So it turns out the Washington Post is just as wrong as you. Doesn't make you right.

You have still failed to defend the position that the Soviet Union was "fighting for other people's liberty." And the British Commonwealth was also under direct attack in World War II to an extent we were not. The US got into that battle when it could have focused on the Japanese, yet we went into Africa and Europe, too.

Sorry, you are still a useful idiot. Very useful to Fred Thompson, as it so happens.

uh, cosmo, weren't the british at d-day as well? and then in berlin when the war ended? you're really picking and choosing your terms to help make your point, but you're nitpicking. additionally, the US had a very definite self-interest in defeating hitler. uboats off the eastern seaboard and the threat of a nazi europe can speak to that. and save the condescending "useful idiot" talk for the gunclub, rube.

No, guys, Fat Freddie is exactly right!
Take a CLOSE look at what he sez:
"Our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples IN THIS COUNTRY than all the other countries put together."

'.. for the liberty and freedom of Other Peoples IN THIS COUNTRY..'

Now WHO can argue with THAT?

What OTHER Nation has shed blood 'for the liberty and freedom of other peoples IN THIS COUNTRY'?
Only one that comes to mind: The French, during our Revolution, and in pretty small numbers at that.

NMC, do you agree then that saying the Soviets fighting for freedom is ludicrous? If Hitler hadn't violated the non-aggression pact he'd signed with Stalin, he wouldn't have lifted a finger. And the 8 million dead had a lot to do with how poorly Stalin treated his own people, too.

I'll be careful because I do not want to denigrate what the British did. Their contribution was vital, and they lost more soldiers than we did, true.

But what Thompson said was "other people's liberty" -- the British were so close to Europe they couldn't sit that out. The US, separated by oceans, could have done so for a long time.

Did we have self interest? Surely some, yes, but we didn't become a true global force until after WWI. We weren't defending our interests the way the British were.

And again, New York was not subject to bombing raids. London was.

edit: WWI should say WWII

Now everyone just calm down.

Let's just look at "our people" vs. "other peoples in this country."
Presumably, "our people," means the US Armed Forces.
"Other peoples in this country" presumably implies civilians.
So Thompson is saying US servicemen have shed more blood for the "liberty and freedoms" of US citizens than "all the other countries put together."

Sorry, but Jonathan is right:
we got off 'easy' in WWII because the Russians were taking the brunt of the German force on the Eastern Front.
Ounce for ounce, they bled more for the same 'freedoms' we enjoyed by ridding the world of the Third Reich.

And if you want to look at it another way, the Vietnamese and the Iraqis (and every other victim of American interventionism) sure did/do shed a lot of blood under the to protect American liberties and freedoms.

Of course, now we pretend like it's for *their* freedoms and liberties. But you're a sad specimen of sucker if you believe we're not there for our own self-interest.

So enjoy the liberty to live in a disposable culture and freedom to drive a Hummer to McDonald's--a lot of blood was shed for it...

Why can't Freddie find some better scriptwriters? His current scripts seem to always have him ending up as the buffoon being lambasted in the media. Can't he get some writers from that other TV show, The West Wing?

Hey Freddie! Call Bartlett and get those writers' phone numbers. Bartlett had great lines and always won.

So who's freedom was Russia fighting for in WWII? Considering what the Soviets did after the fall of the Reich I'd be hard pressed to consider them fighting for any other countries freedom. In fact I'd consider it the opposite.

In fact, either world war for any country is a poor example of fighting for other countries freedom.

yea, cosmo, the soviet claim is dubious. they were acting out of pure necessity and self-preservation, and who wants to paint stalin as anything but hitler jr? and, yes, tallying up US v. UK dead is ghoulish and silly. my issue is that i believe thompson is conflating WWII and the war on terror, as though defeating hitler is comparable to invading iraq. with a military exchange with iran potentially looming, i don't want "USA #1!" cheerleading to replace serious debate.

EVE is correct. Define "Freedom". Define "Liberty". Very subjective terms. To Lenin it meant something different from Jefferson. Americans do not have a Monopoly on the truth. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!! When you believe that YOUR country is best, that YOUR religion is best, that YOUR political system is the best, you are setting yourself up for a fall. Capitalism and Jeffersonian Democracy is a blip on the timeline of human existence and hopefully it is not part of the final act.

Here is the deal, you are all getting into this WAY too much. The fact is that Thompson isn't thinking nearly this hard. The guy isn't all that smart! What he said was stupid, flag waving propaganda. It was better than most of the “kick ass USA” bile that spews from either side of the aisle, but BS all the same.
He was sorta’ right, sorta’ dumb. If we want more of that sorta’ right attitude, let’s change the Constitution and put Bush in for 4 more. But this time, let’s do it right. Let’s have Quale as his VP and we will go full on half ass in the true American fashion.

As for the commies during WWII, fact is that if they didn't hold the Nazis down, D-Day would have done diddly-squat! If fact, I’d go so far as to say that we didn’t win that war, but Hitler lost it due to over extension and missed opportunities. I’m not denigrating the effort of the kids thrown into the fight, but that is basically what happened. Maybe without the Russians, we would have won, but it may have taken many more years and would we have used the bomb in Europe?
Now if you want to argue history, try that one on. If you want to nit-pick over the comments of morons, then just keep on keepin’ on. There is plenty made every day to waste your time with.

Man oh man, CosmoReaxer, your grasp of history is BAD! The U.S. was not primarily motivated by self interest in WWII?!? Allow me to utterly blow your arguments out of the water...

Right around the time that bombs were falling on London, bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor courtesy of the Empire of Japan. And (in case you didn't know) Japan was allied with Germany. We declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941 in an act of obvious self interest in response to Pearl Harbor. On December 11, 1941 both Germany and Italy, as allies of Japan, declared war on the U.S. Only after that did we then declare war on Germany and Italy. Hence, our entry into WWII was nothing other than self interest all around. We were not at war until we were bombed by Japan and were the target of a unilateral declaration of war by Germany. Got it? Class dismissed.

PS - That is one of the reasons it was called the "good war." We fought only when forced to, not out of choice.

Nearly every military action in US history has been fought for self interest. The only possible exceptions that come to mind are the humanitarian efforts in the former Yugoslavia in the 90s. Maybe Somolia too, but that one didn't end so well... In other words, the only time we fight for the freedom of others is when it coincides with our self interest. And where it doesn't, we toss people to the wolves. You don't believe me? Ask the Shiites who were slaughtered by Saddam after Gulf War I. Ask the Hungarian resistance in 1956. Ask Rawanda. Ask southern Sudan. In fact, other than Bonsia, Kosova, and Somolia, can anyone come up with a list of truly humanitarian military exercises in US History? Fred Thompson and his apologists are full of it.

Actually Fred doesn't say whose blood was shed. Maybe he meant we have shed the blood of foreign people for the liberty and freedom (to exploit and get rich)of others in this country. That statement does seem to be true ;o>

The other countries were fighting for self preservation, we were not. It's as simple as that. And check and see how many countries we have freed. How many countries have the Soviets freed? Or the French? Or the Germans? The list goes on and on.

And to say the Soviets were fighting for the same freedoms?!? Where did you get your education? The KGB?

Maybe Ray and Cosmo --- and Thompson --- have a narrow definition of "freedom" that includes waving an American flag. The Soviets who died did so to free themselves of the invading Germans. What, you don't count fighting to free yourself from a foreign occupier as fighting for freedom? Trying to quantify Thompson's ludicrous, jingoistic statement is just pointless. He thinks he's found a good line, and he;ll use it, even if it means no more than his fake red pickup.

What GVC says quoted below shows just how stupid this statement of Thompsons is. It makes little logical sense, it's grammatically incorrect and is a meaningless phrase. It's like saying no one else has made more money for my wife and I (who stays how with the kids) than I.
Well who the hell else would do it? Is he saying that no other nation has sacraficed thier soldiers for OUR freedom? It's like most of what he says; it sounds good but upon examination is found to be meaningless and empty.

GVC Said: "Our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples IN THIS COUNTRY than all the other countries put together."

'.. for the liberty and freedom of Other Peoples IN THIS COUNTRY..'

Now WHO can argue with THAT?

What OTHER Nation has shed blood 'for the liberty and freedom of other peoples IN THIS COUNTRY'?
Only one that comes to mind: The French, during our Revolution, and in pretty small numbers at that.

Funny thing is, Doug, that when I read what Freddie had said, I was immediately put in mind of the "Gabby Hayes" character in the Mel Brooks classic, "Blazing Saddles".

"Gabby" launches into an emotional, mushmouthed tirade in church which quickly becomes totally unintelligible.
Whereupon one of the other parishioners (a guy remarkably like Fred) rises, turns to the rest of the congretation and asks: "Now WHO can argue with THAT?"

It was exactly the sort of thing I felt I was reading from Fred.
Unintelligible.

Thompson is old. Give him a break. Most old people make incorrect statements like this, look at President Reagan, who could not tell reality from the movie rolls. So let us all go back to sleep or for the folks in Frisco, have another toke. I know that I will.

When Mr. Stein posted his original comment, I posted:
"Mr. Stein is certainly not advocating Stalinism" and also
"Having said that, Mr.Stein's point is, however, wrong in the sense that the USSR government's reason for fighting the east front, beyond the possibly justifiable reasons of self-defense, were not for the sake of freedom (He has split up Poland with Hitler before that). Staling had no such noble intentions. He ended up imposing Soviet rule in half or Europe. Stalin was a "butcher". The 20 million who died that he refers to were 20 million people not 20 million Stalins. I think there is no purpose either in a contest of "let's count the dead" to see who is the world's no.1 freedom fighter.
And having said that, let's not forget either that Churchill and FDR pretty much gave all that up that at Yalta."
My point now is, let's assume for now, that Mr. Thompson patriotic mathematics are the only correct one and we should start counting the dead and all that, what of it?
Are we then to assume that the U.S. can embark on any war, for whatever reason, and that makes that war holier than the holiest because of that fact. Point is: US was much more admired and respected after WWII than it is now, regardless of Thompson's back-of-the-envelope calculations. Resorting to this type of rhetoric to justify "What?" must give any one a warning light as to what type of messianism is he AGAIN trying to sell the the electorate. Please NOT AGAIN. The whole discussion is ridiculous and
the Post picked up on Mr. Thompson's remarks as well.
About Mr. Greenspan..well his views on why Iraq war is on should at least raise some eyebrows. Tony

Ray, you are wrong wrong wrong when you say "The other countries were fighting for self preservation, we were not." See my post above yours. Those facts I present CANNOT be disputed. WWII was absolutely about self preservation. We had been bombed at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, and Germany declared war on us first. Period. End of discussion.

gvc - maybe we should refer to all of Fred's future speaches as "authentic frontier gibberish"? Has a nice ring to it...

To Ray's comment:
The whole "contest" is ridiculous. It's got nothing to do with current politics and issues.
If you think about it, Ray, the US. even freed a good chunk of the North American continent from Indians.
About WWII, it is not just as nice as American Holywood movies portray it. Sorry. The Brits took a good blunt of it even before the Americans got involved...and this by the way does not mean that the US did not have a significant contribution, but so did the USSR (yes, even if Stalin was a monster) because many Sovier citizens kept the Germans pretty busy on the eastern front and died at it. WWII wasn´t just won squarely as some want to portray it. It is far more complicated than that. Why can´t some north americans accept a country that's less than perfect? That doesn´t take away its merits, but it certainly leaves room for improvement. Or does anyone prefe to leave just as is?

Fred Thompson is the only Republican who can win against Hillary.

Others would argue that Fred Thompson is the only Republican who CAN'T win against Hillary.

Looking at the MSNBC polls following their latest debates, there's only one candidate from either of the two parties who has a positive rating over 50%, and the same guy also has negatives lower than any other candidate by at least 10%.
Can you guess who it is?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20873667/

Two Dems are polling higher than Hillary on that site, and in most other online polls.

Predictions of this sort, at this point in a presidential campaign are pretty worthless as far as accurately predicting who the next prez will be.
It's like predicting who'll win the Superbowl in July.