Huckabee crossed that line

By DukeLaw Posted in Comments (94) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

In the post-9/11 Republican Party, there is one line that us conservatives don't cross. We do not critique Bush's handling of foreign policy and national security issues from a leftist perspective. Those who do, like Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, and Walter Jones, get "primaried".

After improvements in Iraq finally begin to take place and victory appears to be attainable, Mike Huckabee, in his latest Foreign Affairs piece, attacked President Bush's handling of the War on Terror from the left.

Even Ron Paul has not crossed that line.

At least when Ron Paul says everything about blowback, and leaving Iraq, it is a far-right wing critique based upon the principles of nonintervention and that America should not be spending money abroad.

The following statements of Hucakebee are all attacks on President Bush from a left-wing perspective:

1. President Bush has an arrogant foreign policy.

2. President Bush has a "bunker mentality".

3. Guantanamo Bay needs to be closed because other people don't like it.

4. Bush is on a path "to war with Iran".

5. We need to negotiate with Iran.

6. Our relationship with Iran is strained, much like "friends who don't talk for some time".

7. A lack of opportunity is the root cause of terrorism.

8. "Much like a top high school student, if it [the US] is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved.”

Wrong party Huck.

I'll forgive Republican heresy on any other issue, but not this one.

Well put. I prefer Republicans with two tusks, not one horn.

...............................
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
--Rudy Giuliani

The last two paragraphs of David Brody's column on CBNnews.com may shed light as to why evangelicals will dig in and support Huckabee.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/287527.aspx

Brody writes:

"I can tell you this. All these stories attacking Huckabee may hurt him in New Hampshire and in other states across the country. But in Iowa, among evangelicals, it's a different mind set. These stories can actually have the reverse effect with Evangelicals saying ,"stay strong Mike. Everybody is coming against you because you wear your faith on your sleeve."

This is usually the mentality when "one of their own" is attacked. Unless he's done something so reprehensible it's going to take something pretty big to stop Huckabee's momentum in Iowa with Evangelical Christians."

A well-deliberated, steaming pile for all the world to see.

Soon the embarrassed explanations will start, but this may sink the Good Ship Huckapop.

However, you left out "terrorists only hate us because of a 'lack of opportunity' in their own countries, so we need to export the war on poverty."

A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

I caught just a little bit of LE today, Huckabee explains to Wolf how he did not say that Pres. Bush is arrogant. He said instead that arrogance exists in US foreign policy. Were it me instead of Wolf I would have followed up with something like
Gee, Mike, how do you account for all of that arrogance you say exists there? Did it get there by immaculate conception?

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

1.We'll be greeted as liberators
2.We have enough troops
3.You're either with us or against us
4.Mission Accomplished
5.You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
6.Bring it on!

I think Mike Huckabee was alluding to the statements above. I know George W. Bush has even gone on record as stating he regretted the tough talk. It’s obvious to me this was part of the arrogance Mike Huckabee alluded to in his speech. There is no question that all of them were brought on by being arrogant.

First off, you only address one of Huckabee's statements. You ignored everything about Iran and Guantanamo.

Secondly, let's look through your points.

1. We'll be greeted as liberators.

To many, we were, especially in the Kurdish areas. It was certainly an overstatement, but I wouldn't say that qualifies Bush as having an arrogant foreign policy four years later.

2. We have enough troops

Hence the surge, hence Petraeus, hence the current gains in Iraq. President Bush has clearly realized there weren't enough forces, and has acted accordingly.

3. You're either with us or against us

On a national level, with the context of whether or not nations would fund and support the network of terrorists who committed 9/11, I think it was a perfectly reasonable and clarifying statement to make.

4. Mission Accomplished.

This is such a left-wing Code Pink talking point. When Bush made that announcement, Saddam's forces were decisively defeated. The first part of the war was accomplished, and brilliantly so. Yes, the insurgency continued, but in the context of the open warfare against Saddam, the mission was accomplished.

5. You go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time

I don't remember President Bush (issue at hand) saying this. Can you please show me the link?

6. bring it on.

Clearly this was inappropriate, and Bush has sense expressed regret for saying this. But this one statement does not mean that Bush has an arrogant bunker mentality on the War on Terror, nor does it mean that we should sing Kum Bah Yah with Ahmadinejad.

A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

After five years of Cowboy Diplomacy what do we have to show for it? In the very region that we could arguably claim to have been greeted as liberators, there now looms the possibility of a full-scale invasion by one of our few allies in the Middle East. Turkey just recently launched jet attacks on PKK strongholds some sixty miles into Kurdish territory. Why after nearly five years of occupation has it come to this?

Why after four years of futility did we finally figure out that we needed more troops?

Why have the British, our closest allies in this war, pulled completely out of Basra and plan to totally withdraw by next spring? Are they now against us too?

I certainly have more questions than answers but this war was a mistake from its inception and has allowed al-Qaeda to regroup while the rest of the international community can only wait until Bush and his arrogant posse ride into the sunset.

Let's hope Bush and Cheney decide not to play a game of Cowboys and Iranians before the nails are finally hammered shut on his bunker.

Ron Paul for President!

Need a little cleanup please.

Although I must admit- I've never heard the "Cowboys and Iranians" pun before.

"Why have the British, our closest allies in this war, pulled completely out of Basra and plan to totally withdraw by next spring? Are they now against us too?"

Hmm - I don't know - let's read a little, shall we? From a lead article on Fox News online:

"British forces formally handed over responsibility Sunday for the last region in Iraq under their control, marking the start of what Britain hopes will be a transition to a mission aimed at aiding the economy and providing jobs in an oil-rich region beset by militia infighting.

With the handover of Basra, an overwhelmingly Shiite region home to most of Iraq's oil reserves, nine of the country's 18 provinces have reverted to Iraqi government control.

"I came to rid Basra of its enemies and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends," the commander of British forces in Basra, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns, said shortly before he added his signature to papers relinquishing responsibility for the region in Iraq's far south."

Yippee - ki - yay, idiot.

Where do you get off Jack?

From the BBC:

"A British general told me", (Paul Wood, ME Correspondant for BBC News), "- privately and off the record of course - that the Army had been defeated, pure and simple.

"But, said one officer on the phone from Basra on Friday, everyone predicted that when we left, Basra would burn. But it didn't happen. That's a major success, he said.

"This officer agreed that the city was plagued by rival militias and criminal gangs, but what had changed was that, finally, the local security forces were equipped to deal with it.

"Over the past four years, I've been told many times that this police chief or that Iraqi general was taking charge and would end the violence. But the new police chief, General Jalil Khalaf, does seem different. For one thing, he's already survived seven assassination attempts, a sign of how seriously the militias are taking his attempt to clean up Basra.

"The British are not handing over a Basra at peace. For ordinary Basrawis conditions are simply dreadful. Forty-two women have been murdered over the past three months for wearing make-up, or failing to wear the hejab, the Islamic headscarf.

"On official figures half of the city's Christian population has fled - and that's probably an underestimate.

"In October, the main police station in the city centre was over-run by Mahdi Army militiamen trying to free one of their comrades.

"However, the important lesson of that, say British officials, is that the Iraqi police and army cleared up the problem themselves, regaining control of the building within the hour. British assistance was not needed.

"So, on Sunday, there will be a ceremony to hand over the last British province in Iraq It will start, as is customary, with a reading from the Koran.

"Then the British commanding general and the governor of Basra will sign a document saying, in essence, that Iraqi problems are now for the Iraqis alone to solve."

So what we have at best is an uncertain outcome and mixed results. This doesn't sound like victory to me. At least not the kind of victory you chicken-hawks were crowing about five years ago.

If victory means handing over half of Iraq to warring militias intent on imposing an Islamic fundamentalist state then I suppose I deserve every last bit of venom you can muster. If however, we find that nearly 4000 of our bravest and finest soldiers have died fighting to turn southern Iraq over as an Iranian client state then I suggest you learn to enjoy lapping up your own vomit.

"A British general told me", (Paul Wood, ME Correspondant for BBC News), "- privately and off the record of course.."

Privately and off the record, from the BBC. Perfect.

""But, said one officer on the phone from Basra..."

Paul couldn't drag his ass out of bed to see for himself, huh? Or does being about 3000 miles away make that a problem?

"This officer agreed that the city was plagued by rival militias and criminal gangs..."

I thought this was a commentary on Basra - not South Central LA or New Orleans or Detroit or...oh, forget it.

For the record, this war will produce mixed results at times. At least we are able to recognize a threat when we see one, and are able to fight when it is necessary. We are better off without Saddam, but some are too dense to realize this, and it has grown tiresome debating parrots and stalkers. When Jeff Emmanuel tells me things in Basra are screwed beyond repair, and southern Iraq is becoming an Iranian client state I will believe it. Not some BBC reporter borrowing Al Jazeera's phones to come up with a "story", or some deranged Bush hating psycho who blames everything - from global warming to his inability to make toast - on the President.

And as far as lapping up vomit, with a name like "redrover", it seems that would be the one skill you possess. All the best on your vacation.

Jeff Emmanuel. It seems he isn't anywhere near Basra either. Probably a good reason for that. He is certainly brave enough, but he is no fool. Being the couragous reporter that he is, I doubt that he would feel the need to be embedded in a military unit for a visit to New Orleans, Detroit, or LA. He probably isn't as fearful of Black people as you seem to be.

Fortunately, I tend to get my information from a variety of sources. If you prefer to live in a one-dimensional world that is your perogotive.

My objections to this war are not based on mindless meanderings or reactionary and reflexive musings or talking points. I opposed it before it even began because it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our soldiers are doing the best job they can under the most difficult of circumstances. I have met and spoken with more than a few who are more than glad to be home and are---off the record---angry at their Commander-in-Chief and confused about the nature of their mission. Al-Anbar is quiet for now and armed to the teeth. If the military surge is not followed soon by a political surge, we may wind up losing all the progress we have made in the last three months. To be sure, the Arabs that have stopped shooting at us are not our friends. They hate and distrust us more than you hate what I seem to represent to you. I apologize for my inappropriate comment, but it would be a mistake to dimiss me as an idiot. You do so at your own peril.

Only time will tell, Jack. And trust me, there isn't a lot of time.

It's Mr. Emmanuel to you.

And let's see, you've insinuated he was a coward. You called him and Jack Savage racists... why the hell are you still here?

And more to the point, which Code Pink group are you from?

It's Mr. Emmanuel to you.

And let's see, you've insinuated he was a coward. You called him and Jack Savage racists... why the hell are you still here?

And more to the point, which Code Pink group are you from?

Blam.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

serioussly, this is such a crock of crap. Turkey is planning a fule scale invasion? The British are leaving Iraq? Cowboy diplomacy? I hope you are a troll, if not, you need to start your political learning at square one.

______________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

...and I do have a life - at least, I do have a baby, which is apparently the official substitute.

Besides, Leon gacked the strutting little militarist. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

And here I was about to go into full-bore "whatdidIdo???" mode...

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Knew I could count on you.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

show off :)

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

What exactly gives you that idea?

They're getting routed out of Iraq and have just made a nation of 25 million Muslims -- a third of them Sunnis -- hate them with a nearly unanimous passion.

AQ hasn't been doing a whole lot of attacking of late and my guess for the reason is that they have operational logistical problems.

They haven't "regrouped" at all. We've never stopped fighting them since the minute we stepped foot in Afghanistan. And it's a malicious lie that we gave insufficient attention to them while dealing with Iraq.

I don't know what will happen with Iraq in the future. It's quite possible that it will go south, never reconcile their differences, etc.

But I do know one thing: AQ engaged us on that battlefield and got their rear ends kicked.

I think Bush has come around in the last year. But to say his policy was not arrogant is arrogant in and of itself.

Mike Huckabee’s not the only one who wants to close Guantanamo.

"Obviously, the Guantanamo issue is a sensitive issue for people," Mr. Bush told ARD German television. "I very much would like to end Guantanamo; I very much would like to get people to a court.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/08/politics/main1596464.shtml

McCain wants to close Guantanamo, he says, because its existence is damaging U.S. credibility abroad. He also wants to speed up trials. "He would want to speed up the tribunal process for prisoners, because he doesn't support indefinite detentions," McCain spokesman Danny Diaz says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-18-gitmo-candidates_N.htm

1. We'll be greeted as liberators.

To many, we were, especially in the Kurdish areas. It was certainly an overstatement, but I wouldn't say that qualifies Bush as having an arrogant foreign policy four years later.

Mitt Romney
Among the administration there was a strong, honest belief that Americans would be welcomed with open arms in Iraq and that Iraq would become a model of democracy for the region. "And you know what? We were wrong,"
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660220438,00.html

I don't think we were adequately prepared for what occurred," former Massachusetts Gov. Romney tells Mike Wallace. "I don't think we did enough planning. I don't think we considered the various downsides and risks.”
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2007/05/on_60_m...

Romney says the blame extends beyond President Bush to "whole administration."

2. We have enough troops

Hence the surge, hence Petraeus, hence the current gains in Iraq. President Bush has clearly realized there weren't enough forces, and has acted accordingly.

I’m not talking about the surge. I’m talking going in with enough troops.

McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" that it was "a serious mistake" not to have had enough troops in place "after the initial successes" and that the mistake had led to "very, very significant" difficulties.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/iraq.senators/index.html

Gov. Mitt Romney said, "I think we were underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/06/05/immig...

3. You're either with us or against us

On a national level, with the context of whether or not nations would fund and support the network of terrorists who committed 9/11, I think it was a perfectly reasonable and clarifying statement to make.

4. Mission Accomplished.

This is such a left-wing Code Pink talking point. When Bush made that announcement, Saddam's forces were decisively defeated. The first part of the war was accomplished, and brilliantly so. Yes, the insurgency continued, but in the context of the open warfare against Saddam, the mission was accomplished.

Oh yeah! So do you think John McCain is giving a Code-Pink talking point?

"The war is long and hard and tough. I'm not here to tell you, "Mission accomplished," McCain said, distancing himself from President Bush's declaration of an end to major military actions in Iraq nearly four years ago.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/29/news/politics/16_10_224_28_07...

5. You go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time

I don't remember President Bush (issue at hand) saying this. Can you please show me the link?

Donald Rumsfield said it.

Bill Kristol on Rumsfield shortly after his comment.

But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A132-2004Dec14.html

And this is what John McCain on Rumsfield
“Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one the worst defense secretaries in history.”
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/29/news/politics/16_10_224_28_07...

6. bring it on.

Clearly this was inappropriate, and Bush has sense expressed regret for saying this. But this one statement does not mean that Bush has an arrogant bunker mentality on the War on Terror, nor does it mean that we should sing Kum Bah Yah with Ahmadinejad.

I’m glad you agree.

Mr. Bush said he regretted challenging insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on" in 2003, and said the same about his statement that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Those two statements quickly came to reinforce his image around the world as a cowboy commander in chief. "Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people," Mr. Bush said. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner."

“Sometimes, words have consequences you don’t intend them to mean,” Bush said Thursday. “’Bring ’em on’ is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn’t the case.”

You don't understand the issue at hand.

Huckabee attacked Bush's handling of the War on Terror from a leftist point of view, stating that we need to open up negotiations with Iran, close Guantanamo bay, invade Pakistan, and treat foreign countries with the Golden Rule.

You responded by listing individual statements by Bush (and one not by Bush) that you believe are arrogant in nature.

The only aspect of policy you mention is going in to Iraq with not enough troops. Yes, that was a mistake, and actions have been taken since then to rectify it.

But if you read Huckabee's piece in the Foreign Affairs magazine, you will realize that Huckabee doesn't say "Bush said arrogant things".

He says that America has an arrogant foreign policy, and the suggestions he made to change this are all liberal ideas. If you agree with those, then by all means, vote for Huckabee.

But it is important for conservatives to realize that Huckabee is not a Republican in the mode of McCain, Thompson, Romney, Giuliani, Tancredo, Hunter, President Bush, etc. on the issue of handling the War on Terrorism.

I'm still learning this formatting thing.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

You're confusing "words" with "policies."

Huckabee criticized the policy. You're bringing out words as a defense of his criticism.

"Bring 'em on", whether it was a wise thing to say or not, is not policy. It's just something the president said. One statement out of thousands of public statements in the past 7 years.

It may well be that the Bush policy was "arrogant". I don't really think it was myself. "Assertive" is the word I'd use to describe it. But if you're going to call it arrogant, at least cite policy decisions and not merely selected commentary.

You and the rest of the unwashed Hucksters don't think at all. If you did, you'd know that you - along with the rest of us - have no clue what your messiah meant when he uttered the word "arrogant" because he didn't define it. He's already backed away from the comment to the extent that he didn't mean it was actually Bush who was arrogant, just his policy.

The more commentary I read from Huck's supporters the more I'm driven to believe that there's a triple digit IQ there. As long as you add up all the IQ's.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

...or are the leftist libertarian nut job Ronulons morphing into leftist nut job HuckulonsTM? The only difference being that one is predisposed to atheism, and the other claiming belief in evangelistic Christendom?

After reading some comments and posts by HuckulonsTM, I am starting to think this may be the case. The way I see it ol' heWhoMustNotBeNamed is not going to win, but his supporters see a guy with the same leanings in foreign policy and by throwing in with this guy, they get what they wanted if this guy wins. I may be wrong, and this is only a theory, but I am starting to get that feeling about this.

Note: I am a born again Southern Baptist Evangelical, and I am not a HuckulonTM. I with Fred!

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

Huckabee's foreign policy is analogous to Ron Paul's? Huck supporters are former Ron Paul supporters? Wasn't it Huck, who in a previous debate, argued with Ron Paul about why we should stay in Iraq? I am a Huck supporter, and I think that Ron Paul's foreign policy position, of isolationism, is nuts. Oooh, my side hurts from laughing.

For me he crossed the line a long time ago when you started using religion as an excuse to vote for him. As I have said many times, I will never, every vote for Huckanut under any circumstance.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third

comments and speeches? Apparently everything is taken out of context.

All that's missing is the Great Right Wing Conspiracy.

nah by eb1

according to the Huckamaniacs, all criticisms are viewed as a personal affront to Jesus, for he is the only true "Christian" in the race.

The Chad

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream." ~ Rush Limbaugh

DukeLaw says "I'll forgive Republican heresy on any other issue, but not this one."

Same crap, different war.

Our nation has a grand history of questioning our leaders, even during a time of war.

Abraham Lincoln made his name by offering the "spot" resolutions in Congress in 1847 -- challenging the President and his justification for war with Mexico.

For this Abraham Lincoln was called un-patriotic.

When I was fighting in Iraq in 1991, I questioned why the United States should fight for oil, but not the liberty of the Baltic nations who were under renewed suppression by Soviet forces as imperial Soviet communism was taking its last gasp. Was I un-patriotic?

If anything, Huckabee did not go far enough. My short list of Bush failures is much longer and harsher:

1. The New Soviet Empire.
2. The Chinese Superpower - Blue water navy, ICBM's, space weapons, cyber terrorism, arming our enemies during a time of war, etc.
3. WWIII - Oh, sorry, never mind... they stopped building nukes years ago.
4. North Korean dictatorship fed, refueled, and sustained? Check, check, check.
5. Techno-War Redux (aka McNamera reborn as Rumsfeld), WMD's, a hundred thousand young Iraqi conscripts told to "go home" to be recruited by radical clerics.
6. That a camera or a Quran ever got near an orange jump suit.
7. Religion of Peace crap.
8. Didn't Reagan defeat communism in South America in the 1980's?
9. Open borders in United States, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

1991, and fighting for oil, I'm sure you must have seen the M-1's and M-2's lined up for fuel each day during the war? Do they run on oil products? That's one reason, another would be that the world economy runs on oil.
And just addressing one item in your list, #2, I believe if you check, the Chinese got the technology for ICBM guidance, space weapons and much of the equipment for cyber terrorism from the "First Black President", a.k.a. Bubba Sr. and his co-president, Shrillary.
And thank you for your service to our country.

Don't misunderstand. I knew I was there for oil, which did not bother me. I was concerned for the people of the Balkan states who were seeing their chance at freedom crushed by the Soviet military, with nary a peep from the United States. It was about priorities and consistency.

The technical term for what you're doing here - as in, posting the same crap in different threads - is called spamming. You've posted this same list of talking points in at least 2 different threads. It's bad form. Please stop.

The less precise term for what you're doing is barfing-out talking-points - most of them from a decidedly left-of-center point of view. Now, if you think that is going to help Huckabee win a Republican primary, please, be my guest and continue to puke away. I suspect you're going to be pretty unhappy with the results, however.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

True, I posted the list twice. I might have just linked for better form. My apologies. But, the commentary was unique to and relevant in both threads.

It seems quite odd that you would call my list "talking points" and leftist. I assume you did not really read what I said, did not understand, or made the wrong conclusion about my subtler historical references.

As for helping Huckabee, you will notice I said he did not go far enough. I think the article on whole could have been written by James Baker, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powel, or any of the other establishment CFR types. That was its purpose in the larger political sense, to give Huckabee the opportunity to pay homage to conventional wisdom -- which he does just fine -- and which all the candidates have or will do (including Fred, but possibly not Ron).

That Huckabee had the balls to hit Bush says a lot about his political courage. That he didn't hit him harder says that the establishment is ready to back him up, just like they did Bush. But, I still support Huckabee over any of the other candidates.

So let's go through them one at a time.

1. Soviet empire? If you want to argue about "Tsar Vlad" they you may have a half-point.
2. China - conveniently ignores the contribution of the last smooth-talking Arkansan we trusted with the job of CinC
3. WWIII? Didn't we, uh, win the Cold War? And I gather you believe Iran actually abandoned their nukes, eh?
4. PDRK? Again, you're confusing Bush with Clinton - hard to imagine how you get there.
5. All lefty talking points.
6. Huh?
7. Yep, "Religion of Peace" is crap - keep in mind that you're guy wants to sit down to chat sessions with Iran and good luck squaring that circle.
8. Again, you're conveniently forgetting an entire decade between Reagan and GWB.
9. And given your guy's recent conversion to Tancredoism you'll have to forgive my skepticism for thinking anything would change under Pastor President.

The lefty nature of Huck's (and your) entire argument is that, somehow, the world began on 1/21/2001. Everything wrong with the world is to be laid at the feet of GWB, and done so by adopting the very language used by the much-derided far-left moonbat brigades. GWB is hardly above criticism, but tone matters a great deal.

Bottom line: I've yet to see anything Huckabee has ever said on the subject of foreign affairs that couldn't have credibly come out of the mouth of John Kerry or John Edwards. Except for the "religion of peace" crack, the same could be said precisely of yours as well.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I'm sorry; I was not calling you a dolt. But I was correct in that you totally misinterpreted everything I said... as if I was a DailyKos freak coming here to ruffle your feathers.

1. I'll take the half-point.

2. China thinks we are weak. Bush has been too weak on the P-3 Orion, Taiwan, Taiwan arms, flooding weapons to the Taliban while the US is at war them, consolidating control of oil supplies in Asia and Africa to ensure future dominance, drilling for oil off American coasts, trade, currency, espionage, answering China's military buildup, etc.

3. We don't really have a lot of credibility on Iran right now. We even had France talking about war, and then they come out with that report? Is Bush looking for a last year diplomatic success to shore-up his legacy? Missed opportunity with the one Islamic country ripe for revolution from a people who remember how good western living was.

4. N. Korea gets to have their cake and eat it too. The little dictator got his ego stroked lighting off his little nuclear firecracker, now he will get all the energy and food aid he wants. Clinton/Bush, what's the difference? N. Korea will still sell their missile and nuclear technology to the highest bidder.

5.
a. McNamara and technowar... read a history book; the parallels with Rumsfeld are incredible, not leftist. And, Don Rumsfeld was my favorite of any Bush man... is the Sec. of Defense in the line of succession for the Presidency?

b. WMD's? I don't think the US needs to justify destroying tyranny. I do not believe dictatorships or communist governments have sovereign rights. Invade at will. Not exactly leftist.

c. The Iraqi military. Didn't anyone read about post-WWII Germany or Japan? Couldn't they at least remember what happened to the Iraqi army the last time we kicked their but? I remember, because I was there. Sending these folks home was the worst idea ever.

6. No cameras, no Qurans near orange jump suits means no Gitmo, no Abu Grab -- at least not known to the general public. The "secret prisons" should have been employed from the beginning. Waterboarding is a sham now too. An advertised interrogation technique is one that can be trained for.

7. True. No talking to these Islamic fascists. But, isn't that what Bush is doing right now?

8. I didn't forget Clinton, but Bush largely ignored South America. It is a real shame to have to fight the same tyranny in the same region over and over.

9. As far as I can tell, everyone is a recent convert. That's why we have an open border.

You probably think I'm more wacked now than ever. But, you will note that I'm not using any talking points and I am definitely not leftist.

Bush's favorability ratings are at an all-time low. It doesn't take General McArthur's courage to atack Bush right now. Dems like Pelosi and Reid do it every day over at Congress.

No more hucksters.

There can be some minor procedural issues, but as soon as a candidate goes against the grain, he should be put out to stud. As a Thompson supporter, I'll quote Romney is saying that the three legged stool included a strong foreign policy. That's the most important leg as RR told us... good bye Mike.

www.fred08.com

By distancing himself with W's foreign policy, could Huckabee be positioning himself to attract blue-collar Dkats in case he wins the nomination and on the way courting independents in New Hampshire? If so, he is unprincipled and un-Reaganesque.

They are for the most part Americans first, Dems second. They just can't accept that the Party has left them behind.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Mike Huckabee should have decided earlier that he was running for the DEMOCRAT nomination instead of the REPUBLICAN nomination.

Your point is well-said, and POWERFULLY ON-TARGET!

it! Those who will not constructive critize it's government has no place in an American democracy. People who support Mike Huckabee are neither stupid or mis-informed. They see something in him that none of the others have. A mind and a heart. He will win.

Gee, I didn't know we were interested in bringing-in the moonbats as part of the GOP coalition.

Gonna need a really big tent now, I suppose.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Because that's exactly what I'm saying.

"I am sick and tired of being told that if you do not agree with this administration, that you are not a patriot..."

There you go -- someone who agrees wholeheartedly with you.

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

But apparently I should have been more explicit in my emphasis of the term:

from a leftist perspective

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

Huck just exited my short list.

But this sealed it. Okay, sealed it again. Sunk him further.

Fred08 - Contribute Now


---
Spacemonkey

IMAO.US

The day before this story came out I received my Huckabee yard sign in the mail. It displayed a whole 24 hours before it came down.

I looked over the not-so conservative spending record and chose Huckabee for his strong social values and impressive performances in the debates.

But these comments are too much for me. I am officially of the Huck bandwagon. Looking hard at McCain and Romney again- but won't be duped again.

"Let us win. Let us win."

to let you know, I was on the Huckabee bandwagon myself. My first two posts here were pro-Huckabee diaries.

The problem was when I found out anything about the man.

You'd think anyone with that kind of baggage and lack of qualification wouldn't have entered the race.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

After working years on Republicans campaigns across the country. I honestly believe that Mike Huckabee would destroy our Party. I haven't heard one sincere Fiscal or Foreign Policy Conservative think Huckabee is even close to rational with his statement this week. Then he pretends its just Mitt Romney making issue of it. Folks, go talk to real grassroots conservatives in Arkansas. Huckabee never raised money for the State Party, he campaigned against 4 Republicans in just one cycle because they wouldn't support growing state gov't. This guy is so self absorbed its scary. There are even conversations in Arkansas that most people in his new "Truth Squad" are supporting him because they are scared to go against this guy win or lose. I had rather have Fred, Rudy, McCain or Romney. This doesn't even mention the shady money dealing he had going on in the GOV Mansion and his "non-profits" he ran or accepted money from. $112,000 in gifts alone. Everyone in Arkansas is just sitting here thinking, is this "for Real". As my dad used to say, Beware of the smiling dog.

ARK Conservative

worth of gifts all came in one year!

Don't the Huckabee supporters realize that with out the support of a single conservative pundit or major conservative publication, Huckabee would be demolished in the General Election?

It's not that these pundits (George Will, Novak, Ingrham, Levin, Wash Times, National Review, Weekly Standard, every rightwing blogger) don't support Huckabee. It's that they strongly oppose him!

michaelac, did Bush ever say "Mission Accomplished"? I thought that was the banner on the ship, on which he was speaking, because the ship was to be docked and its brave men and women had in fact, accomplished THEIR mission.

DUKELAW wrote:

"I'll forgive Republican heresy on any other issue, but not this one"

ANY OTHER ISSUE? How about EVERY other issue except abortion, which a President can do almost nothing about.

A President can appoint judges who have read the constitution, and even Gulianni has promised to do that.

I'd gladly vote for Giuliani in a general...

On Sunday, 12/16/07, Ron Paul broke campaign fundraising records set by two prominent Democrats -- surpassing John Kerry's 2004 record of 5.7 million, as well as Hillary Clinton's [disputed] record of 6.2 million in a single day. If the GOP wises up, they will realize Ron Paul's viability against the Democrats -- or , more importantly, his superiority to the hollow, pre-packaged choices being offered by both parties. The GOP may just have to view Dr. Paul as a "necessary evil". That's what I have had to do with my vote for the last eight years.

RP08
thejaykob@hotmail.com

Ron Paul has the JTW factor. He, like Ross Perot is Just Too Wierd to get more than 10-20% of the vote. Clinton's friends will send a lot of money to keep him going. They have to. Bill never got 50% of the vote. They can't win without a third person drawing Republican votes.

RON PAUL IS A NUT JOB

religious bigotry. The fact that he had to utter these recent banalities (which at least are legitimate even if foolish points to argue) to be exposed gives me pause about fellow Republicans.

I'm a George W. supporter who was not happy with a bunch of the Republican Senators who grilled General Petreaus.
I also know that this is an election year.
Although I don't agree with Huckabee's foreign policy statements I am still open to him.
The "arrogant" and "bunker" statements are fine with me. George W is a Texan and was reelected. I don't know any two term president wha has been humble.
Numbers 3 - 8 need to be explained.
The most interesting part of all of this is that one of the two people who can be given credit for getting evangelicals involved in the GOP is Pat Robertson. As soon as Pat endorsed Rudy, Huckabee started to gain traction.
This is an interesting interview with Gov. Huckabee: http://www.ccnvideo.com

These insults against President Bush are getting old! He is a fine President and gentleman! And I will not vote for ANY Candidate that engages in these tactics to get votes!

Someday, I believe, we will look back at this point in time and realize President Bush was just defending freedom and keeping America safe from terrorism! (Hopefully, when that day comes it won't be too late to save the USA.)

"Life is too short to be small".

If you read the entire article it is hard to come to the conclusion that Mike Huckabee disrespects the President. If you read the stuff about the article you get the wrong idea. I support the president, but I am not offened even a little by the article it is good. It is not a bad thing to look at the war objectively.

and Merkel; and the 18 month non arrogant out of the bunker grovel at the Un before the war

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Of the abject failure of the DoS "negotiators" (i.e., Sec. Powell) to bring the UN and Turkey on board before D-day. The resulting single thrust of invasion had us still unloading invasion troops in Kuwait after Baghdad fell. The resulting diaspora of armed Iraqis I blame more on DoS than DoD.

Can anyone guarantee, even in hindsight, that we could have poured one or two hundred thousand more troops into Iraq AFTER the fall of Saddam without inciting a negative reaction from the Moslem world?

While "bring it on" had less to do with it than the unrest in Iraq, AQ's decision to confront US troops in Iraq rather than continue blowing up buildings around the world (including here) has worked to our advantage.

Turkey had a chance to help us direct the Kurd's actions toward a unified Iraq. They blew it! (Thanks, DoS.)

and earned the trust of the people that only STAYING for a long TIME would do.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Huckabee should NOT be bashing the President, but I agree with what he said.

makes Rudy seem like a mainstream conservative.

With friends like Huck, who needs enemies?

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service