Just months after Bush told the American people that he believed America was too dependant on oil from the Middle East, Mike Huckabee has decided to re-phrase it to say we are “enslaved” to Saudi Arabia.
Huckabee; who is barely pro-American when it comes to illegals here in the states wants to break all ties with Saudi Arabia because of a recent court case where a Saudi woman/rape victim was ordered a lashing because she herself violated strict Islamic law by socializing with a group of men that were not her relatives.
She was raped by seven men, all men were sentenced to years in prison, but in Saudi Arabia apparently they stick to the laws that everyone is aware of that resides in the country, even if they are broken by someone who was victimized by others who were punished as well.
We can philosophically argue if it is right or wrong. Of course in the United States, women are free. Saudi Arabia and other countries don’t operate that way. I can accept that because finally all the Democratic and flawed-Republican flapping about America’s unwelcomed intervention rings true in this case. Who are we to tell Saudi Arabia how to run their country? Are they threatening American women as well?
As it stands, Saudi Arabia maintains a peaceful relationship with the United States. In the case of Iraq and Iran, we take stands for two reasons:
1.) To establish a civilized foothold to counter the incivilized foothold owned by Islamic fanatics in the Middle East which was handed to them by Jimmy Carter.
2.) To protect ourselves and our allies from bomb-making extremists.
That’s it!
Now, Huckabee comes and proclaims he would have us totally independent from Saudi’s oil in 10 years?
As if his opinion is any different from any mentioned already on this matter. Yes, we rely on the Middle East for oil, so what? We need oil, he needs oil, Al Gore needs oil, Hollywood celebrities need oil! Who doesn’t? Will Mike Huckabee stop fueling the jet that moves him from city-to-city during his campaign?
I’d be more interested in how Huckabee plans to reverse his insane views on immigration and domestic policies to make sure things like this don’t happen to American women. Suddenly, because a Supreme Court in Saudi Arabia orders a lashing for someone who knowingly broke laws on the books of her country, Huckabee wants to denounce an ally and regurgitate an overall concept already acknowleged by Republicans and portray it as if it’s a product of originality.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
Whoa! I have to part ways with you somewhat here, Steve. First of all, Huckabee is not my choice for Prez. I have problems with his views on immigration (as you noted) and his past lax attitude towards tax increases as Governor of Arkansas.
We can agree on that, but I am horrified at Saudi Arabia’s treatment of this rape victim. I don’t think we can just leave it at “well, it’s their rules.” Just because a nation has a set of laws, does not make those laws ok. The idiots in Iran would hang you and I right now because we’re gay. Or maybe they would throw us from a high perch atop the nearest city as the Koran insists. That’s not right nor is it moral!
Some conservatives might disagree with me. But as I’ve noted before, I am firmly in the camp of Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) who is an unabashed campaigner for human rights around the globe and is chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus. I won’t stop yelling until the Chinese stop persecuting Tibetan monks, until Burma stops persecuting pro-democracy students, until people worldwide stop aborting innocent babies or until the Arab nations stop executing gays. I can see no good in quietly sitting by and condoning abuses such as the one imposed against a rape victim by the arbitrary legal standards of the Saudi judicial system.
The Nazis in Germany institutionalized the death of Jews, Gypsies and Gays. That was wrong. I am proud that we went into Iraq and did away with Saddam’s torture and rape chambers. People can argue about weapons of mass destruction all day, but our biggest victory was freeing the Iraqi people from the human rights abuses of Saddam and his demon offspring.
Huckabee’s statements to that effect are a plus for me. No – I won’t vote for him. Yes – he is wrong on immigration and economic policy. But I will not bear any ill will against the guy for speaking up against human rights abuses overseas. No, we can’t break all ties with Saudi Arabia, but we can be a voice in urging them to allow their citizens to live free.
Love ya Steve. But I respectfully disagree.
The rapists were punished, Phil. Let’s not separate that. It’s not like she was denied justice.
She though broke a separate law in which she knew she was breaking.
I do not believe it is our ability to bring Democracy to every land and force them to behave as we would. I DO believe that we should take out threats as we did with Saddam and as we need to do with Iran. Threats to the US and peaceful countries with the US who have inter-policies and laws with disagree with are a different story.
We need allies to keep us safe. We need oil. It’s their country and it’s their law.
Where Huckabee went wrong is by not acknowleging that the Bush administration or any Republican like me or you could respectively disagree with Saudi Arabian policies and still valued them as allies and respected their laws….because we disagree with their laws doesn’t mean we turn our backs on them.
You know I love you, Steve. And I’ve always strived to keep our disagreements “behind closed doors.” Of course you’ve always told me to be free to express my opinions openly. So I will.
We don’t need the Saudis’ oil. We have enough here in the US and my own backyard in Texas to make the Middle East irrelevant. It’s liberals who won’t allow us to build refineries, drill off-shore or explore in Alaska. We have decades of oil reserves right here in the US to support America if only we would quit kowtowing to environmental whack-jobs. Huckabee is right. Maybe I’m just sensitive to it because I live in an oil-ready region of the nation. Screw the Saudis. I have your oil right here.
But I was really repulsed by the Saudis’ verdict in the rape case. It was wrong, Steve. No matter how you look at it – it was friggin’ WRONG. I applaud the Saudis for pledging their support in the war against terror. But they are a nation of Islamists who breed the likes of Osama out of one side of their face and talk sweet to us out of the other. The Wahabbi regime in Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists who will, one day, kill an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan. They do little to curtail the fanaticism in their own country to help us here. Their main concern is to stop anti-Saudi elements who want to disrupt their flow of oil.
What good are allies who undermine us behind our backs? Pakistan is suspect, and Saudi Arabia is too. I really begin to question why we patronize these people when they continue to breed evil. GW said that if you aren’t with us, you’re against us. A lot of leeway has been afforded to the Saudis, but I feel like they are not with us at all.
To hell with Sharia. If Sharia means human rights abuses, then screw the Arabs. It’s time we take an ethical stand. The US government has coddled unseemly, evil dictators out of national interest in the past. I just want to see us use a little more discretion in our alliances.
What part of the verdict were you upset with? The prison sentences handed to the rapists? Or the lashing she received for the law she knew she was breaking when she broke it?
Let’s separate the issue again:
This is the US, here women are free under our set of laws to ride in cars with whomever they want. They are aware of what is legal and what is not under US law, if they break a law there are consequences.
In Saudi Arabia, women are not free to ride in cars with males unless they are related to them. I disagree with that law. I think its a ridiculous law. We agree!
To say it was wrong by American standards is one thing. But you cannot say its wrong in the sense that Saudi Arabia has laws that are well known to its people.
It didn’t stop her from getting justice against her predators and she had a choice prior. If she had followed the law and not made that choice, NONE of it would have happened. But it still did not stop the rapists from being appropriately sentenced.
It is not our place to tell a country that they must re-arrange their laws to suit us.
And I agree that we should drill for oil in Alaska and I’m aware that liberals have stopped it. So we do; realistically, have to turn to the middle east. It’s just a fact.
You have to drive to work Monday.
I have to take a flight to Vegas Wednesday.
How do you think that is going to happen? Where do you think the fuel is going to come from?
I am with you that the Saudi policies in place for its women are out of line. But it’s THEIR country and it is a country that serves NO threat to the United States and as you have pointed out have supported us.
Sorry, but we need to butt the hell out of this one.
Saudi Arabia is a threat to the extent that their extremist Wahabbi bullshit breeds more extremists. And they are wrong, wrong, wrong. I will crusade against their misogynist justice system, Steve.
I cannot and will not condone the acts of any Arab nation that persecutes women unjustly. Don’t get mad at me bro when I say this, but FUCK those assholes who persecute women. Laura Bush and I are hand-in-hand. The law of the Saudis in that regard is unjust. I will not accept it, and I feel that it is my responsiblilty to point it out and “interfere” in their affairs.
Screw their oil. Human lives and human rights are numero uno in my book. Their laws in regards to women are unjust. I will stand firm in that assessment. I love you dude, but I vehemenetly disagree with your assesment.
PS: Will you still send me a Christmas card?
You act though as if the woman had no choice. She knew (and admitted) that she should not have been doing what she did.
Of course Human lives are numero uno. But Human Rights is a touchy issue and in other cultures we have to realize that certain laws are upheld and we have to respect it and not expect the world to conform to our policies just because we get all soft and touchy over everything they do that does not resemble American life.
Why do you think this story was such a big one in the US? Why did the NY Times and other liberal journalists select this one to fixate on?
Compared to the Saudis lashing citizens for breaking the law, you would have thought — by interpretation of the NY Times — that Saddam feeding humans through wood-chippers was a light offense. And everytime we as conservatives cave into the pressure put onto Republican administrations, conservative pundits, etc…we undermine important relationships such as the one we have with Saudi Arabia.
The truth is in all third world countries, the term “women’s right” is a foreign concept. Men are lashed as well in many of these cultures. But the media purposely pitted this ONE isolated incident against the United States to harm our relationship with Saudi Arabia that would inevitably put an important relationship of ours at risk. One more building block for their side and one less for the side of good.
And everytime we glorify their selective outrage over likekind actions that happen everyday in these cultures, we strengthen their overall goal – which is NOT to promote women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, but to hurt the U.S. relationship with them.
That’s all they care about. The Saudis are no threat to us, we trade actively with them, they supported us in taking out real monsters and they have their own internal set of laws that are to be followed if you live in their country.
We may not agree with them, but it’s not our place to force them to conform.
Of course you’ll get a Christmas card. But without the oil needed for the planes and trucks used by the US postal service, I can’t guarantee a speedy delivery.
The Saudis are a threat dude. And we CAN insist that other nations take steps to disavow 12th century, barbaric laws. But you and I will agree to disagree, I guess. And I’ll expect that Christmas card. If you send it now, it might get here in time.
We will do that — agree to disagree —
. I don’t see the threat and we cannot say we want to be left untouched by Islam while simultaneously telling them that we are going to go in and force them to change to what we believe. It’s their country, it’s their culture.
60 Minutes a few years ago had tribes in Africa that do similar things, people would gather on streets and people would shake and fall to the ground to get rid of spirits. If we did that in the US, people would not like it. But it doesn’t mean we go and change the African culture.
Sorry, she knew what the rules were. It’s her country and her predators were indeed properly punished.
“we cannot say we want to be left untouched by Islam while simultaneously telling them that we are going to go in and force them to change to what we believe”
By the way, one of Ann Coulter’s most taken-out-of-context quotes EVER was: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
Of course she was speaking in regard to the people “cheering and dancing in the streets” celebrating 9/11 as indicated in her column.
The point is, if we sincerely do believe that we have right to just march in and tell them that we think their laws are stupid and are ancient, etc…it sort of gives support to the liberal characterization of conservatives and why we are over there fighting in the first place.
Their shining the spotlight on one case as they did in this particular one was indeed a sort of bait used to get conservatives to “admit” the hysteria perpetuated by liberals everyday in this country about our intentions – thus turning us into Nazis or Hitler.
If any mainstream press member that covered this story really cared that much, we would have heard about the dozens of other lashings received in all cultures.
Just a point.