ComMITTed to Romney!

As you all know, Sen. McCain delivered a major speech on Thursday, May 15, where he outlined his TIMETABLE FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. TROOPS FROM IRAQ!

This is the same man who used that very point to attack Mitt Romney during the last days of the Florida primary! Wait, I’m confused. Timetables for an Iraq withdrawal are bad, right? No, now they’re good.

McCain said that Gov. Romney should not have taken a nuanced approach to timetables in a debate question when he said that their should be private timetables used to gauge the Iraqi government’s progress toward certain benchmarks. He (Romney) said he would not be in favor of publicly releasing any timetables that could be used to the advantage of the insurgents. I thought that was an intelligent response to a complicated set of problems and the correct policy approach.

Sen. McCain had different ideas back then. After all that was three months ago. He lectured Gov. Romney that his response should have been “No.” McCain’s current answer is “Yes.”

Unbelievable folks, just unbelievable. Not only does McCain have timetables, but he delivers them in a major speech that traveled around the world within minutes of it’s conclusion. All Al Queda has to do now is lay low for four years, use the time to recruit and train new thugs, raise money to buy ammunition and IED’s from Iran and get ready for the “big push” in 2013.

~~John Cronin~~

I saw this story on the Border Fence this morning and I thought it would be very informative and very interesting to hear from our readers who either live in areas near the Southwestern border or who have friends or family members who live in those areas to post their comments about the issues involved in erecting a physical barrier. What are the concerns of farmers and cattle ranchers in those areas? How will this effect local business? Do property owners have legitimate complaints or do national security interests trump all other concerns?

Will the border fence ever get built or will it be promptly forgotten by the politicians once they are safely ensconced in office for the next four to six years?

~~John Cronin~~

By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
February 22, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - In a CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed Thursday night that the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006, which directs the secretary of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing along specific sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, should not be enforced as written.

Stressing her desire to be deferential to the views of people who live along the border in Texas — which on March 4 will hold a primary that is widely viewed as a must-win event for the New York senator — Clinton said of a border fence, “there may be limited places where it would work. But let’s deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier.”

“This is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree,” said Obama. “I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it’s on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier.”

McCain’s Attack Mailer

More than just the same old personal attacks, McCain has now launched a mailer exaggerating increases in fees in Massachusetts while Mitt was governor and criticizing Mitt for other things. See the Politico for the story.

Astute readers will recognize the hypocrisy here. McCain cried “foul” when Mitt presented McCain’s record on the Bush tax cuts and amnesty for illegals. While McCain didn’t agree with Mitt’s definition of amnesty (though Fred Thompson did agree with Mitt in a subsequent debate), McCain’s only responses were to cast aspersions on Mitt’s character, effectively calling Mitt a liar. He also criticized the ads as “negative.” Well, here’s McCain doing what he so roundly criticized. Here’s his campaign’s response:

Asked how they reconcile running a positive campaign with such a mailer, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said: “We’ve been attacked enough times by Mitt Romney to justify getting out front to set the record straight.”

Sound like any two year old you know? “He did it first!”

JMart Points out McCain Flaws (Quoting Mark Lavin)

Jonathan Martin of the Politico recently posted a blog wondering aloud why no GOP candidate is hitting McCain on his “obvious” flaws in his not-so-conservative Senate voting record. He provides a link to a National Review Online article written by Mark Lavin on this subject. The obvious answer to me is that McCain and Huckabee have a marriage of convenience. It’s in both’s interest to take Mitt down, and McCain is gambling he may never have to get negative on Huckabee as Huck is likely to fade on his own. Huckabee knows he’s helped as well and is willing to take his chances against McCain later one on one after a more conservative rival is gone. But for you wondering why everyone considers McCain a liberal (and why he continues to garner more support among liberals than among people classifying themselves as “Republican”) see the following:

There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

Conservatives need to wake up to the fact that McCain is not one of us and is a better candidate for a third party, or even the democrats, than for the Republicans. Most Republicans have recognized that (remember his no-show in Iowa and losing among actual Republican voters in NH to Mitt). We need to spread the word so we don’t inherit McCain as our candidate through dirty pool.

Here I am again to report on events later in the day January 2 in Urbandale and at the night’s Romney rally.

A Brief Chat with Doug Gross

Toward the end of the afternoon I was privileged to sit down for a few minutes with Doug Gross, Mitt’s Iowa chair.

He’d told the troops in a mid-day rally session that he met Mitt in April of ‘06, and was impressed that Mitt had the whole package. He told me in our interview that for him, the “whole package” meant Mitt had “leadership, values, an ability to get things done and executive experience.” Doug helped the campaign organize for the Ames straw poll, and when I asked him to compare the caucuses with the straw poll, and he said “caucuses are like a straw poll on steroids,” with the need to make sure about “ten times” the number of people show up in caucus locations throughout the state. The caucuses, though, don’t actually select delegates for Iowa. As Doug explained, the voters express a preference for a candidate in the caucuses, but delegates aren’t chosen until June of 2008, when they’re pledged to support the voters’ preference. I asked Doug as we closed what his experiences with Mitt have shown him in the 18 plus months they’ve worked together. He responded that in a campaign “any candidate’s character is tested; Mitt always acts professionally, above board and ethically.” Given the attacks Mitt has endured, that’s saying a lot. Doug, thanks for taking the time!

Pix from the Rally

Mitt’s supporters made their way to a rally at about 7:30 local time. The press was very well represented, with, I’d estimate, 20-30 different cameras set up in a corner of the large room on a platform. Here’s a shot of the size of the relative side of the room. The press is hard to see, but it’s to the right.

I made my way to the left of the stage and stood next to a lone cameraman from C-SPAN. Doug Gross welcomed the crowd from the end of a catwalk extending from the main stage, and inspired confidence that Mitt was, in fact, going to be the Republican nominee and our next president. Doug gave way to Dan Jansen, the Olympic speed skater, who recounted how he’d met Mitt before the ‘02 Olympics and knew Mitt was something special. Dan then ceded the stage to Mitt and Ann. Ann expressed her appreciation and love for the people of Iowa. She then introduced the Main Man. I was able to get a few shots of him as the night went on.

Here’s one as Mitt addressed the crowd from the catwalk:

Mitt’s speech covered his bases: education, overwhelming militant jihadists, and his confidence that the unified American spirit can overcome the challenges we face. He gave Dan as an example of dogged determination that had inspired Mitt, saying “it wasn’t because America had won a gold medal, that had happened before,” but was inspiring because Dan had dedicated himself and finally attained his goal at being the best in the world at something after things had gone wrong in three prior Olympic games. Mitt then gave a tidbit I’d not heard him relate before; he talked about Derek Parra, the speed skater in the ‘02 Olympics that had converted from rollerblading in LA, and found he was fast. Ultimately he won a gold in Salt Lake. When Derek had been asked what his favorite Olympic moment was, it wasn’t winning the gold, but being one of the few athletes chosen to represent America by carrying into the opening ceremonies the flag that had flown over the World Trade Center on September 11. Here’s a link to a story where Derek tells it in his own words. I was in the crowd that night in Salt Lake, and Mitt’s account was absolutely correct. Instead of applause, the crowd, tens of thousands strong, fell reverently silent. At that moment the world paid tribute to the victims of those attacks. Mitt recalled the event with reverence.

Mitt’s speech was a great one. At one point he quoted Yogi Berra as saying he didn’t like making predictions where the future was concerned, but he foresaw a good result in Iowa tomorrow night. I’ve got to say I’m feeling it too.

After the speech he and Ann mingled with some folks in the crowd, before they were whisked away, I believe to be on Fox. Here are a few shots of Mitt mixing it up:

Some CNN Before Blogging

I’m not sure if many of you caught this, but David Gergen was on with Anderson Cooper tonight, along with Gloria Borger. Both Gergen and Borger made some pretty frank statements about Huckabee not seeming “ready,” and that Huckabee has lost his momentum. It confirms what some, including myself, have observed: as the limelight has shown on Huckabee for his 15 minutes of fame, he’s seemed to wilt and do strange things. Here’s the link to the transcript on CNN’s website. After comments that Rudy’s lack of attention to Iowa was certainly hurting, and that McCain will still suffer for his position on immigration, Gergen and Borger shared the following exchange with Cooper (from CNN’s preliminary transcript):

“GERGEN: I think Huckabee had a real chance to take off. And it’s not that he peaked too early, but that once attention turned to him, he started doing strange things.

In first place, his responses to the Bhutto assassination, you know, what we ought to do about Bhutto is we ought to build a fence between us and Mexico. It was like, “What?” He’s not been in the loop on a lot of foreign policy questions.

I mean, to run off and do, to start that ad and going to Arkansas and make an ad and then pull the ad and then show it to the press, to guffaws on the reporters. There’s been a weirdness factor here that I think has really startled a lot of reporters, and I think it’s probably going to hurt him with a lot of the voters.

BORGER: He doesn’t seem ready.

COOPER: Not ready for prime time?

BORGER: Not really.

COOPER: Gloria Borger, appreciate it. David Gergen, as well. Thanks very much.”

Pretty stark words from Gergen, nominally a Republican and a former Clinton advisor, and Borger.

By now, everybody knows that Mr. Huckabee has done everything he can within his power to court every Evangelical Christian in Iowa and New Hampshire.

1) He evokes God in as many political appearances as he can.
2) He gives sermons to churches that he says are non-political in nature; and oh, by the way, he gets paid a lot of money to do so.
3) He calls big meetings of pastors and other Evangelical leaders to directly request their support.
4) He expresses outrage that any Evangelical would consider supporting any other presidential candidate.
5) He was upset that Richard Land, top Baptist leader in Washington, D.C., would not endorse him; that Land said so many nice things about Fred Thompson.

We know that Huckabee’s primary support is among Evangelicals; I am guessing his entire support is probably made up of 98% Evangelicals. There are approximately 500,000 Evangelicals in Iowa. And of course not every Evangelical is a registered voter and not every Evangelical registered voter is Republican.

There are approximately 22,000 members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in Iowa. The same is true of them; not all are registered voters and not all are Republican.

Clearly Mr. Huckabee has done everything he can to make the Iowa caucuses a referendum about religion and the superiority of his. Of course he denies that. Of course he says he represents all citizens. Of course! He is not an idiot. But when you follow his actions — his behavior, it is all about his religion; and that is why voters should vote for him. He righteously expects it.

If he were right, then most, if not all Evangelicals would be supporting Huckabee; right? I am guessing that Huckabee one night sat down and ran the numbers. His handlers probably told him that a very high percentage of Americans would never vote for a Mormon; we’ve all seen those polls, right? So he gets to thinking,

“Let me see; if I make this about my religion in Iowa, and I have almost a 23:1 (500,000 / 22,000) advantage over the LDS members, I could really win big! THAT IS IT!! I am going to run against Romney on his religion! I know that there is a very high probability that every Evangelical registered voter will vote for me and if just half of them do, I will win and I will win big! That is it! Yaaaahoooo! That is my strategy! That is how I am going to attack this!  That is exactly how I am going to win this thing!   Let’s roll!”

However, I think he left out the need to read a newspaper and to check GoogleEarth once a month. Best to stick to the above strategy and just be sure not to answer any more questions! Brilliant!

We know that over the last several weeks, Mr. Huckabee has surged to almost 40% in the Iowa polls; I think I saw a couple of polls showing Huckabee as high as 38%. Let’s use 38%. With Huckabee’s brilliant strategy of appealing to “his base” of Evangelicals, and his more or less scorched-earth, sectarian approach to campaigning (and if his strategy were actually working), what should the poll numbers show by comparison to Governor Romney?

With Huckabee at 38% let’s say, and a 22:1 advantage based on his base, Romney should be at or about 2%, maybe 3% in the polls (38 /22), by comparison. Since that is not the case, maybe Huck’s strategy was not so good. Maybe he underestimated the desire of Evangelicals to use their minds as they decide whom to support in Iowa.

~ Vic

Help Governor Romney get his message out — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE HERE, NOW

Governor Romney scored a respectable B on this quiz from —>The American Thinker.

Take a look at how Governor Huckabee scored:

Mike Huckabee flailed wildly about in his response. First, he contrasted the assassination with the smooth transfer of power in the United States. Then he tried to tie the assassination to immigration, warning that we should keep an eye on the 660 Pakistani illegals who are in the country. When asked where he got that number, he became incoherent, finally saying something about a CIA briefing. Some analysts believe the Huckabee campaign is now officially over after his performance.

“HE HAS AGREED TO BE A PART OF THE GROUP”
Gov. Huckabee Claims Foreign Policy Advisers Who Aren’t Advising Him
No Laughing Matter: A serious look at Gov. Mike Huckabee’s record and policy beyond the one-liners.

• Gov. Mike Huckabee: “And the ultimate thing is, I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.” (WABC Radio’s “Imus In The Morning,” 12/4/07)
• National Review: “The Holiday Inn Express Candidate.” “In sum, conservatives should have worries about the depth and soundness of Mike Huckabee’s foreign-policy views. And staying at a Holiday Inn Express is not going to be enough to allay them.” (Editorial, “The Holiday Inn Express Candidate,” National Review, 12/10/07)

Confronted With Misstatements On Foreign Policy, Gov. Huckabee Insists He Is Authentic And Honest:

• Gov. Huckabee Says That People Are Looking For “Authenticity” And “Honesty.” NBC’s LESTER HOLT: “But can you afford those kind of misstatements when the spotlight is on you and people are looking for credible foreign policy credentials?” GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: “What they’re looking for is authenticity, they’re looking for honesty.” (NBC’s “Today,” 12/29/07)
• Yet, Gov. Huckabee Continues To Insist He Is Being Advised By Former Ambassador John Bolton:
  On Thursday, Gov. Huckabee Said That Ambassador John Bolton Had Agreed To Help Him Formulate Foreign Policy. “At a Thursday evening news conference, Huckabee said, ‘I’ve corresponded with John Bolton, who’s agreed to work with us on developing foreign policy.’” (Lisa Lerer, “Huckabee’s Foreign Affairs Lapses,” The Politico, 12/29/07)
• On Friday Morning, Gov. Huckabee Said That He Had Spoken With Amb. Bolton About Foreign Policy. “On Friday morning, Huckabee listed former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has ’spoken or will continue to speak.’” (Lisa Lerer, “Huckabee’s Foreign Affairs Lapses,” The Politico, 12/29/07)
• By Friday Evening, Amb. Bolton Said He Hadn’t Spoken With Huckabee, Nor Agreed To Be His Adviser. “Bolton, however, has a different view. ‘I’d be happy to speak with Huckabee, but I haven’t spoken with him yet,’ said Bolton, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. ‘I’m not an official or unofficial adviser to anyone,’ said Bolton, who mentioned he’d had conversations with other Republican candidates but declined to name any names.” (Lisa Lerer, “Huckabee’s Foreign Affairs Lapses,” The Politico, 12/29/07)
• On Saturday Afternoon, Gov. Huckabee Was Still Claiming That Amb. Bolton Had Agreed To Be His Adviser. REPORTER: “Governor, you mentioned John Bolton as someone who is helping you to shape your foreign policy proposals. He says he hasn’t had communications or conversations with you. And he wasn’t the only person who you mentioned in your list of people you have talked to, to get advice from, who have said they haven’t spoken to you. Can you clear that up?” GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: “Well, I had an e-mail exchange with John Bolton, and he has agreed to be a part of the group. He has not endorsed me. he has not indicated he would be supporting my candidacy, but he is one of many people who would be willing to have conversations. And we did have that e-mail exchange.” (Gov. Mike Huckabee, Press Conference, 12/29/07; YouTube)

• Gov. Huckabee Also Wrongly Claimed Former National Security Adviser Richard Allen Is Advising Him:
  “Huckabee Said He Had Also Spoken With… Former National Security Adviser Richard Allen.” “Huckabee said he had also spoken with former State Department official Richard Haass (now president of the Council on Foreign Relations); military analyst Ken Allard; former national security adviser Richard Allen; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank; and a ‘number of military personnel.’” (Lisa Lerer, “Huckabee’s Foreign Affairs Lapses,” The Politico, 12/29/07)
• Yet, Allen Also Says He Has Not Spoken With Gov. Huckabee. “Reached via e-mail, Allen said an intermediary asked him to speak with Huckabee, but he hadn’t yet agreed. ‘I’m gradually getting older, but am fully capable of recalling with whom I have spoken,’ said the former Nixon and Reagan foreign policy campaign adviser.” (Lisa Lerer, “Huckabee’s Foreign Affairs Lapses,” The Politico, 12/29/07)

Huckabee must think that the American People, and with it the American Press are absolute idiots.

First off check out —>this post from earlier.

Continuing on this discussion, Fox News did some research on “The Huck’s” so called “facts”, and here is what they found (I’ve also included a photo of the chart mentioned in the post for visualization purposes).

Huckabee warned an Iowa crowd that 660 Pakistanis have come into the country illegally in the past year because of insecure borders. It was a new angle among the candidates reacting on the trail to the assassination Thursday of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

He also said: “We have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all of the other nationalities except those immediately south of the border. … In light of what’s happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause.”

But his Pakistan statements don’t jibe with the data. Pressed by reporters where he got his figure, Huckabee initially said: “Those are numbers that I got today from a briefing and I believe they are CIA and or immigration numbers.”

Later, in a conference call with reporters, he identified the figure as coming from the Department of Homeland Security and news articles, including a March 2006 piece in The Denver Post.

Only that article said 660 Pakistanis entered the United States illegally between fiscal 2002 and 2005 – not just in one year. And Homeland Security figures for 2006 show that many more illegal immigrants came from India, Korea, China, the Philippines and Vietnam than Pakistan, which didn’t even make the chart.

See On The Chart How Pakistan Isn’t Even Listed?

Meanwhile, Huckabee on MSNBC talked about Pakistan’s “eastern borders near Afghanistan,” even though that border is on Pakistan’s western end.

And he suffered another gaffe Thursday when he said it’s too early to say whether martial law should “continue” in Pakistan, even though martial law was lifted two weeks ago.

Huckabee’s campaign later offered a statement saying “martial law in Pakistan, as a practical matter, should not be viewed as having been completely lifted until the restrictions imposed during that period on the press and judges are removed.”

Such comments could play into the hands of critics who say Huckabee’s light on foreign policy experience. Since recently admitting to reporters that he hadn’t heard about a major report on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Huckabee has sought to fight that accusation.

Apparently Mike Huckabee feels that in light of the Bhutto assassination that we should not have great fear that Pakistani Immigrants are going to begin a mass exodus across our Mexican and Canadian borders.

See:

Huckabee Ties Bhutto’s Assassination to Illegal Immigration.

Huckabee said the pace of building the border fence had to be accelerated. But Huckabee also made the “observation” that we have “more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities, except those immediately south of the border, and in light of what’s happening in Pakistan, it ought to give us pause as to why are there so many illegals coming across these borders.” He said he was citing numbers he had learned about during a briefing this morning. The campaign has not yet responded to requests for the study Huckabee was referring to.

“Because what I’m afraid is happening – a lot of Americans are watching [the assassination] on television and they don’t think it has any correlation to them and it does. And it’s not just immigration, it’s the instability of the Middle East; it’s the fact that Al Qaeda and the Taliban could in fact be emboldened by their capacity to take out a presidential candidate in a major nation. It’s the increased instability that it creates in Pakistan and how it affects the whole geopolitical balance of that part of the world – it’s all of those things, but it does have an impact on people here in the United States where we need to recognize our borders are not that safe.”

Looking at the journalists, Huckabee said, “You guys live in this world and you swim in this sea everyday. A lot of people, they’re just interested in going to work, coming home, they see this on television [and wonder], how does this touch me? And it does touch them.”

Gotta love that last statement. Who is he to imply that Iowans don’t know anything about the issues in Pakistan. Just because he doesn’t know where Pakistan is, or what’s going on within their country doesn’t mean that he needs to imply that the rest of the American people are as uneducated on the matter.

I’m sure one of his campaign staffers can easily go to —–>Amazon and Purchase one for him (they are only $139.95…I’m sure that he can afford at least that much considering all that money he’s making from his speaking fees while he’s running for President) so he can get up to speed in terms of International Relations and Geography. He seems to be inept in this kind of knowledge.

For example:

Governor Huckabee appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” and once again demonstrated his foreign policy inexperience by claiming that Pakistan’s “eastern borders” are “near Afghanistan.”

GOV. HUCKABEE: People who questioned my view of foreign policy probably need go back and read the speech that I delivered back in Washington in September. I talked about Pakistan and the delicate situation and the fact that at that time when the three people, Sharif, Bhutto, and Musharraf all in the bid for the leadership position, how delicate it was and how while Bhutto probably brought the most pro-American position, both she and Sharif brought essentially centrist and secular perspectives to the government. We have seen what happen in the Musharraf government, he has told us he does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists. But on the other hand, did he not want us going in.

In a post entitled, “Get This Man A Map!,” Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic comments: “Not to pick on Gov. Huckabee, but — again — in times of crises, little details count. Pakistan shares its western border with Afghanistan … Not an eastern border.”

Of course, this gaffe comes after Gov. Huckabee incorrectly implied that martial law was still in effect in Pakistan and offered his “sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.”

—–>Huckabee’s Reaction to Bhutto Assassination Which now has an update with his attempted at explaining away his error.