

McCain’s slide into single digits might reflect his support for the immigration reform package, legislation that is unpopular among South Carolina Republicans. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham was booed at a recent GOP state gathering when he sought to defend the reforms.

“His support among base Republicans is slipping away,” Coker said of McCain.

Giuliani’s performance in the wake of 9/11 and his strong support for the war in Iraq and national security have, so far, overcome doubts among South Carolina Republicans about his moderate views on abortion and other social issues. Romney meanwhile, has found only moderate traction in the state and has been focusing his campaign advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire.

For Democrats, the most crucial group of voters in South Carolina are blacks, who by some estimates could make up more than half of the party’s primary voters.

Nationally, Clinton leads Obama among black voters. But in South Carolina, likely voters overwhelmingly favored Obama (41 percent) over Clinton (18 percent). About one-third of the black voters in South Carolina remained undecided.

“As long as he maintains his edge in the black community, Obama has the edge in South Carolina,” said Coker.

Earlier South Carolina polls have mostly shown Clinton with a lead over Obama and Edwards still in the hunt.

Edwards has been counting on a strong showing in South Carolina, but his outspoken opposition to the Iraq war and drift to the left on other issues may not be playing well with the state's pro-military, generally conservative voters.

South Carolina’s Democratic primary is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 29 and Republican primary for Feb. 2.

The telephone poll, conducted June 13-15, involved 329 likely Democratic primary voters and 423 likely Republican primary voters. The margin of error was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points for the Democratic poll, and plus or minus 4.8 percentage points for the Republican poll.

© 2007 McClatchy Washington Bureau and wire service sources

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

WTF? The Bushites Are Supportng Thompson

Apparently true....

George P Bush is supporting Freddie, as are numerous other BuCheneyites.

This could get quite festive, to say the least

Liz Cheney to Join Fred ‘K Street’ Thompson’s Campaign
Posted by Jon Ponder Jun. 12, 2007, 2:22 pm

On MSNBC just now, Tucker Carlson said an announcement will come soon that Liz Cheney, the vice president’s not-gay daughter, is joining the as-yet unannounced presidential campaign of former Washington lobbyist Fred Thompson.

If he were to win in 2008, Thompson would be the first lobbyist elected president.

Since 2005, Cheney has served in the specially created job of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Near Eastern Affairs, in the U.S. State Dept. Assuming Carson is correct, at the Thompson campaign, she will join other GOP operatives said to include Cheney-family lackey Mary Matalin and U.S. attorneys scandal figure Tim Griffin, the former Bush White House official who recently resigned as the federal prosecutor in Arkansas after evidence implicated him in Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign voter suppression activities.

If he were to win in 2008,Thompson would be the first lobbyist elected president. During his 18 years as a lobbyist, his clients included General Electric and Westinghouse, and he successfully pushed the passage of the deregulatory legislation that led to the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s.

Thompson also briefly served as a U.S. senator representing Tennessee.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Post-Bush GOP: Pathetic....and dangerous

By Brent Budowsky

The Republican presidential candidates have a big problem, which is why they spent the last debate criticizing George Bush.

Consider what these presidential candidates said about the incompetence, mismanagement and negligence of George Bush’s failures for the first four years of the Iraq war.

The core problem for Republican presidential candidates is this: They are forced to continue to support the escalation of the war, while they are forced to appeal to a hard-core, right-wing base that is far out of touch with American opinion.

What do they do? They start talking about the option of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran.

Everybody who believes this is what Americans want, a new war in the Middle East and our country dropping nuclear bombs, raise your hands.

Make no mistake: Iran is a problem and major multinational action to prevent Iran from being a nuclear power and from giving military aid to terrorist or hostile groups is needed.

Dropping nuclear bombs? This is certifiable, both as a lunatic policy idea and an example of why the United States has become so alienated in world opinion.

Throughout the free world, among America’s best friends, George Bush and his policies are widely despised at great damage to our credibility, our security and our worldwide role of moral leadership.

This kind of far-out, nut-case perversion of conservatism has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan and nothing to do with traditionally accepted policies that both Republican and Democratic presidents have historically agreed on.

What happens when the pundit-appointed savior of the Republicans, Fred Thompson, is asked to explain his desire for regime change in Iran and exactly how he expects to achieve it? Does he want another Middle East war, and which branch of the military service does he plan on using?

If not, besides dinner-party talk for neoconservatives and their discredited ideas, what does he mean?

Does Fred Thompson really believe it is honorable, patriotic and moral to be lying under oath, or risking the lives of our covert agents fighting against terrorists, by disclosing their identities?

This latest business of Republicans seeking to follow George Bush as commander in chief — hinting, implying or threatening to drop nuclear bombs on Iran — is another example of a party totally divorced from national security reality and American public opinion.

Dropping nuclear bombs? If Republicans believe that is what Americans want in the post-Bush era, and if they believe that is the way for America to regain our leadership of the free world, that is the stuff that Democratic landslides are made of.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free