I Won't Heart Huckabee for President (Or VP) after THIS Speech!
By smagar Posted in Archived — Comments (53) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"Huckabee Rips President Bush's Foreign Policy" is the headline of this McClatchy article on a speech Mike Huckabee gave to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. McClatchy has this interesting (and IMO eye-popping) take on Huchabee's take on Bush's foreign policy efforts: With the exception of the surge in Iraq...
he differed with Bush across the map, using language more often heard from Democrats.
Read below the fold, and don't be surprised if you think it was Terry McAuliffe speaking.
"This administration's bunker mentality has been counterproductive both at home and abroad," Huckabee said in opening a broad indictment of Bush's style and policy.
Again, a reminder---this isn't Terry McAuliffe or Joe Biden speaking...
He accused the administration of shunning allies and turning world sentiment against the United States.
"They've done a poor job of communicating and consulting countries much as they have, frankly, the American people," Huckabee told about 150 people at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center-right think tank in Washington. "Our prestige in the world has been marred."
Governor, as Rod Stewart sang in Young Hearts, "There ain't no point in talking if there's nobody listening!"
I hope somebody asks Governor Huckabee how we "shunned" allies. If not agreeing to continue a strategy of appeasing and ignoring terrorist-fostering states is a "shunning," then Three Cheers For Shunning!
What should we have done differently? Left 250,000 US troops in the Kuwaiti desert for the summer of 2003, while Team Blix wandered about Iraq and Hussein fortified further for the fight he knew was eventually coming?
And, how much abuse should we have taken from our allies? I don't recall France (e.g. Chirac, de Villepin) being all that courteous to us. Huckabee didn't impress me as a butt-kisser---but hey,maybe he is. (Or maybe he craves a speaking invite at Davos, once his campaign finally sinks, and this is his way of winning the hearts of the Beautiful People who control the Davos invites).
And what's this about our prestige in the world being marred? Our President needs to make the tough decisions and lead, both the US and the Free World. Governor, IMHO, Sally Field--"You like me---you really like me!!---isn't a good role model for how US Presidents should conduct themselves. They have to take unpopular stands, even if that means all the World's Beautiful (and Shallow Thinking) People won't like them. This isn't a popularity contest.
And, even IF all the world's most militarily-capable countries had been on our side, their combined military strength is so puny that they wouldn't have been much good to us anyway. At best, instead of insults from the sidelines of the Iraq Crisis, we'd have gained some more cheerleading, from those same sidelines.
I await Governor Huckabee's detailed explanation of (a) what he would have done differently and (b) how things would have worked out better.
On Iran, he said Bush blew a chance to improve relations right after the 2001 terrorist attacks and that the United States should be talking to Iran today.
"When we first invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped, especially in dealings with their ally, the Northern Alliance," he said. "They wanted to join us in fighting al Qaida. ...The CIA and State Department supported a partnership. Some in the White House and beyond did not. And when President Bush included Iran in the axis of evil, everything went downhill pretty fast."
Mmmmmm....isn't this the same Iran that our European allies insisted was open to diplomacy---if properly conducted, with the appropriate mix of nuance---on its nuclear program. Hey, that worked out well, didn't it?
Plus, I'm heartened (pun intended) by Huckabee's faith in the CIA and State Department...
And, lastly, isn't there something to be said for NOT partnering with an evil state? Or, is Huckabee OK with that? Does he consider Iran's democracy advocates---and women, and homosexuals---expendable?
He all but echoed Democrat Barack Obama in opening the door to strike al Qaida in Pakistan even without that government's approval, saying the Bush administration has a "muddle of policy" there.
He questioned whether Bush was in charge at a critical point in the hunt for al Qaida. He said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called off a 2005 raid into Pakistan to nab Osama bin Laden's top deputy because the mission had grown just large enough that he thought it would need the Pakistan government's approval.
"Why did Rumsfeld call it off and not President Bush? Did the president even know about it? ...When I'm president, I will make the final call on such action, not my secretary of defense."
Let's see...is there anything besides sheer cowardice and ineptness that might have led Secretary Rumsfeld to decide---with minimal information about the enemy on hand and little time in which to decide---not to risk such an operation?
- The fact that Al Zawahiri is, after bin Laden, undoubtedly the best-protected and best-concealed of all of al Qaeda's leaders?
- The perilous nature of the Musharraf government, and the reality that, if it falls, Islamists could take control of a country that ALREADY HAS nukes!
- The desire not to have another Desert One.
To me, those are all reasons for a SECDEF to decide to wait for another day. It's amazing how when, you actually have the responsibility of real decision-making on your shoulders, you might make different choices than you would from behind the safe side of a podium.
I don't know whose vote this guy wants---it certainly isn't mine. Rudy or Mitt or John---please dispose of this lightweight post-haste in the next few debates. So we can move on to considering people who demonstrate that they can make good decisions and judgements about how America should conduct its foreign policy.
Kind of hard to take those out of context.
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, I agree with you, that Huckabee was taken way out of context. Then, Huckabee still isn't ready for primetime. He's too careless.
Future Presidents of the United States need to take care that their words can't be grossly taken out of context. Virtually NO ONE listens to the entirety of a politician's speech. We have other distractors in life---work, family, giving Rush and Sean the three hours a day, every day that they demand. :)
If you're right, then IMO Huckabee out-nuanced himself, to the point that his speech was easily misinterpreted.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
He's our Barack Obama.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
If you really think any Republican who doesn't run from the President has a chance of winning, you have another thing coming. I'm not talking policy, but rhetoric. Any Republican who doesn't harshly criticize this administration is going to get steamrolled. A candidate who closely aligns himself with a President whose approval ratings are in the 20s is going to get steamrolled and make things even tougher for candidates down ballot. So you can either accept a candidate who will criticize the President (doesn't have to be Huckabee, unless he somehow gets the nomination) in an attempt to give himself a chance and then does what he wants once he's in the White House, or have someone who will align himself closely with the President and get clobbered in November.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's not about the "use of force". It's about the President. He's extremely unpopular, and any candidate who wants to win has to criticize him. Look at McCain. He has been one of the strongest opponents of withdrawl, but continues to talk about how the situation has been mismanaged. Regardless of whether candidates are arguing for immediate withdrawl, a timeframe for withdrawl, or no timeframe for withdrawl, they have to create as much daylight as possible between themselves and the President.
last six years. And check out where he is in the POTUS sweeps.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
They're two different elections. Nobody right now is aligning himself with the President, and once a candidate wraps up the nomination, you'll start seeing him criticize the President more. Either that or you will see Clinton opening a wide lead in a hurry as the Democrats tie the President around our nominee like a noose.
Huckabee is quoted as saying things that, IMO, lead us to question his judgement---in foreign policy (his emphasis on dialogue with Iran) and direct action operations (his apparent willingness to "cowboy" it into Pakistan).
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
In case you hadn't noticed, just about every time I mention Paul it has to do with his domestic policy, not his foreign policy. I have said repeatedly that I would have supported a declaration of war on Iraq and haven't supported a timeframe for withdrawl. That said, you might want to address my original argument, i.e. that a candidate who doesn't criticize a President whose approval rating is in the 20s can't win.
It's called the AUMF and only a brain dead idiot who is incapable of reading and understanding context could possibly say it's not a Congressional declaration of war against the Iraqi government.
With respect to criticizing GWB, that's a really stupid route for a Republican candidate to take. Really stupid. Even on domestic policy. We are where we are, period. The Democrats will relive history until hell freezes over and if the Republicans want to win we have to have a candidate that spends his time doing two things. First, he needs to articulate his vision for his Presidency in specific, easy to understand terms. He needs to have a limited but specific agenda. Second, he needs to attack the Democrats in Congress and the Democratic nominee and their vision for the country (or lack thereof).
Like all outgoing Presidents, GWB needs to be pretty much ignored, not rehashed or piled on or even defended by our nominee. With respect to a defense, I would submit that it would be a huge positive if our nominee attacked the Democrats lies about the President and the run up to Iraq in no uncertain terms. Hopefully, we'll get a nominee who lays waste to the Democrats not GWB.
Huckabee has firmly established himself to be almost as big an idiot as RonPaul! RonPaul!! RonPaul!!! with this stupid diatribe.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
First, on the use of force resolution, Democrats have effectively (doesn't matter whether intellectually honestly or not) argued that they cast their votes to give the President a stronger hand when he went to the United Nations. Now, you can say that that's a stupid argument, a dishonest argument, an unprincipled argument, etc., but it's an argument, and one that a number of people have bought. If it actually declared war, they would have no such argument and would be, in everybody's mind, as responsible for the decision to use the military against the government of Iraq as the President. Thus, they'd be interested in making it work rather than saying that they really never meant to invade without a larger coalition.
On the second point, will you say the same thing about criticizing the President when it is the Republican nominee, rather than a Republican primary candidate, doing it? I can all but guarantee you that there will be criticism of the President by the nominee during the general election campaign. I can't say exactly what that criticism will be, though I would guess that his failure to secure the border and bungling of the post-invasion handling of Iraq will be among them. I'll grant you an if, but if and when that happens, will you then criticize him for doing so as well, or are you just disagreeing now because I'm a Ron Paul supporter?
My comments have nothing to do with your support of Ron Paul. In point of fact, you are about the only non-cave-dweller who posts at RS that supports him. While I am prone to default to snark, I respect your opinions.
I absolutely, totally disagree with your contention about the Dems and AUMF. They would have made exactly the same points had the document said "Declaration of War against the State of Iraq" at the top. It might even be worse. They would be saying something like, "Hey we won the war. Let's get the hell out, we authorized a war not a peace keeping or peace making force."
The bottom line is that the Congress authorized the President to go to war. None of them said a word when he went to the UN. None of them said a word when the UN did zip. None of them said a word during the months of build up to the war. Only when the shooting started did the whining begin.
There probably will be some criticism of GWB in the next campaign. I think it's really counterproductive and stupid if we let the Dem's set the agenda like that, we should be setting the agenda by noting that they have no plan for anything. My bigger problem with Huckabee is, based on this video, he's demonstrating that he's an ignorant fool who needs to be kept as far from the Oval Office as possible.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
First, it's good to see that some on this site can distinguish between someone who is supporting Paul because of his libertarian ideas and respect for the Constitution and those who are supporting him because they think he thinks the President was behind the 9/11 attacks.
As to the Democrats' argument after the use of force resolution, it's not so much that I think the Democrats would be too principled to make the argument that you say they would, I just think it'd be a much, much tougher sell.
On the last point, I don't think it's really possible for a sitting President not to be a major issue in a campaign. In 1980, Carter's weakness propelled Reagan to victory. Four years later, it was about Reagan. 1988 was about a third Reagan term. 1992 was about "change", it didn't matter for what, but "change", and the fact that Bush reneged on "Read my lips: No new taxes". 1996 was about continuing economic success. 2000 was about separating ourselves from the Clinton scandals, but if Gore had made it about a third Clinton term, he probably would've won. 2004 was about leadership in the war on terror, for which Kerry provided the perfect foil of "I actually voted for the $80 billion (I might be off on the dollar amount) before I voted against it." 2008 will be about change from the Bush administration, which means a new direction in Iraq and probably some domestic issues, such as border control. Understand that by "new direction" I don't mean it has to be pull everybody out as quickly as possible, or even set a timetable for withdrawl. It just means a significant change or perceived change. For example, that change could include raising the training standards for Iraqi security forces, enhanced border security, and support for a no confidence vote in al Maliki should he fail to meet political benchmarks within six months of the new administration. In terms of the election, the particular "change" is less important than "change" itself. Now it's true that Congressional approval ratings are even lower than the President's, but the President is the individual with the highest profile. With that profile being what it is, a "new direction" in my view is a sine qua non of a viable general election candidacy.
mean the D's won't make it. How about using "culture of corruption" against the R's with Reid, Feinstein, FreezerMan, the dude from WV, Murtha, etal in their party. I think the more outrageous the charge the better they like it.
With respect to the outgoing POTUS being an issue...
1. Carter was running against Reagan so of course he was an issue.
2. Same for Reagan in 1984.
3. Reagan was the outgoing POTUS in 1988 and he was attacked by MikieD, not by B41. The most you could come up with in terms of "attacking" an outgoing POTUS would be B41's comment about a "kinder, gentler Presidency". Just before going to war in Kuwait.
4. In 1992, B41 was a sitting POTUS, he was fair game.
5. In 1996, same for Clinton.
6. In 2000, the R's made Clinton the issue with the idea that "W" would restore decency to the office of President. The D's ignored Clinton to their peril. In all liklihood, if Gore had asked Clinton to actively campaign for him he'd have pounded Bush.
7. In 2004, GWB was the incumbant, see 4&5.
8. In 2008, see 6. Now I don't think that GWB should be campaigning for the nominee, but I also don't think the nominee should run away from him on the issue of Iraq. He did the right thing when it comes to the GWOT, execution aside. I would say the nominee should set new policy on the issues of spending, entitlements and immigration, but I wouldn't run agaist or away from GWB, I would run toward "my" policy choice.
9. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should our nominee set any kind of time line for political "progress" in Iraq. The D's will simply translate them into Democratic talking points in about 3 days.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
the President a stronger hand at the UN (especially with the aircraft carriers full of troops in the Persian Gulf) and no resolution of Congress obligates a president to drop one bomb.
words on paper
The words on the paper that Hillary and the dems voted for have plain meaning. One can argue anything if one has no shame or respect for the truth.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Well then, that's settled. The Dems can argue 'til the cows come home because they certainly have no shame.
"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson
Democrats have effectively (doesn't matter whether intellectually honestly or not) argued that they cast their votes to give the President a stronger hand when he went to the United Nations.
"effectively"? In whose mind? Chris Matthews'? Andrew Sullivan's? I'll bet that, if you take that argument to average Americans, a majority would think that an authorization to use military force is...well, an authorization to use force. Not just a bargaining chip for diplomacy.
Now, you can say that that's a stupid argument, a dishonest argument, an unprincipled argument, etc., but it's an argument, and one that a number of people have bought.
Here, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree. Or, to put it another way, I'm not buying your arguments.
"a number of people". OK..."a number of people have bought" the argument that Jews were told to say home on 9/11.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
any candidate lacking the courage to do the right thing and stand by the President ought at least lack the cowardice to join the Dems in shooting him in the back.
I'm not saying Bush has high approvals, but when you make a comment that his approval ratings are in the 20's, you ave to back it up with facts. Out of the last 14 polls, only one (CBS/New York Times) has Bush's approval under 30 (it is at 29 in their most recent poll). I am not saying that I am happy with Bush's average approval rating of 32.8, but Bush's apporval rating in not in the 20's. It just isn't and to make that comment without checking the facts just feeds into the MSM and their lies about our President.
is what Rasmussen has (36% today). for the past 2 week's, he's had the President's JA been between 35 and 39 percent. the laughable polls showing 20s are from biased sourses fiddling with the numbers to justify their own biases to themselves.
Rasmussen has a separate poll of likely voters (which probably means the percenatge of informed respondents goes from about 1/4 or less to 1/3 or so) with 36% saying Bush is doing a "good" job and another 15% saying a "fair" job.
If you average it out, it's low 30s.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
I'll concede a few extra points, but it doesn't change the heart of the argument.
I agree that your argument is right to some extent. But there are many ways to distance yourself from Bush without having to do what Huckabee did. Attack him on immigration, spending, etc., where hs has clearly been wrong. But to attack him on the war on terror where I think he has been the strongest is just not going to win you any extra votes in the Republican primary, nor do I think attacking Bush on the war on terror will help in the general election.
That is the worst advice to a GOP candidate I have ever heard. Bush has low 30's strong support. Lots of those voters are behind his policies and some love him.
While 33% will not win the the election you certainly won't win without them or if they stay home.
Any rhetoric that might hurt the war effort for election gain stinks.
President Bush lost a lot of Republicans upport on issues like immigration. Candidates can differ with him *there* and do better automatically, without actually having to attack him.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Lots of room to improve on the domestic side without beating on Bush. I don't think it helps the GOP.
looks like Romney goes back to being alone at the top of my list, though I won't knock Huckabee off completely, and I think it's grossly unfair to compare him to an insubstantial joke like Obama. But right now he's at best tied with McCain (and Hunter) for 2nd, instead of being virtually tied for the lead.
He's using his campaign to badmouth our ally Pakistan, just like Obama. I recall not too long ago we had a map on the front page that showed just how important Pakistan is to our fight in Afghanistan. If we make them our enemy we'll have a very hard time continuing to fight, and we'll certainly have no way of getting help on their side of the border, which would mean eventually having to commit an act of war against a nuclear power.
It's ridiculously foolish for a Presidential candidate to say such things.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
on this one statement, the wrongness of which is disputed by exactly no one here (caveat: I haven't yet read his exact words, so I'm relying on a reporter's spin - always a dangerous proposition - which is to say it is not clear that, while wrong, it rises to the magnitude of wrongness exemplified by Obama), how can you claim to have been saying this as you did above? to make such a statement as "he's (our) Obama" requires more than one thing, and "to have been saying he's (our) Obama" requires more than that more distant than just yesterday!
Fred Thompson's mysterious rockstar following is the only thing anyone in our field has in common with Obama.
I base my words on my survey of our candidates a while back, in which I read Huckabee's site and was horrified by the fact that he was pro-Powell Doctrine, anti-Pakistan, and implicitly pro-Iran (he calls for a summit of Iraq's neighbors to help determine the country's future).
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
as I said, I am not defending such a position - I, like you, find it mindbogglingly ignorant - and am deeply disappointed to hear a candidate I thought to be quite promising saying anything like it.
it is probably possible to make a defense that such statements don't mean exactly the same thing a Democrat might mean by something similar, but nevertheless, disappointing, and wrong.
Neil
I thought Allen Keys was our Obama.
Unqualified, unelectable, but he warms the cockles of one segment of the Republican party. Heck he's to the right of Senator Sam Brownback on the social issues, and I thought that was darn near impossible.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Before I had him in the middle of the pack, and now he is in last place. His remarks about Iran and Pakistan reveal that he and his ilk,(ie Obama) don't know much about history..
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.
when RonPaul™ gets the nomination.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
between not understanding the threat posed to us and our responsibility to fight it, as a Democrat might not, and simply stating the truth: that while we may do the right thing, we do not keep the lines open as much as we should. There is no reason to antagonize a country that you are not planning to engage at the moment.
Anyway, I'll leave you with the last paragraph from the speech:
Ambassador Crocker told Congress: “The process will not be quick, it will be uneven, punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements, and it will require substantial U. S. resolve and commitment.” Does this sound familiar? Does this remind you of anything? It sounds to me like our Revolution, like our Civil War, like World War I and World War II. We paid a heavy price each time, but we won those, and we will win this one for tolerant and peace-loving people all over the world. Our history has been one of perseverance, from the snows of Valley Forge to the flames of 9/11. Our way of life, our economic and moral strength, our civilization are at stake. I understand exactly what we face, and, as president, I am determined to look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It’s easy to be a peace-lover; the hard part is being a peace-maker.
the other things Huckabee said in the same speech.
There is no reason to antagonize a country that you are not planning to engage at the moment.
I suppose you're talking about Iran here. And, I presume you're referring to Bush including Iran in his Axis of Evil.
OK---part of the job of the American President is to tell the people of his country who in the world threatens American interests and the interests of our allies. Are you saying that President Bush should have ignored all the bad things Iran is doing---and had been doing---until he was fully finished in Iraq? If so, how was he supposed to rally world opinion (and focus world efforts) against Iran?
What makes you---and Huckabee---think that Iran could have been
a trustworthy partner in the fight against terrorism?
And, why would you WANT to partner with a snake-in-the-grass regime like the mullahs of Iran?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Huckabees statement in the debate "we broke it, we bought it" is about as lame as I have heard. Wonder who he is referring to when he said "we?" Maybe the mouse in his pocket. Like RP said how many more need to die to "save face."
Support our troops, Bring them home NOW!
Thats the conservative position!
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
Thomas Jefferson
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
and "Ron Paul" in the same post. That's lame.
You can go back in your cave now. The sunlight may do serious damage to what's left of your brain cell.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Whomever he stands in front of, he tells them what they want to hear. He enjoys the warm greetings, but doesn't ha ve balls to look opposition in the face and say what is real.
We have to think of things in the way of central planning versus freedom. I want freedom, because I know what is best for my family and me. I can take care of myself.
Sicerely,
Democrat Hater
$1.1 million donated in 6 days for Ron Paul from us cave dwellers. Not to shabby for a bunch of spammers.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
Thomas Jefferson
He changes the fiat currency into gold bars as soon as they are donated and the gold bars are going up in price every day as the dollar falls. (-: Once he's elected we can all choose to use gold or silver as our median of exchange. I've got a cave full of silver bars just waiting.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
Thomas Jefferson
I like to pile to coins and play with them while watching Treasure of the Sierra Madre or City Slickers 2: The Legend of Curly's Gold :)
Molon Labe!
a $100 by 2010 is no crazy idea. Of course stocks are going up as well if you choose the right ones. I think really screwing with a world financial system that is bringing thousands out of poverty every day would be a mistake. Gold is not money anymore but a precious resource that is used in many products.
Molon Labe!
You take the fiat paper currency and I'll take Gold and Silver and lets see who's scratchin' a broke a-- first.
Dr. Paul plan is to go back to a gold/silver based paper currency over a period of time, eventually phasing out the Federal Reserve which would end the printing of money out of thin air (credit based). If a paper currency is backed by some commodity ie., gold and silver, then the amount of government spending is limited to the gold and silver reserves backing the currency.
JFK was the last to try with the Silver Certificate. After he was shot, one of the first things LBJ did was to cancell the Silver Certificates.
14,000+ in the stock market is big illusion, the dollar is worth 50% less that it was in 2003, it's worth 96% less than it was in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. The Canadian dollar on par with the US dollar now!
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
Thomas Jefferson
Huckabee's entire speech to gain proper context:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=505
I will have more thoughts on this shortly.