Thats pretty much the only way I can read this
In an interview with 1200 WOAI news during his swing through Texas, longshot Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee outlined a strategy which has him not winning the GOP nomination outright, but pushing the nomination to the September Republican National Convention, which he says will turn to him as the most ‘conservative alternative.’
The ‘brokered convention’ plan is in stark contrast to Huckabee’s previous sunny predictions of a sweep to victory in the primaries and caucuses on the shoulders of adoring family values conservatives.
So in a pathetic last ditch effort to get the nomination, Mike Huckabee is going to completely ruin any possible chance of the GOP winning in November. The American people are sick and tired of the incompetence and pandering to the nut-jobs of George Bush, Tom Delay, Trent Lott, and Rick Santorum (see: 2006 Elections). Obama can attract 22,000 people to a rally at Georgia Tech. Mitt managed to get about 1500. The GOP’s only shot of beating the Democrats is to rally around McCain – who unlike Hillary or Barack will continue to actually fight the jihadists.
So, if any Ron Paul Supporters in Texas are reading this, if you want to make sure that the US is out of Iraq this time next year, vote for Huckabee. And all those who voted for Huckabee here in Georgia, Osama Bin Laden thanks you for your support.
{ 84 comments }
GoPeach we’re waiting with baited breath…..
Rumor has it she has been sent on sabbatical.
GOPEach will not be inserting her comments into any conversation on PeachPundit again.
Can you verify your last reach, er, statement? Cite your source (other than partisan whining) that says electing a D will mean the end of the war in 6 months.
And Bin Ladin should be thanking the Bush Administration for not caring about catching him.
Fool.
That didn’t come out right. Its not that I am calling you are a fool, Chris, but you are the uber-hack apologist for the status quo.
WHO is “Chris?”
The reality is we cannot afford this nation building strategy (10 to 12 billion a month). Also we cannot afford a quick pull out with no plan,
We must go back to the Reagan containment strategy.
Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must:
1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population.
2) Allow each group to have a much stronger
role in self government by letting them create three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting.
3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights.
4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies.
Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region.
We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand
Good grief. This is ridiculous. I didn’t get what I wanted so I’m going to get mad and go home.
“The GOP’s only shot of beating the Democrats is to rally around McCain – who unlike Hillary or Barack will continue to actually fight the jihadists.”
This is such crap Chris that I don’t know where to begin. I thought you were more intellectual than to fall for the “If the Democrats win, the terrorists win” crap. Yes, McCain has a strong military history, but his stance on the war in Iraq so far sounds like the same aimless strategy that got us into the unnecessary, intractable war.
I’m not some bleeding heart here and, in fact, might vote for McCain. But I don’t think he will get us victory in Iraq any quicker or slower than Obama or Clinton.
Please, don’t be a dittohead.
I find myself more and more agreeing with the same ideas expressed here by EAVDad.
I’d like for someone to offer a real, rational reason why you cannot be a “true conservative” or “real American” and disagree with the entire Iraq fiasco so far and the ongoing party line on said disaster. If there’s a logical argument, I haven’t heard it yet…
And if memory serves, McCain was one of the loudest and most often repeated voices saying from the start that Iraq was going to be “quick and easy,” only to later recant (sort of) by saying that anyone who shared his earlier stance was seriously mistaken.
Agreed, EAVdad. It’s amazing that there are folks out there who still believe that waging the war in Iraq has anything to do with defeating terrorists.
And my favorite is the argument that “we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Classic discredited cold war domino-theory rhetoric, straight outta LBJ, JFK and Nixon.
Seriously, was GOPeach Brandy banned?
I just thought she was on a bender.
Ohhh… NO sorry, Bill. The correct answer should be
“WHO is John Galt?”
That would be Chris Farris. as in the O.P.
There is no more “Chris” farris. Check the top of the thread.
I bought into the WMD, Sadam’s a menace theory, back in ‘03, but now see I was wrong. As a result, I don’t trust the current admin anymore. I do however now think it was all about oil. More and more republicans seem to be accepting this. And perhaps the worst of it (besides 500,000 dead; us and them) is we’ve helped create a new Iran, as well as thousands of more terrorist that just want to do us in.
I have always been a republican, but this war seriouslty make me think of becoming an independant. And the most terribly dissilusioned? The ones who think Sadam had something to do with 9/11!
Roy,
How do you support your conclusion that Iraq was about oil?
Who is getting the oil or otherwise benefiting and how?
Was Congress complicit in this oil conspiracy?
Government admits oil is the reason for war in Iraq
WATCH VIDEO
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/government-admits-oil-is-the-reason-for-war-in-iraq
Well Nonpartisan,
I guess it really wasn’t, since we found all those
anthrax labs in operation, not to mention those nukes just waiting on propulsion systems.
Seriously, evan Alan Greenspan said this was the administrations prime motive. As well, several departed members of the Bush administration have also said Bush wanted this from day one.
(1) The issue of whether the war in Iraq is about “terrorism” is a dead horse. Not even most Republicans still believe that they’re one and the same.
(2) The idea that Ron Paul supporters only cared about Iraq is likewise a dead horse. For me, the issue of Iraq barely hangs onto the Top 10 by its fingernails.
(3) The notion that a Democrat President will have us out of Iraq within 6 months was never even a horse in the first place. The only two candidates who made such claims were Kucinich and Bill Richardson, neither of whom broke double-digits. Under either Obama or Hillary, it will take years to wind down.
(4) The notion that “a vote for (insert Republican’s name here) is a vote for (insert Democrat’s name here)” is fast turning into a dead horse. I’m no Huckabee fan, but a vote for a candidate is a vote for that candidate. If no candidate can get enough delegates to avoid a brokered convention, then they don’t deserve to get the nomination without a brokered convention. This goes for either party… and by the way, it’s FAR more likely that the Dems will go to a brokered convention this year than will the GOP.
In essence, while I think that McCain is a better candidate than Huckabee by every imaginable criteria… I strongly oppose the practice of pointing to the opposition party as a “boogeyman” and using them to rally around a bandwagon candidate no matter what. This notion encapsulates everything that is wrong with the party system, and represents why neither party really stands for anything.
You’ve got a lot of rotting livestock there Steve.
Roy,
I am not going to argue with you at all regarding the administration for the past 8 years.
BUT…do you really think that now is a good time to put into power the kind of people who have a history of APPEASING terror-minded maniacs?
Barack/Hillary/whoever on the Left are all about pacifism and placating people like Saddam and Osama, believing concepts like IF we disarm the US, the rest of the world will lay down their arms and treat us nicely?
Do you really want to put THAT kind of “change” in charge of this country?
Roy,
Take a deep breath….
1) I did not even mention WMD real or imagined. I only asked you to elaborate about your oil conspiracy theory.
2) Alan Greenspan as former Federal Reserve Board Chair was not part of the administration and not likely to participate in foreign policy strategy.
3) Even if Bush wanted the war from day one, that does not prove as you suggested that “it was all about oil”. Oil being a factor or one of a number of motivations is not the same as the sole motivation.
My point of departure with Bush was in 2002 when the intention to make war on Iraq was announced, as my study of the situation showed Pakistan to be the greatest locus or terrorism.
To me the frightening aspect of Iraq is that we have SPENT our force there instead of against the real source of terror and the costs have been borrowed from the Chinese. At the same time we are sending $10’s of billions to the terrorist nation, one with very real WMD.
Bush said of Saddam; “That man tried to kill my Daddy” and he has/had Saddam’s pistol as a souvenir. He would probably have the noose, too, if he had his way.
As for the US taking the oil, that would have been too awkward. The objective was to have permanent bases in the ME, where 75% of the proven reserves of light crude are to be found and to have a proximate force to the newer mega fields in the ’stans of central Asia, where the Chinese were making inroads.
Whether it was for oil or a strategic presence, or some combination, is debatable. It was not about terrorism, though.
The financial state of the USA will soon forbid any more adventurism unless we start acting like a real empire and seizing the oil for our needs.
Even Huckabee might be able to rationalize it.
Non
Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?
O’Neill Tells ‘60 Minutes’ Iraq Was ‘Topic A’ 8 Months Before 9-11
CBS) A year ago, Paul O’Neill was fired from his job as George Bush’s Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president’s policy on tax cuts.
Now, O’Neill – who is known for speaking his mind – talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.
Entitled “The Price of Loyalty,” the book by a former Wall Street Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents. [Simon and Schuster, the book's publisher, and CBSNews.com, are both units of Viacom.]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
Bill,
I will probably vote for McCain again as I did in the primaries. But I just don’t see where the other side are terror appeasing maniacs. In my opinion we can’t police the world, there are too many problems here at home we should be dealing with. We coudn’t micro manage southeast asia and we can’t the middle east.
NonPartisan, if the war wasn’t about oil, then what was it about?
Good points Indy, Especially regarding the Pakistan situation . Our State Department for years had classified Pakistan as a major source of terror, and Bush &Co. declared them as “America’s partner in the fight against terrorism”. That remark there was worth 4 shots of vodka!
Roy,
I cannot tell you what was in the heart and mind of the President and the members of congress when they decided to move forward.
Hence I have not made any contention about what the real deal was because I do not know.
I asked you to expand on your conclusion to help me reason through why you said what you said.
Defending your premise by implying that if I can’t prove otherwise is a rather convoluted defense.
Just to clarify -
1) I don’t believe the war on islamofacism is the seminal issue of our time.
2) I don’t believe that western civilization will fall, or the night sky will be lit by the suitcase nukes going off in American cities if we turn tail from Iraq.
However, I suspect that many of Huckabee’s supporters _do_ believe these things and this post was addressed to them.
Finally, if Ron Paul’s performance in the debate is any reflection of his following, Opposition to Iraq is the reason he has such support. Even on questions of domestic policy he’d run home to the “we wouldn’t have these issues if we weren’t building an empire abroad” response.
Finally, I do believe that Huckabee staying in the race is hurting McCain’s chances in the General. And if Huckabee really is working to make it an open convention, then the floor fight will make a democratic victory certian.
Unless Obama diddles little boys, in which case even Alan Keyes would become a viable candidate.
“For me, the issue of Iraq barely hangs onto the Top 10 by its fingernails.” Was this a typo? A war that churns the Iranian threat, costs us billions each week, with continued US casualties, and isn’t a top-ten issue? Maybe I’ve misread.
John Konop,
You pointed out the other reason I became hostile to the Bush GOP gang – the fact that they fired, scapegoated, demoted, and smeared scores of real conservatives, GOPers, and just honest folks for just trying to serve America and not the Bush imperium. CORRUPTION.
O’Neil and Summers were among the first.
Rat,
If the Dems win, what difference does it make. The Dems=GOP=Poison for ou and me.
Do you prefer the cherry flavor D-Con or the peach?
NonPartisan: When we invaded Iraq and took Baghdad, what was the most important government ministry to guard? One would have thought the ministry that contained nuclear research and development as well as bio science labratories. Where’d we station armed units? The oil ministry. And who in all this has made out the best financially?? Bush and Cheney’s good friends from Texas what with windfall profits, oh, and Halliburton and Blackwater.
And Indy, remember that story Bob Jones University put out (some said with the help of Karl Rove) that Mccain (back in the 1999 primaries) had had an affair with a “colored” woman and that’s why he had a dark child???
McCain and Cindy had adopted an orphan from Bangladesh years back and that rumor was to help Bush win the SC primary after McCain won big in New Hampshire. Bob Jones U folks…I’ve known atheist that would never even -think- about coming close to telling such a terrible lie.
But has he won his last primary?
Roy,
Perhaps because #1 – the Administration was incompetent (in not securing the WMD sites) and 2) the oil ministry was the most crucial to preserve for the reconstruction efforts.
Roy,
That is because atheists have a sense of decency. Fundies can rationalize doing anything in order to help save people’s souls (see: Spanish Inquisition).
Farris, but also the other ministries in charge of bio weaponry would be just as cruicial if not more, if they reall were manufactoring nerve agents, you couldn’t have that continue, expecially with our forces on the ground.
And Rugby, surely McCain will win Oregon, Ohio.
There will not be a brokered convention. McCain will secure the nomination out right and the Huckster will continue to be the court jester.
Obama’s record has not been bought to light yet. Obama makes Hillary Clinton look conservative.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618845.shtml
Barack Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
——————————————————————————–
By Cliff Kincaid
Feb 12, 2008
A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
BTW, RINO Sen. Chuck Hagel is a co-sponsor of this bill.
Debbie,
Bush just dropped $700 million on Tanzania, all of it to be borrowed from China, and we are supposed to worry about Obama?
As I see it McCain and the GOP love to spend and borrow, while Obama and the Dems love to spend and tax.
Choose your poison.
McCain is a fiscal conservative, Bush is not.
I disagreed with Bush and the money he pledged to Tanzania.
Debbie can you tell us how we can pay for a 100 year war in Iraq at 10 to 12 trillion a month?
I am sorry billion not trillion.
I guess you have NO ANSWER Debbie!
McCain used to be a fiscal conservative, but as JK notes, favoring occupation of Iraq for 100 years at the cost of $trillions in borrowed money cannot be stretched to encompass fiscal conservatism.
Also, the man looks to be quite incompetent at handling campaign funds at all, so imagine the damage he can do as POTUS.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/21/fec_poses_fresh_problem_for_mc.html
If it is a war for oil, then why haven’t we taken any?
If you plop down the world’s most awesome military force in the midst of 75% of the reserves, you maintain pressure to – 1) favor US oil companies over Chinese oil companies on the part of the ’stans 2) keep supplies flowing to USA without crippling price hikes or supply disruptions 3) maintain oil pricing in the $US dollar, despite the arab sheiks being robbed of $billions as their $US dollar assets are inflated away. (Noted here that gas prices in Europe have not gone up much, while US prices explode because of the cheapened $US.) and 4) embargo Iranian gasoline imports to stiffle its ambitions
Therefore you don’t have to overtly take it, all you have to do is control it.
JasonW
Read the book Art of War and you will see the problems with invading Countries! The best chapter explains how the greatest generals you never heard of because they avoid the war by using their mind. A smart general has his ducks in a row before the invasion and it is only done as a last alternative. Also an occupation is always a tough winning the peace. And when throw on the secular problems in Iraq it is a hornet’s nest.
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/who-am-i-kidding-nobody-reads-this-blog
Rome
The fact that over 20 thousand people a month visit my blog on a monthly basis has nothing to do with the topic. I guess you have even giving up adding mindless talking points about the topic of Iraq.
Rome you clicking your heals three times and putting your head in the sand will not make the problem go away.
Try reading books instead of comic books and listening to Rush!
Comments on this entry are closed.