"A Christian goofball of the highest order."
I continue to enjoy Matt Taibbi's take on the Republican candidates.
His latest on Mike Huckabee is a must-read.
Enjoy.
posted by kate @ 9:32 AM
9 comments
Out in Left Field
Where parenting and politics meet, but don't always play nice.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
I continue to enjoy Matt Taibbi's take on the Republican candidates.
His latest on Mike Huckabee is a must-read.
Enjoy.
kate
See my complete profile
Talk To Me
Blogroll Me!
My Musings from The St. Petersburg Times
from In The Loop
from tbt*
from The Weekly Planet
from the world wide web
9 Comments:
In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (NC-D) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.
Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."
"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."
Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."
"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.
Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
So, rw's an Edwards man!
Good to know!
An "anti-war" candidate who won't take blowing Iran off the map from the table. Paradox time.
I found the Edward's piece to be more informative than the paranoia of "OH NOES!! Hucky-bee beweeves inn Gawd." It got boring and beyond repetative halfway through the 2nd page and I quit, but I did skip to the end to read the last paragraph where he tried to slam Howey Deano, and he wasn't even good at that. When the guy does an "OH NOES!!" attempted hit piece on the religious beliefs of MLK, Jr. or Rosa Parks, let me know. I'm betting he won't go there; not a PC acceptable topic and all.
Hey, CHS won. But now they play some team from Kissimmee that'll kill them. Oh well, nice run while it lasted.
Well. We'll always have the 200 Hall...
Of course, the difference in Edwards stances might have something to do with the fact that Iran has now or will soon have the capability to enrich Uranium itself on the scale necessary to build nuclear warheads and is once again being opaque to UN atomic overseers whereas not only did Iraq not have any stockpiles of WMDs, it had no program to produce them, no plans to develop a program to produce them and, should the WMD fairy have magically left them some WMDs, would have used them against the Kurds and the Iranians before they used them against the United States.
Of course, one shouldn't let the facts of the Duelfer Report, Charles Duelfer being the man the Bush Administration itself chose to investigate and prepare the report, stand in the way of a good Ad Hominem Tu Quoque attack on Edwards. I mean, both of the countries are in the Middle East, so obviously it's the exact same situation in both nations.
However, this isn't a thread about Edwards. It's about Huckabee, who I used to support and who has now shown himself to be unsupportable, although I'll give him credit for at least being honest about wanting to expand government to provide service programs for the poor.
QJ - You lost rw at "capability."
I'm curious though, how has Huckabee shown himself to be unsupportable?
>>not only did Iraq not have any stockpiles of WMDs, it had no program to produce them, no plans to develop a program to produce them and, should the WMD fairy have magically left them some WMDs, would have used them against the Kurds and the Iranians before they used them against the United States.<<
Conjecture. You have no certain idea what Saddam would have done if he had WMD capacity. And Iraq was being evasive with the UN, as is Iran. And there really shouldn't be any need to remind anyone here that intelligence gathering services around the globe were saying they believed Iraq was trying to obtain and had some capabilities, not something that was beyond the scope of possibility. And there also shouldn't be any reason to be reminded of Congressmen etc. from both parties who, based upon the reports they received and contacts they had in the intelligence community, said they believed he has the capacity and/or was seeking it. So I disagree with your viewpoint.
Whatever, RW, take it up with Charles Duelfer.
What I liked about Huckabee was the clear concern he had for the underprivileged. It was what initially led me to cautiously support him. If Republicans are going to go big government, at least be honest about it.
But his clear lack of respect for state's rights disturbs me greatly, as does his stance on the penal system. He also seemed to take the initial position that, while he was a religious man, his faith and religion would not influence his decisions as a leader. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably not true as he has, for example, argued for the death penalty from a Biblical perspective. His stances on drug policy also seem to be contradictory.
So it's just a lot of little things, really, that make me uncomfortable with him as a candidate. Part of the equation is indeed the religion factor, but mostly I just find him to be oddly conflicted.
The Duelfer Report was post-invasion Iraq. I have no reason to relate that to a pre-invasion Iran, and invasion which isn't likely to happen anyway.
If you want to ignore the statements made by representatives of both political parties regarding their beliefs about WMD's in Iraq based upon various intelligence reports, a postion which was also held by the previous administration, then go ahead. I'm not.
Post a Comment
<< Home