U.S. GOP Candidate Mike Huckabee - Disturbing video

[LanDroid]

If you want to talk about more traditional issues, here's an article Huckabee wrote for Foreign Affairs Magazine. You probably heard only one phrase from it, about the "arrogant bunker mentality" of the Bush administration. But the article contains a fair amount of juiciness.

...American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.

...If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms. Liberating a country and occupying it are two different missions. Our invasion of Iraq went well militarily, but the occupation has destroyed the country politically, economically, and socially.

...Unlike President George W. Bush, who marginalized General Eric Shinseki, the former army chief of staff, when he recommended sending several hundred thousand troops to Iraq, I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice. Our generals must be independent advisers, always free to speak without fear of retribution or dismissal.

...The Bush administration has properly said that it will not take the military option for dealing with Iran off the table. Neither will I. But if we do not put other options on the table, eventually a military strike will become the only viable one. And nothing would make bin Laden happier than this outcome; he would welcome war between the United States and Iran.

...Many Iranians are well disposed toward us. On 9/11, there was dancing in the streets in parts of the Muslim world but candlelit vigils and mourning in Tehran. When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in our dealings with the Northern Alliance. Hoping for better bilateral relations, Tehran wanted to join us against al Qaeda. The CIA and the State Department supported this partnership, but some in the White House and the Pentagon did not. After President Bush included Iran in the "axis of evil," everything went downhill fast.

...When we let bin Laden escape at Tora Bora, a region along the Afghan-Pakistani border, in December 2001, we played Brer Fox to his Brer Rabbit.

...Despite the Bush administration's continued claims that the U.S. military will pursue "actionable targets," according to a July 2007 article in The New York Times based on interviews with a dozen current and former military and defense officials, a classified raid targeting bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in Pakistan was aborted in early 2005. Then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called off the attack at the very last minute, as Navy Seals in parachutes were preparing in C-130s in Afghanistan, because he felt he needed Musharraf's permission to proceed. Why did Rumsfeld, instead of President Bush, call off the attack?

...Rather than wait for the next strike, I prefer to cut to the chase by going after al Qaeda's safe havens in Pakistan.

...This puts into sharp relief what a waste, what a setback the United States' Pakistan policy has been over the last few years. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have grown stronger; Pakistan's native extremists have expanded east from their frontier strongholds and spread to the cities; the moderate secular parties led by former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have languished.

- Michael D. Huckabee
Foreign Affairs Magazine, Jan-Feb 2008

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101f ... error.html

[Frank 013]

Landroid

Huckabee does indeed embody much of what I see as the worst of religious traits. And it is terribly disturbing that he has gone as far as he already has in politics. I have seen many videos and quotes from the man and none of them show much promise for freethinkers in this country if the man were to gain the presidency.

However I have to agree with Mad, Rose and George here, I doubt that Huckabee has much of a chance in the current race. (At least I hope not)

That does not make the video any less disturbing though.

Later

[MadArchitect]

The comments about changing the Constitution to meet a religious standard are certainly more worrisome. But publicizing them probably isn't enough. After all, he isn't being particularly coy about his stance in those quotes. If (and I still regard this as very much an outside chance) he were to make it onto the Republican ticket, that would indicate that at least enough Republicans lend their tacit support to those agendas that simply bringing Huckabee's stance to light would likely do very little to change his standing with the public. It might even backfire and increase his popularity.

Thirty second soundbytes probably aren't going to help in a case like this. What's needed is some level of discourse that addresses the question of why a democratic republic is best served by not confusing religious standards with constitutional law. And to do that, you're going to have to establish a level of discourse that is both inviting to the populous but sophisticated enough to present complex ideas without sacrificing on their consistency and persuasive power.

[Mr. P]

I am going to try to drop this because it is obvious you will never see what it was that you did that pissed me off. But one or two things in closing:

Oh, come now, Mr.P. Let's not pretend that p.m. was an attempt to "deal" with the situation "one on one," or as any kind of real "communication." You weren't trying to deal with the problem; you were pissed at me and you lashed out. Which—whatever. I had already told you I would just ignore such nonsense. And I had no intention of taking the p.m. to the public forum; but I'm not going to let you represent here that it was an attempt at communication that I rebuffed. People don't attempt to "communicate" with profanity-filled invectives.

I dunno, sometimes a 'take your sarcasm and shove it' says so much. I was really trying to show you just how pissed I was...I figured you would see that since we had other, less angst filled PMs prior to that, when I was commending you for your contributions.

As to the above, I'm sorry but I can't imagine that I could possibly hurt you with such an, evidently inept, attempt at humor.

It was bad humor I will say that. And if it was Mad or Niall or certain others I would have not been hurt (Still pissed yes). If it comes from Chris or Frank or you there is a difference. We always got along respectfully with each other.

I had written a post to Mad about how ridiculous Huckabee is as a candidate. Mad had responded to my post. You had responded to Mad's post

Ooops..that is where this comment should have ended and you realized I was talking to Mad. I never intended to include you. I was strictly railing agains Mad.

In your response to Mad's post, you used inclusive plural pronouns. You stated: "That is a major concern for some of us." [emphasis added]

So you take only "US" and totally ignore the "SOME". Seems kinda self serving.

Just drop it. Do not respond anymore and I will do the same, ok?

Mr. P.

[irishrosem]

Talk about self-serving. Why should I be the one to drop it, and you automatically get the last word? I normally care very little for the last word and have graciously offered it on this forum on many occasions. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not, not enjoying this little lark. As I said, bicker fights don't bother me, particularly when my position is so absolutely valid.

So Mr.P., I've responded to you in General Discussion--you know, unless you want to give me the last word.

Perhaps we should consider a Cat Fight Forum. That way people who want to be serious and thoughtful all the time can just ignore this nonsense altogether.

---

As to Huckabee, to be perfectly honest, I'd love for him to win the Republican primary. I don't think he will be the threat in the general election that other Republican candidates are. And I'm not above easy targets when it comes to this coming election.

[Mr. P]

Talk about self-serving. Why should I be the one to drop it, and you automatically get the last word? I normally care very little for the last word and have graciously offered it on this forum on many occasions. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not, not enjoying this little lark. As I said, bicker fights don't bother me, particularly when my position is so absolutely valid.

So Mr.P., I've responded to you in General Discussion--you know, unless you want to give me the last word.

Perhaps we should consider a Cat Fight Forum. That way people who want to be serious and thoughtful all the time can just ignore this nonsense altogether.

All I have done here is to state my displeasure with something you said and try to defend myself against accusations of yelling and being all inclusive of everyone here. I did not resort to name calling, ala "king of booktalk' type attacks.

The fact is, I did not attempt with what I wrote to speak for everyone here as your example of my statement shows.

Mr. P.

[MadArchitect]

The fact is, I did not attempt with what I wrote to speak for everyone here as your example of my statement shows.

I'm pretty sure she recognizes that, Mr. P. And if I'm reading all of this right, you could deflate about 75% of this spat by just recognizing that you used a pronoun that was unspecific, that could have been interpreted to mean any number of people on the forum, and that -- in light of that ambiguity -- it was reasonable for people who disagreed to chime in and say so. Forget about your intent for a moment -- you've already made that clear -- and think about how others might have interpreted your comments before you explained what you meant. I'm not saying it's anyone's fault or responsibility, but just making it clear that you recognize that some people don't want to be included, and that others could mistake the generality of your pronoun to include those very people, would put a stop to a lot of this.

[Mr. P]

I'm not saying it's anyone's fault or responsibility, but just making it clear that you recognize that some people don't want to be included, and that others could mistake the generality of your pronoun to include those very people, would put a stop to a lot of this.

Well, that pronoun is not how all this blew up. The sarcasm was what blew this up again. I never yelled and I qualified my "US" with "SOME". A "king of booktalk" would have left out the "SOME" I think.

Mr. P.

[irishrosem]

Obviously not going to happen, Mad. I think it's best if we transfer this to some sort of bickering thread, as this thread had actually returned to discussing Huckabee. I started a thread in General Discussion.

[MadArchitect]

Well, that pronoun is not how all this blew up. The sarcasm was what blew this up again.

Who cares? I mean, really, who gives a damn? I realize, of course, that you've never resorted to sarcasm, and that Rose is taking an unfair advantage by attacking an unarmed man, but does that justify the 60 or so posts that have passed in the meantime?

The fact of the matter is, whenever a scuffle like this starts up, the people involved will tend to trade posts on and on until someone just loses interest. I've participated in my share, too. And I've decided that the easiest way to cut short arguments like this is just for one person in the group to relent. Don't try to get the last word. Don't add any more qualifications of clarifications. If you do so generously and willingly, no one who's paying attention will assume that means you concede every point. We're not competing in an Olympic sport here; there are no winner or losers.

What we are doing is participating on a discussion forum, and stuff like this detracts from the general atmosphere of cooperation.

And no, of course, it doesn't have to be you who offers the olive branch, but why shouldn't it be? You should scramble for the opportunity to show that you're concerned enough about the state of discourse on BookTalk to overlook an incident like this. After all, this was really quite small, in the scale of thing. And yet, somehow, it's gotten more responses than any other thread currently active on the board.

And that's really my last word on the subject. If anyone wants to continue to talk about Huckabee or the primaries in general, I'll be glad for the change of subject.