Huckabee attacks Paul and doesn't woory about silly stuff like facts

[ZeroPointMachine]

interesting article

Title is close enough

[qwnu]

Apparently Paul said "The people who say there will be a bloodbath [if US troops leave Iraq] are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them?" and Huckabee took issue with it.

While I don't disagree with Paul's statement, I think it works better as an afterthought to an actual argument, rather than the argument itself. The fact that the administration's predictions wrt Iraq have all been wrong does not prove that their current batch will also end up being wrong.

In other words, I think it would be better if Paul had said "It won't be a bloodbath because of a, b, and c. And by the way, the people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk. Why believe them?"

Or even "It doesn't matter if it will be a bloodbath, because of a, b, and c. In any event, the people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk. Why believe them?"

Also:
[ QUOTE ]
3. Keep one line posts to a minimum, especially OP's. You have to provide content once in a while. OPs with only a link and minimal description are not allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: It occurs to me that this was probably covered ad nauseum in the debate thread, which I didn't read. Apologies if this is well-trod ground.

[ALawPoker]

The Paul/Huckabee exchange really entertained me. It was "principled and correct view" sparring against "seasoned professional politician."

Paul would deliver some correct, though politically unpolished, point, and Huckabee would come back with something like "We are one nation united under God, sir." It was pretty classic stuff. I imagined Huckabee's brain operating sort of like Google, searching for his next sentence. "Oh, this arrangement of words will play nice!"

Huckabee knows he's playing a game and he knows Paul is intellectually correct. But unfortunately people like Huckabee have more to gain with myopic, palatable analysis than with intellectual accuracy.

[Moseley]

What's interesting is that nobody has told us what the Iraqi Govt believes they need from us to be successful.

How come we don't hear from the Iraqi Govt?

[Nielsio]

* Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister

* Huckabee has expressed support for allowing Creationism and Intelligent Design in school science classes along side Evolution.

* Huckabee supports the War in Iraq, the troop surge and the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee


So he is a religious nutcase who supports torture and wars of aggression.

That sounds like a politician to me.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The Paul/Huckabee exchange really entertained me. It was "principled and correct view" sparring against "seasoned professional politician."

Paul would deliver some correct, though politically unpolished, point, and Huckabee would come back with something like "We are one nation united under God, sir." It was pretty classic stuff. I imagined Huckabee's brain operating sort of like Google, searching for his next sentence. "Oh, this arrangement of words will play nice!"

Huckabee knows he's playing a game and he knows Paul is intellectually correct. But unfortunately people like Huckabee have more to gain with myopic, palatable analysis than with intellectual accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Paul-Huckabee exchange was the only part of the debate I caught. I actually thought both did an excellent job of presenting their viewpoints. They both agreed that the U.S. incursion into Iraq was a major screw up more or less which I thought was remarkable. They just disagreed on what to do to rectify the screw up. What you're stating is that Paul's views are principled and Huckabee's are not. Could be but I didn't get that impression. Even if that's true, I think they both enumerated viewpoints that encapsulate the essence of the dilemma the U.S. has and what the basic alternatives are in resolving the dilemma.

[Taso]

"enumerated viewpoints that enscapsulate" - there is no way these articulate words can discribe anything Huckabee said. He didn't say anything I havn't seen on a bumper sticker.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"enumerated viewpoints that enscapsulate" - there is no way these articulate words can discribe anything Huckabee said. He didn't say anything I havn't seen on a bumper sticker.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I wrote that you objected to:

Even if that's true, I think they both enumerated viewpoints that encapsulate the essence of the dilemma the U.S. has and what the basic alternatives are in resolving the dilemma.

Do you agree that there's a dilemma for the U.S. regarding Iraq policy or not? If not, no need to discuss further, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

btw, haven't seen the bumper regarding Iraq stating the U.S. broke it, the U.S. should fix it because it's the honorable thing to do.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The Paul/Huckabee exchange really entertained me. It was "principled and correct view" sparring against "seasoned professional politician."

Paul would deliver some correct, though politically unpolished, point, and Huckabee would come back with something like "We are one nation united under God, sir." It was pretty classic stuff. I imagined Huckabee's brain operating sort of like Google, searching for his next sentence. "Oh, this arrangement of words will play nice!"

Huckabee knows he's playing a game and he knows Paul is intellectually correct. But unfortunately people like Huckabee have more to gain with myopic, palatable analysis than with intellectual accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! He's not making points, he's simply reciting code words that draw on the listener's previous programming. He's telling the listener, "don't worry about what this guy is saying, I support The Flag, and Baseball, and Apple Pie, and Motherhood, all the good stuff that equal USA #1!!!1!!"

CF: the only post of snowball's I agreed with

[Low Key]

I agree with qwnu, some proof that it won't be more of a bloodbath than it currently is would be nice. Or some assertion other than pointing out that some of the people saying it will be so have been 100% wrong so far.

I mean, I don't think anyone who is smart enough to figure out how to use a computer really thought we'd be greeted as liberators. (I'm not counting computer voting machines here, obviously) But would there be a slaughter? I don't know. I'd like some fact based assurance that there wouldn't be. I'd also like some action in Darfur to prevent that ongoing bloodbath (genocide, same thing), but apparently we only care about bloodbaths we start.