But do you claim that any EU country actually has a coherent plan — other than "oppose the U.S." plus either "do nothing" or outright appeasement — that they're pursuing in competition with ours?

I don't think their plan is so much "oppose the U.S." as "hope it'll go away if we don't rile them up." That's not much of a plan, to be sure, although "invade Iraq" hasn't proven to be so hot yet, either.

But Thompson argues that they're just clueless about the threat and that they think it's overblown. I contend they fully understand the threat, are scared out of their minds, and don't think there's much they can do about it. Which, incidentally, may well be the case.

Europe fully understands the dangers of terrorism. Not only do they have a much longer experience with the problem but several countries there have a large Islamist population with actual home-grown cells plotting and conducting attacks. There is just a profound difference of opinion in how to deal with the threat and, unfortunately, the mess in Iraq has only strengthened their resolve that our path is the wrong one.

Hello? Are we talking about the same Europe?

Your factual observations about their experience and local Islamist populations are correct, and you're also certainly correct that many EU countries insist that our path is the wrong one (although Spain and Italy were pretty strong members of the Coalition of the Willing for a while). But do you claim that any EU country actually has a coherent plan — other than "oppose the U.S." plus either "do nothing" or outright appeasement — that they're pursuing in competition with ours?

With the exception of Blair, European leaders seem to me to be pretty well stuck in 1938. Do you really have a different view of them?

Work on your reading comprehension dude. I was questioning a position the Mr. Thompson put forth, not stating my own opinion.

Perhaps the smart people are ignoring me. That would explain why you responded to my post, and in a manner that makes no sense...

Ooookay,
That is an interesting theory but totally neglects the historical record of Islamnist terrorism before we invaded Iraq.

"Who thinks this? No one I have ever spoken to."
Maybe the smart people just ignore you.

But hey, he is an experienced statesman now. He had his picture taken with Thatcher!

He offered really no substantive discussion of how to deal with the mess in Iraq and, curiously, nothing about Russia's increasing belligerence--which is a bigger threat to US national security than Iran, which he does spend time talking about.

The entire speech consisted of platitudes showing that Thompson is basically the Obama of the right.

Of course, the other Republican candidates have pretty dismal foreign policy records as well, especially with Giuliani's admission that he didn't want to serve on the Iraq Study Group because it would hurt his earning power on the lecture circuit.

Nevertheless, Thompson doesn't really impress with this speech.

Admittedly, even some in America think that the threat is overblown, and that if we had not gone into Iraq, we’d have no terrorism problem.

Who thinks this? No one I have ever spoken to. This sort of nonsense only exists in Rush's imagination...

The nod to the ideological kinship between the UK/US comes across as genuine, and his mixture of Churchill quotes was a nice touch of knowledgeable respect. Neither of those two things do I see coming from candidates on either side of the aisle.

Editor's note: You can post comments for or against candidates but this site is not a forum for cut-and-paste propaganda not directly related to the topic of the post.