.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Friday, January 11, 2008

Arrogance - Bush or Huckabee?

Gary Gross over at Let Freedom Ring makes a good point. President wannabee, former Arkansas Mike Huckabee, accused President Bush of having a go-it-alone "arrogant bunker mentality".

And furthermore, that "American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out."

I don't agree with this criticism.

Nonetheless, this charge certainly is not new. This is right out of the Democrats talking points. The last time I checked Huck was running as a Republican, is he not.

At any rate, during this last Republican debate, "The Huck" said: “I think we need to make it very clear, not just to the Iranians, but to anybody, that if you think you’re going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle. Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next things you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that.”

So much for opening up, reaching out, and changing the tone of American foreign policy. Kinda' sounds like bunker mentality to me.

I am having difficulty believing this is his true position. Sounds like pandering. But a politician wouldn't do this. Would they?


  • The idea that America has to repair international relationships was always only a long-term strawman strategy set up and promulgated by leftists wanting to take down Bush and the Republicans. It's total hogwash and sad that Huckabee has either bought into it or is dishonestly using it to play to the left. In doing this, he is giving the anti-American leftists credibility, as well as playing into the hands of tyrants like Chavez, Castro, and Ahmadinejad. Huckabee is a danger to the United States.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:58 PM  

  • Is it our position that Bush can do no wrong?

    Since when are we afraid to admit our mistakes? People give you MORE credit when you admit mistakes than when you deny the obvious.

    I'm on board for the war, but it is blindingly obvious that it was handled badly. Going in with too few forces was a mistake. "You're either with us or against us" did damage to our relationship with the world.

    I'm not sure I agree with Huckabee on everything in his foreign policy, but nor do I think Bush's foreign policy was ordained from heaven. If you read Huck's policy paper in full, there's a lot of good stuff in there, as well as some stuff to disagree on.

    But that in NO WAY makes Huck a "Blame America Firster" (Thompson's ridiculous charge), nor does it make him a danger to the U.S.

    In fact, to insist that we have done no wrong, need make no changes, and need repair no relationships, is just the kind of arrogance that Huckabee spoke about.

    By Anonymous Peter, at 7:59 PM  

  • Certainly it is not "our" position that Bush can do no wrong. But, it is "their" position "Bush can do no right."

    Moreover, I, personally, have not heard one person make the claim Bush can do no wrong; and feel quite certain, that no one else can claim to have either.

    In regards to Pres. Bush, there are a lot of things in which I disagree upon with him.

    However, even he, at times, has said there has been mistakes made in this war. I challenge anyone to name one war .. any war .. where mistakes were not made. It cannot be done.

    Bush would not be given anymore credit by his fanatical detractors than he has now, even if he "admitted to his mistakes."

    He would be apologizing 24/7. You see, everything he says and does is a "mistake." His "being born" was a mistake. His continued existence on this planet "is a mistake." His two election victories (helped by cheating) were a "mistake." He is a blithering idiot, a buffoon, not capable of doing anything right, so stupid that they don't know how to beat him politically.

    It is your opinion, one which I share by the way, we went into the war with too few troops.

    It is also your opinion, one that I do not share, that his, "You're either with us or against us," damaged our relationship with the world. For those who did not like us before his utterance, remained opposed to us. Those who were our true allies, did not throw us overboard because of it.

    The "world" does not hate us. Every country has people in it that hate us. We have citizens right here in our country that hate the United States.

    But, it is the "left" around the world that hates us. Nothing changed with his statement.

    Man has warts. Therefore, countries and governments WILL have warts. It is just that some have more warts than others.

    What's more, EVERY country is going to act in THEIR best interest.

    We give more humanitarian aid in the form of food, medicine, etc., and more money to the "world" than any other country, and in almost all cases, seem to be going to very unappreciative benefactors.

    Again, I don't know of anyone who has said that "we have done no wrong." I don't know where these ideas get started. Whether "Huck" is a "Blame America Firster", I don't know. But frankly I am tired of the "blame America crowd." They are incidentally the same ones that blame Bush for EVERYTHING.

    I am proud to say I am not part of that crowd.

    How many times have other countries "apologized" to the Unites States for being "wrong" or behaving badly? IT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN.

    Lastly, the point that seems to have been missed in regards to the original post is that Huck is spinning badly here -- trying to have it both ways -- not uncommon for politicians, mind you.

    But for him to claim President Bush of having a go-it-alone "arrogant bunker mentality" and that "American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out," and then turn around and threaten "anybody" that if you mess with us to be prepared to see "the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that” is hypocritical or disingenuous at the least.

    And if you are attempting to "open up, reach out, and change the tone of American foreign policy, how is this helpful?

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 6:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home