He wouldn't be the first candidate who wasn't as informed as everyone thinks they should be. I like his approach on other things though.
Hey, I had some halfway decent posts in that thread, starting around page 9. I can't believe it went 13 pages! Impeach Bush.
wnes, I don't have time now to go re-read that thread. If you think I should after reading this post, let me know what I should be looking for and I'll read it later tonight. When I said it was BS, I was referring to the idea that Obama suggested "invading Pakistan." He didn't. He said IF we had actionable intelligence and IF Musharraf refused to act upon it, the United States would. You characterize that as some sort of hawkish position and suggest anti-Iraq war Dems are hypocrites for supporting it. That is total BS. I haven't seen a single Dem or liberal here suggest we shouldn't do everything in our power to get Bin Laden. In fact, one of our major arguments against Iraq was that we should be going after people who attacked us, not people that didn't. Maybe I was over the top when I said Republicans agreed with Obama on this. To be fair, I was guessing. It is a fact though that Hillary and Edwards have both come around to agreeing with him and they said so in the NH debate. I made that guess about the Republicans because I just can't imagine any reasonable person feeling differently. Here's the scenario Obama laid out: We know where Bin Laden is. We tell Musharraf where he is and ask him to get him. He says no, I won't. We say if you don't, we will. He says no, don't do that. We do it anyway. What part of doing whatever we have to do to get the murderer of 3,000 Americans is inconsistent with ANYTHING ANY Dem or left-leaning person here has EVER posted? TIA.
particularly when the model is Jesus who was touching the untouchable (lepers) of his day. i'm not condemning the man...but i find that position to be more than odd, at best.
p.s. It is totally disingenuous to characterize Obama's position as an "invasion of Pakistan." He never suggested any action against the Pakistani government, military or any other target there other than Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. You make it sound like he supports going to war with Pakistan. That is utter BS.
Batman, justification for using military means by U.S. in Pakistan was not the focus of my initial post. Given the condition under which Obama would send U.S. armed forces over there, whether it is air raid, special forces, or regular ground troops, if they are not invited/asked/permitted by the Pakistani Government to enter their country, the action amounts to invasion. Plain and simple. No matter how one spins it. The only thing at which you may be justifiably outraged is my characterization of Obama's proposed military action as neocon-ish, which I concede is very much subject to debate.
Hold on. It's one thing to be misinformed, or uninformed. It's another entirely to be willfully ignorant, which I think Huckabee is guilty of on a few counts. It's still another entirely different thing to make callous and poorly thought-out comments regarding that which you are uninformed.
I don't think it was poorly thought out if he was uninformed or misinformed of how AIDS is actually spread at the time of the remarks. Callous, maybe, but not poorly thought out. It's like how the teacher gives you points for doing the right math process with the wrong numbers.
I'm not outraged about anything, wnes. I'm in a remarkably good mood. It's almost morning in America. I appreciate you backing off the suggestion that actually going after a guy who attacked us is "neocon-ish." That was an awfully stupid thing to say and I'm glad you realize that now. After all, the neo-cons have been generally ambivalent about going after Bin Laden; they prefer to wage wars on countries that haven't attacked us. I'm willing to concede the semantic point that going after Bin Laden on Pakistani soil against the wishes of the government there could be called an invasion. I'm in no way willing to concede the implication there that we'd be going to war with Pakistan, which is very much what you suggest when you use misleading language like 'Obama wants to invade Pakistan' without the context and caveats of only going in there IF we knew where Bin Laden was, ONLY going in to get him and ONLY doing that if our "ally" in the war against terrorists REFUSED to act on it himself. If that were the situation, he wouldn't be our ally anymore anyway and we'd have a much better argument for whatever strife might result between us and him than we ever had for removing Saddam. At that point we would be talking about a guy that was essentially harboring and protecting a man who killed 3,000 Americans on our soil and preventing us from taking action. But the biggest BS of all in your posts in this thread is the suggestion that I or others are hypocritical or revisionist or partisan in our defense of Obama's statement. You cannot cite ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of that support being contradictory to anything that's ever been said on this BBS. I look forward to your apology.
This is but one example of Huckabee's anti-gay bigotry. Why am I not surprised that you couldn't care less.
Obviously it's not. Equally obviously the disease's connection with the gay community is exactly why Huckabigot had no problem making the statement. He also likened homosexuality to beastiality and necrophilia. I'm sure that doesn't bother you either. I'm still waiting for a response from weslinder. He said we should forgive Huckabee for something he's since refuted. I don't doubt that's true, though I understood he hadn't refuted it, but I still haven't seen evidence of it.
He wasn't. He was willfully ignorant. Probably because, as Batman pointed out, he was still under the delusion it was a gay disease sent by god or whatever. That's not who I want for president.
I apologize. I wasn't purposefully ignoring you. According to this article, he no longer believes that they should be isolated. He says that he stands by what he said then based on his knowledge at the time, but he would have stated it differently. (Obviously pure spin and bad spin at that.) He now even wants increased Federal funding for AIDS research.
You don't know if that's the reason he made that statement, it's speculation. No it doesn't bother me he made that connection, but I'm not going to vote or not vote for him because of that comment. I voted for Kerry in '04 despite the Republican push to make gay marriage a voting issue. I obviously don't agree with it, but it isn't something that's going to decide who I vote for.
p.s. to wnes while he types out his thoughtful apology... I found a minute to scan that 13 page thread you linked to, just to see what I'd said in it. It turns out I had one post in there ("You chickenhawks sure do love mushroom clouds."). But I noticed while quickly scanning that Giuliani had endorsed Obama's statement. You ridiculed the idea that people on both sides agreed with him. Clinton and Edwards said they did at the last debate. (Clinton did so after making alarmist hay of it when it first came up.) I've yet to hear from any of the Republican candidates that they disagreed with Obama on this, but I'd love to see a link if they had. It would be of great use during the general as Obama is on the side of right here and his position is in line with the American people, who overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war and support getting Bin Laden. Just like every liberal on this board.
A good point. But he was a baptist minister at the time right? It's highly likely he thought that way accordingly. But probably not provable. Another good point. There are still a myriad of other reasons I would not vote for huckleberry, but your comments are understood.
Oh, God. Really? That's what you meant? I wasn't suggesting he still thought they should be isolate for God's sake; I was saying I believed he hadn't backed off saying it in the first place. If he stands by saying it then, my answer in Fatty's thread stands.
From the horse's (or the horse's staff's) mouth: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=413
Batman, neocon-ism to me is promoting American democracy outside America, if necessary and often by means of military intervention -- a Hayesian euphemism for invasion. Neoconism-based actions are inherently hawkish, and unmistakably perceived by the mass in the invaded nation as hostile. OK, instead of "neocon-ish," "hawkish" appears to be the right word to use if the Obama military mission sees no purpose to prolong its campaign and to further occupy the country in long term once it finishes its precise and predefined goal. But are you really so sure about it? Osama bin Laden and his associates do not isolate themselves in a vacuum where you can just catch and/or kill them without considerable collateral damage done to the host nation, especially if you apply large-scale military action. Pakistan as a country where OBL is presumed hiding, is extremely fragile, both politically and economically, even before the Bhuto mess. OBL and al Qaeda forces have largely been diminished and contained since 9/11, whether you or your liberal/Democratic friends want to admit it. Moreover, even if OBL is killed in action or caught and brought to justice as everyone wished, including the much-maligned neocons (I think you are giving them undeserved bad reps by characterizing them as being ambivalent about OBL), by no means anti-terrorism can and will reach its conclusion. Given the fragile, fractious, and unstable state of Pakistan, the implication and the aftermath of invading a nuclear Muslim country uninvited are huge and can easily be disastrous, the peril of which far outweighs moral and symbolic victory you and your liberal/Democrat friends would like to pat yourselves on the back. Simply put, it's much much much easier said than done. Correct me if I am wrong since I haven't closely followed politics for quite some time, but this idea of military intervention in Pakistan by Obama seemed to come out of blue in that before his speech I wasn't aware any of political leader on the Democratic side had proposed actions of such hostile nature against Pakistan. The naiveness and simple-mindedness of Obama supporters on this matter are truly astounding, but in a general election I shouldn't be surprised. Oh, the revisionist characterization is not about your defense of Obama's position -- there is no question you guys are pretty adamant and unified on that -- I am referring to your original statement that the Bush supporters have also come to your side, which is obviously not true. You have since acknowledged it so no big deal.
