I thought that I had found my guy to support for the nation's top elected official in the 2008 run. He was a former governor I had liked for several years before he had announced his candidacy for President. We shared a common faith and I liked his views on terrorism as not just an ideological problem, but also a theological one. He supported a flat tax. And he's a hilarious guy who likes old rock 'n' roll. He is an ordained Baptist minister and I am a Baptist seminarian. We were, I believed, like political soul mates, two apples on the same tree. I was ready to go find him and have my picture made with him for this blog. Mike Huckabee was my choice to lead this great nation.
Then came that statement.
"American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists."
And that came after this one:
"I’ve been to Guantanamo, I was there, I guess it’s been about a year and a half ago. I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing."
This has caught me completely off-guard. He wants the world to like us more, so he'll close Gitmo. Is he joining with Hillary and her call to end "cowboy diplomacy"? I have several problems with all of this. Mainly, "cowboy diplomacy" has worked pretty well. Al-Quaeda is on the run and are now having to release their home movies or audio tapes to communicate with their following. Also, the surge is working. (You can tell this by the fact that most of the major media is now pretty much ignoring Iraq. No good news from the front is exactly what they want.) Do you really buy into the theory that Qaddafi was already considering a change in his policies just when we just happened to be launching Shock and Awe? And that the Libyan dictator came to the realization apart from that? If you buy that, then I have some carbon credits you can buy, too.
Add this question, too: Have we been attacked since September 11, 2001? No, but we have uncovered attempts that people with the same motivations as those cowards and stopped them before they could bring the plans to fruition.
Arab culture only respects one thing: strength. With all our diplomatic yakkity-yak, we are perceived by them as weak. When we back up our threats with actual enforcement, they suddenly see us as serious people and want to talk again to keep us from attacking them again. Reagan was right: peace through strength.
And if the rest of the world is uncomfortable with us having a place like Guantanamo, perhaps they are the ones who need to re-evaluate their stance on terrorism, because as long as we are housing them and detaining them on taxpayer money, the world is a much safer place. And we aren't charging anyone money for keeping them up, either. We have chosen to go this route alone because I don't think any other nations are going to volunteer for this aspect of the war. But because there might be some form of discomfort that the bleeding hearts might find distasteful, then we should open wide the gate and give them the freedom. What most people fail to realize is that they will use that freedom to try to launch yet another attack on us.
Second, where on God's green earth are we going to put them? Bring them here to American soil and -- POOF! -- the Constitution suddenly applies to them too, regardless of the fact that they are not citizens and they were caught trying to defeat American troops. And then our system requires that they all get lawyers and access to our courts, at our expense, I might add. Can we even think about funding that? Because I doubt they have detainment and criminal defense coverage in their terrorist insurance policies. Not to mention, getting to America was probably a goal of theirs anyway and would be an incalculable risk to our country. And do I hear any volunteers to host these guys in their prisons? We have more than enough American prisoners, so why do we need to further burden ourselves? And do we really want these people, so filled with murderous hate for us, near any of our citizens? Well, do you want them close to you or those you hold dear? And don't go suggesting other areas of the country for the job. If you're not willing to do it yourself, then don't volunteer other people for the task.
Are we going to, as Saudi Arabia foolishly did, release them on the promise of not attacking us anymore? By the way, since we here in the Great Satan are pretty much all infidels, promises to us are not required to be kept. That ought to help them agree to our terms more readily.
This "go-it-alone, bunker mentality" is totally necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. Terrorists are not going to hold press conferences before they attack. We have to stop them before they attack. If you want to catch them in the act of plotting, then you have to think like they do and act proactively work to stop their actions. There is no time to stop and make up a reasonable plan so that no one else is offended by the tactics. Saving innocent lives should be justification enough. But then again, I guess that's just not enough for some people.
Now, if Mike Huckabee is for closing Guantanamo AND using summary executions to accomplish that goal, that method I can support... maybe a bit too aggressively. The world would be offended, but the upside is that the world would be just as safe from those terrorists. But I doubt that he'd support this method of closure.
I just can't believe it. So important, but he's on the wrong side of it. Unless Mike Huckabee changes his mind on this, I think I will switch to Fred Thompson, but I am still of the opinion that he should have started much earlier. Be that as it may, he still shares my core values and will be a soild conservative.
No comments:
Post a Comment