The FARS news service of Iran writes a glowing piece on Huckabee.
Regarding the conduct of Huckabee in the White House, there is a lot we do not know. Like another governor from the same state, Bill Clinton, Huckabee has little experience in foreign affairs. Nonetheless, last week he dropped a bomb in an article he published in Foreign Affairs, where all the other candidates have contributed articles. He wrote of “urgent concerns” regarding Iran’s nuclear program and its support for militants, saying that he does not discard the military option. But he was critical of the Bush foreign policy, which he described as “arrogant bunker mentality.”
In the Iranian context, his policy is being interpreted as a change, calling for bringing to the table non-military options as well. Huckabee is of the opinion that relations with Iran deteriorated following Bush’s “axis of evil” speech. In many points his message on Iran is more akin to that of the Democrats: there is a need for dialogue with Iran, and more diplomacy is needed. He quoted the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who authored The Art of War 2,500 years ago: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
They like him.
Thanks to Hugh Hewitt.
I’ve got no proof, but I called this: The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the master document of US Intelligence agencies is wrong.
Those for Sharia law around the world have spent the last day crowing that Iran doesn’t have any Nuclear weapons or programs to develop them, stating they’d stopped after we asked them to. But it turns out the report is, putting it nicely, a fabrication.
The NIE was compiled by people who value their own power and ambition over that of the rest of the entire world. Is there a just punishment for this?
Doug Ross put in his (researched) 2 bits on the NIE and has some explanation that should confirm Iran is not being all lovey-dovey as the reporting on the NIE would have us believe.
Powerline gives some perspective.
Tom McClintock, a great man from California, has spoken truth. Excerpts follow:
You have extended me a very dangerous invitation tonight – to speak to a gathering of political conservatives on the day that Al Gore has received the Nobel Peace Prize for discovering that the earth’s climate is changing.
(I)ndulgences will be used for such activities as planting more trees to absorb carbon dioxide. After all, young trees absorb an enormous amount of this “greenhouse gas” – far more than old trees. But isn’t replacing old-growth timber with young-growth timber what lumber companies used to do until the radical environmentalists shut them down?
(T)here are only two ways of generating vast amounts of clean electricity: hydroelectricity and nuclear power. But there’s no faster way to send one of these Luddites into hysterics than to mention that inconvenient truth.
(A)t Al Gore’s rally to save the planet in New York in July, no less an authority than Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that those of us who still have some questions over their theories of man-made global warming are “liars,” “crooks,” “corporate toadies,” “flat-earthers” and then he made this remarkable statement: “This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors.”
Ah, the dispassionate language of science and reason.
I got to high school in the 1970’s and learned from the Al Gores of the time that we foolish mortals were plunging ourselves into another ice age. All the scientists agreed.
I believe it was Ogden Nash who wrote:
“The ass was born in March
“The rains came in November
“Such a flood as this, he said,
“I scarcely can remember.”
(W)hen the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, they’re right. They’re creating it.
(R)adical laws now in place in California are having a dramatic impact on energy production, agriculture, manufacturing, wine-making and construction, just to name a few sectors of our economy.
In normal times, citizens don’t pay a lot of attention to public policy, and that’s why democracies occasionally drift off course. But when a crisis approaches, that’s when you see democracy engage. One by one, citizens sense the approach of a common danger and they rise to the occasion. They focus – they look beyond the symbols and rhetoric – and they begin to make very good decisions. Political majorities can shift very quickly in such times. Polls can reverse themselves almost overnight in such times. And I believe that day is now rapidly approaching.
People ask me all the time: “What can I do?” And the only answer I can offer is the answer the great abolition leader Frederick Douglass offered to a young protégé. He said, “Agitate. Agitate. Agitate.”
This is a question thread, please comment regarding this issue:
What do you see to be the pros and cons of a regulated or deregulated energy policy? Which policy do you prefer as a rule? Would a “perfect world” cause you to choose a different policy?
Personally, I believe that a deregulated (I mean truly deregulated, not this deregulated in name only such as the system currently in place in California, which is predictably causing the politicians to say “see, a deregulated system is failing, we need to reregulate (which means slap on the old regulations in addition to the new regulations plus a few more for good measure) the industry”.
I believe that innovation is the first thing to be stifled in a regulated environment. Look at the incident in New York Harbor where some guy had built himself a submarine and was operating it (admittedly rather close to what could have been a juicy terrorist target). The government ought not own the waterways. What would happen to an independent scientist such as Edison or Bell if they came along now days? They’d be sued out of existence in a heartbeat.
I further believe that unregulated innovation is the key to the future safety of America and the world. Let them build a bigger, better bomb: we’ll be building the bigger, better shield in our backyards and in our barns, and in our warehouses on 74th St. Let them say ethanol is a better fuel, we’ll be outfitting DeLoreans with garbage-eating nuclear power plants and flying off to the future.
I further believe that because corporations are understandably and justifiably interested primarily in their own bottom lines, they are less likely to support risky endeavors. The current power companies in Edison’s time would have dropped him for the secure investment of gas lights.
So, what are your thoughts? Do not limit yourself to energy though, Government Regulation is the topic.
Loud noise, large crowds, the unwashed masses of todays’ global-warming zombies all gathered and listened to washed up acts playing washed up noise, all in the name of cooling the earth. Funny thing is, most people there probably thought cooling the earth meant giving it a drag on a reefer, and were hoping the “mouth” of the earth would open near their particular venue, and were vaguely concerned that the even organizers might have trouble finding enough of the precious stuff to give the earth a big enough hit that it would actually make a difference.
What is of particular interest to me is the bureaucratic red tape and restrictions placed by unthinking public entities on the construction of Nuclear power plants. Liberals and their ideology are the primary reason why Nuclear plants are considered taboo today. Nuclear energy is safe, clean, does not salmon runs or kill birds, uses a common natural resource, and have not been built in decades. Chernobyl, the skull and crossbones of the anti-nuclear-idiots society, has not turned out to be the ecological or even medical disaster it was warned of becoming. Three mile island “radiates” less energy than a person gets during a normal day from the sun. Nuclear meltdown is a bugaboo, not a fact. To those who it exists as a fact, there are many other “facts” which have similar import and veracity.
Daily Mail: Live earth a massive, hypocritical fraud
Conversations with Brit & Grit: Live Earth, Early Death
Radioactive Communist Zombies: Live Earth Even Snowed Out?
Joobo: Just a word on the fraud…
NationalReview: Living Through Live Earth
The Global Warming Heretic: Live Earth: CO2 For Me, But Not For Thee
Washington Times: Latest Crusade Is Going Green