Clinton vs. Huckabee, Round 1

In the next couple of weeks I will be highlighting some of the arguments of beliefs of Clinton and Huckabee. If you are a true conservative, you should know that Huckabee is the only one who could possibly debate and beat Clinton. Everyone else on the Republican ticket has liberal tendencies of some sort and Huckabee is clearly the most conservative and better speaking out of the group.

War on Terror/Iraq

Hillary Clinton

This may be one of the most controversial issues facing her in this race, she at one time voted for the war and funding it long after she was against it. There is only so much people will believe when it comes to her being hoodwinked by President Bush in voting for the war. The fact is she voted for it, now she is against it. There is one thing to be against the war now, but to purposely attack a man with more honor than she would ever have (General Petraus) is inexcusable. Her plan is to not only NOT bring the entire military home but, to leave them in the region for future conflicts. Why get our of Iraq and then bomb them from time to time when they don’t comply? Off of her own website “Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.”



Mike Huckabee

Huckabee is focused on winning the war. He can with some patience from the American people. He doesn’t support permanent bases or a permanent fixture in the Middle East to perform bombings and counter terrorism missions; he feels if you do the job right the first time you shouldn’t have to go back later. From his own website Huckabee says, “ I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis. If we leave, Iraq's neighbors on all sides will face a refugee crisis and be drawn into the war: Iran to protect the Shiites; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to protect the Sunnis; and Turkey to protect its control over its own Kurd population. Iraq is a crossroads where Arab meets Persian and Kurd, Sunni meets Shiite and so if it's not a peaceful buffer, it can easily become a tinderbox for the region. When we deposed Saddam, we emphasized Iraq's central location as a prime place to establish democracy and have it spread. That was the potential dramatic upside. Now we're faced with the potential dramatic downside that the terrorists are fighting to take advantage of: Iraq's central location as a prime place to create chaos and have it spread.”

Why would we leave in defeat and only come back when the problems arise again? Do it right the first time, which is the conservative and American way.