Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts

Monday, January 31, 2011

Mike Huckabee: The Egypt protests threaten the... whole world!

Mike Huckabee recently commented on the recent Egypt protests. Here is what he had to say:

"[T]he events of the past few days in Egypt have created a very tenuous situation, not just for Egypt, not just for the Middle East, but for the entire world, and the destabilization of that nation has the potential of cascading across the globe."


It seems as if Huckabee is here arguing that the ongoing protests in Egypt is a bad idea. It is quite remarkable that Mike Huckabee seems to oppose these protest, but it is hardly remarkable since a number of other American politicians have made similar statements in the past few days.

I am a political scientist, but I cannot claim that this field is one where I hold any form of vast expertise in. That means that whenever someone makes an argument on the issue, I try very hard to understand their argument to see if they may actually have a point.

On this issue, I cannot say that I do -- for a number of reasons:

1) If a pro-democracy movement would actually spread across the world, that cannot be a bad thing at all. What does Huckabee fear? That the Chinese folks will finally stand up to their regime? That the Saudis will grow tired of their monarchy? Or that the Iranians would pick up their gloves and start protesting again? Can someone please explain to me real slowly why this is bad?

2) Even if this would spread, it seems overly dramatic to suggest that these protests could be "cascading across the globe". What does Huckabee think? That the people of France or the Canada may suddenly roam the streets to protest the leadership in their country? No, this will not even spread to Zimbabwe or Burma. It can spread to some countries across the region, but once more, is it a bad thing that people in Yemen may get to abort the corrupt regime there?

The easiest explanation for this claim is that Huckabee is afraid that a new regime may become more hostile to Israel. This is easily also true. In a poll made in 2006, 92 percent of Egyptians declared that they saw Israel as an enemy. Huckabee and other American politicians are thus worried that this would lead to greater threats to Israel. They thus prefer a dictatorship that is friendly with Israel rather than one that is democratically elected since such a regime most likely would become more opposed to Israel.

At least we know that Huckabee isn't necessarily all that positive to democratization.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Chairman King: Assange is a supporter of terrorism



Following the Treasury Department's rejection of Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King's recent proposal to place sanctions on WikiLeaks, King remained unimpressed and has requested that the department explains why it does not share his view.

"Recent reports indicate that the U.S. has been forced to relocate individuals around the world due to WikiLeaks’ actions," King told The Hill in an e-mailed statement.

"Additionally, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen has acknowledged the threat posed by WikiLeaks," he said.

"If, despite that evidence, the administration does not consider [WikiLeaks founder] Julian Assange to be a supporter of terrorism that threatens U.S. national security, then it should explain its reasons to the American people,” he said.

The most obvious conclusion here is that King clearly isn't tiring of seeing himself in the media headlines. But second to that, it should be added that it's striking just how willing certain politicians are of calling Julian Assange a "supporter of terrorism". If King cares so much for evidence, he might want to back up that statement with some actual evidence (which of course does not exist).

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Newt Gingrich: Elect him and get Assange killed?

Newt Gingrich, one of the favorites to win the Republican primary election in 2012, spoke on "Fox News Sunday" today where he attacked President Obama's handling of the WikiLeaks issue, as well as WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

“This administration is so shallow and so amateurish about national security that it is painful and dangerous,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich was harder on Assange.

“Information warfare is warfare, and Julian Assange is engaged in warfare,” Gingrich said. “Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism. And Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant. WikiLeaks should be closed down permanently and decisively.”

Like George W. Bush, Gingrich is well on the way in his effort to change the meaning of words. Like Bush, Gingrich will probably also succeed to some degree. That WikiLeaks does something that most certainly is protected by the first amendment, that what Assange does probably doesn't mirror warfare (hacking etc. could be) and that terrorism doesn't involve the release of documents on the Internet, doesn't seem to matter in this regard. The next Republican president will offer some interesting challenges for the media too. Maybe it's better to just get used to reading the Guardian?

Tea Party Nation: Only property owners should have the right to vote

In the past it used to be common that only property owners could vote, and that was long the case in the United States too. Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, seems to want those days back. See video:



It's funny just how many people are willing to effectively abolish the American democracy. Now we can add Judson Phillips to the list...