Huckabee’s Frightening Views of National Security
This comes from Hotair.com
On June 11, 2007 Mike Huckabee clearly stated his support of keeping open the detainee facilities at Guantanamo Bay.
Detainees being held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on suspicion of connections to terrorism enjoy conditions better than many prisons in the United States, Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee said Sunday.
While the government’s handling of Guantanamo detainees has come to symbolize “what’s gone wrong” in the fight against terrorism, the former Arkansas governor said, it’s better to err on the side of protecting the American people.
After a meeting with a few unnamed former generals, Huckabee does a complete 180 and now opposes Guantanamo. Take a look at this report from the Washington Post. It reeks of political expediency.
After the Iowa poll showed that Republican voters like him but found him much less “presidential” and “electable” than Romney, Huckabee sought to build his foreign policy credentials, meeting with a group of retired generals who are in Des Moines to urge the 2008 candidates to commit to opposing torture. After the meeting, Huckabee joined Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in declaring his opposition to the interrogation procedure known as “waterboarding,” and said he would support closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a contrast with the other leading Republicans.
A few questions for Mike Huckabee. How long was the meeting? How long did it take for you to be swayed from your previous position? You stated that Guantanamo is a problem because of how it is seen by “the rest of the world.” What other items of national security are you willing to be swayed on and put at risk because of what “the rest of the world” thinks?
There are some intersting comments after the original post at Hotair. One caught my eye.
When people first started making comparisons between Huckabee and Jimmy Carter, I thought that was a bit too harsh. Now, I’m not so sure.
Mike Huckabee=Jimmy Carter? I’ll let you decide.
Take a look at the original post.
~Ryan Jesperson
December 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
This can’t be real. This guy is self destructing…
When asked by Don Imus this morning about his lack of foreign policy credentials, Mike Huckabee joked: “And the ultimate thing is, you know, I may not be the expert as some people on foreign policy – but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.” (WABC Radio, 12/04/07)
December 4th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I don’t even see the joke in that, it doesn’t even remotely equate to anything. What a strange man that Huckabee.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
The joke was that is the tagline for the Holiday Inn Express advertising. They’ll show someone doing something impressive, like rushing to provide medical care to an injured athlete. “Oh, I’m not a doctor. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.” As in smart people stay there. Was it a good joke? What is worrisome about Huckabee is not that he told a joke, its that he had little choice but to tell a joke. He has no real answer to that question.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
“Was it a good joke? Not really.” I left that out for some reason.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
It will be statements such as this (Holiday Inn Express) that will doom the Huckster.
He’s going to begin his plummet in the polls and won’t stop till around 10% or so. He’s so weak in so many areas.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
remember when Thompson got the big ABBR media push.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html
He announced in may by july he peaked it was all down hill once the media criticism started. They sure love playing king makers, maybe its their pre-season build up-tear down cycle they like to do try out on each new republican. Kind of a flex their muscles gauge how much they can help and hurt him.
Of course regular people would never think that way…. thats why they consume rather then produce media.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Here’s Huckabee’s Statement on Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.
He’s most assuredly not advocating closing Guantanamo and letting all the terrorists free, but rather moving them to a facility in the States, like Fort Leavenworth.
I think this quote from the statement is key:
“As President, my overriding concern in dealing with the suspected terrorists will always be our national security interests. As I stated in June, my first priority will be the protection of the American people and ensuring that all suspected terrorists remain in our custody.”
December 4th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
If Huckabee has been spouting nothing but jokes during his interviews, I will be extremely uncomfortable voting for him — even much much more than how I am currently quite uncomfortable voting for him due to his claim to Christianity. With the latter, at least, even though a good Christian does not equal a good McDonald manager, leaving alone the President of The USA, at least, I had a very slight hope that he would apply the good work ethics to himself. But with all of his jokes, it sounds like to me he has not studied the issues in depth. So, that takes away even that slight tiny bity hope!!! I now am starting to wonder how much more uncomfortable can he make me, seeing we have only a month left!
December 4th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Texan, this is exactly the same position as McCain. He, like Huckabee, wants to move those terrorists to Fort Leavenworth. Now, here is the problem, my pal, which they did not acknowledged (well, McCain emphasized this to be a world relationship problem and nothing more). The US Constitution is written to protect the rights of the citizens. It has nothing to do with non-citizens. Regardless, we have extended the courtesy to them, and give them the opportunity to prove themselves worthwhile of the citizenship. Now, the liberals have muddled this line, and pretty much everyone who is on the soil of The USA is automatically granted the Constitutional rights, no matter what their citizenship status is. This is the entire point of having this Guantanamo so-called “prison”. There is nothing wrong with the prison. They are treated even better than our own imiates in our own prisons. The liberals have been making too much noise that the people like McCain believe our reputation are ruined because of this single prison. Shame on those who has listen to them!
In reality, those terrorists are actively trying to destroy us all. They are fanaticial! They do not care about our own rights. They will rather shoot us down and dance on our body than to negotiate with us. We do need to ensure that our citizens first are protected, and we are not there - YET! So, until we recognize this HARD FACT, I am in favor of not granting to terrorists the rights the liberals claim they have, and to hell with what the rest of the world think of us. Yes, some of them (a handful, perhaps) may be innocent, but we are in middle of the war which THEY have declared against us. We will ALWAYS have the innocent casualties. Again, this is the HARD FACT of the war (which we never did declare). Perhaps we did not realize that never once had our good presidents (meaning G.Washington all the way down until Carter the Jokster, then the Reagen and Bush administrations) take into consideration how the world would judge us. McCain, his claim nevertheless, is not the best Commander in Chief if he is concerned about how others would think of us. It does not look like Huckabee has the spine to stand up for the right, even if the whole universe is against us.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Texan,
Bryan’s words over at Hotair address your comment perfectly:
“Ok, so now we know he wants to put the detainees at Leavenworth. If SCOTUS doesn’t grant them habeus corpus, that move is likely to as the nearest federal judge will have the ACLU camped out in his inbox. What then? And what happens when the Gitmo critics just move on to start criticizing us for holding the detainees at Leavenworth? The end result of Huckabee’s stance will be to grant the detainees full rights in US civilian courts, either that or freeing them, since he won’t take the stand that our detaining them at Gitmo is both lawful and humane and has established the precedent that he’ll retreat in the face of unfair and unreasonable criticism of the US.”
No way around it my friend…Hucakbee is soft on terror, poor on national security. More concerned about what “the rest of the world” thinks than what is best for the U.S.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I just don’t understand some people putting waterboarding in the same category as torture. When I think of torture, I think of thumbscrews, hot pokers and the such. Permanent damage done to the subject. I would even put highly painful but not permanent treatment as torture. But for someone to say, “I was really scared” is not torture in my eyes. Waterboarding is just simulating drowning, making the person panic from fear of death. Sure, it’s not very nice and something that no one would want to be subject to, but torture? I reserve that word for things involving great pain and/or body mutilation.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:41 am
That old phrase tough cases make bad law.
The point of keeping terrorists in Guantanamo’s is to protect the American Liberties. If terrorists are on American soil getting American courts then a ton of awful judicial precedents will be sent for the American people or terrorists will go free.
The biggest threat to Americans is not about terrorists getting lawyers its about Americans being subjected to those awful precedents that would come out of it. Or wed sign a big free pass for all the terrorists in the world.
I sure would have loved to hear Romney state this.. Americans are clued in to the idea that tough cases make bad law. Even some liberals would see the wisdom in it.