Wow, DJ. All this work, but I guess its easy if you just make it up.

Where did you read this?

Hillary Clinton * New York Senator, former First Lady Iraq : Pull-out within two years regardless of situation

Lee, it's even easier if you click on the link for each candidate. I pulled their positions from their website, press statements, and answerws in the debates, and if you click on their name, you go right to their website.

I can't blame you for skipping the debates ("The Horror! The Horror!"), but that position in particular is rather well-known. If that surprised you, I guess it would surprise you to know Hillary is a woman?

Generally, compare-and-contrast segments are better when the author is actually cognizant of the candidates' positions. Did you watch any of the debates? Have you taken any time to view the candidates' websites?

Romney offers "no specifics" on Iraq? McCain is "middle of the road" on immigration with "some" amnesty? I didn't know there was such a thing as "some" amnesty... but I do recall all his cozying up to the Swimmer on immigration. Huckabee has "no specifics" on terrorism? It took me under five minutes to unearth 50 speeches from him on foreign policy. Good grief... I never expected to see such misrepresentations of the Republican candidates on this site... that's what MSNBC is for.

I know he talks a lot Alan, but the problems begin when you start looking for the nuts n' bolts.

How would Huckabee prevent another 9/11? Pre-emptive war? UN pressure? Nuclear threat? A stern letter written on official White House letterhead? Huck won't say.

So yes, he's non-specific and that's his tag unless he starts explaining his positions. Huck's kind of like Fred that way, says what he thinks will fly without tying himself down to a real plan that can be critiqued.

Good summary, DJ. Methinks the country could be in big trouble. Easy to see who al Qaeda is pulling for.

DJ - I watched the debates, and I clicked on the web link before asking.

In neither instance do I recall Clinton making a blanket statement such as yours - which is why I asked.

You, it now appears, did not watch the debate and can't seem to come up with a link that supports the very first 'fact' you've listed.

Mr. Drummond,

Huckabee has actually provided great specificity to the foreign-policy issues you have questioned. He has defined the Iraq conflict as one battle in the generational and idealogical war on terror. He has never advocated any kind of timetable for withdrawal (unlike Romney). He has adamantly insisted that we must see the Iraq effort to its full completion. He has advocated a pre-emptive policy in the face of immenent threats and has repeatedly discussed our need to remain relentless in our efforts to eradicate any and all sanctuaries from which Al Qaeda may reorganize. Huckabee often states he is against seeking UN approval for our foreign policy decisions.

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with you on your contention that Huckabee has been non-descript. He talks about these issues constantly on the trail and they are all laid out in plain view on their site. You are correct in asserting that we don't hear much of his foreign policy positions, but we don't hear much from ANY of the candidates on this topic either. The main reason, in my opinion, is because the Iraq conflict is going very well for us again and the libs in the media don't want to talk about it. I cannot recall a single question about Iraq in any of the last three debates.

With all that said, however, it is certainly incumbent upon the candidates to get their message out and Huckabee has obviously failed to reach some people. This is a shame because his foreign policy positions are very much in line with the other candidates.

Lee, you asked where I found it, and I answered. It is hardly earth-shaking to note that ALL of the Democrats running from President advicate a troop pull-out; the difference is when and how. I noted that Hillary's timetable is two years, just about the end of 2010. Frankly, that's about as controversial as saying the sun comes up in the East, but you seem determined to ignore both the fact and the context.

Alan, as I said, Governor Huckabee has said a great deal about Terrorism and Iraq. But I emphasized what he has been leaving out - the man, as you know, played both sides of the fence recently, supporting the Surge now that it's success is undeniable, but barking against President Bush's decisions which got us here. Now, it's one thing and quite reasonable to criticize a plan he sees as flawed, but in such a case Mister Huckabee then has the moral responsibility to offer a counterplan, but he does not. Not once. Huckabee ALWAYS speaks in generalities about the War on Terror, always picks at things he wants to nit on about without once citing what he would do differently.

That kind of thing is not Leadership, and I won't pretend it's specific when it is most definitely nothing of the sort. He does not say how many troops he thinks are needed, how much of the fight should be by Marines, how he would deal with Iranian border incursions, how we would try to influence Saudi Arabia to crack down on their own native monsters. Most of the other candidates have been more specific about what they would do, and when. Sorry, but Huckabee's just blowing smoke, tossing quantity but not quality analysis.

We fail to nominate Fred Thompson, we lose this election. Nominating liberal Republicans is suicide.

Mr. Drummond,

I hate to keep beating a dead horse here, but this is an important issue. I have personally seen Huckabee elaborate in great detail his positions regarding these matters. His site also has a nice archive on such speeches. He has been very specific about the miscalculations we made as well as his support for continued surges until the Iraq front of the war is secure. While his criticism of the initial strategy was a nightmare for him politically, if one actually takes a minute to consider his point, he is absolutely correct in his contention that Bush's "light footprint" caused many setbacks and lengthened the conflict. He spoke on this two years ago... and he is right. It was a huge mistake for us to engage with one hand ties behind our back on account of the libs. I found this, along with his proclaimed disdain for the UN, to very revealing as to his overall philosophy.

I just don't see where Romney, Thompson or even Giuliani are providing greater specificity in their foreign policy platforms. Again, a big part of the problem is that the recent debates have been embarrassingly trivial. We need Ollie North to moderate one.

Alan, if Huckabee has cited specifics, then help me out here:

What does Huckabee specifically intend to do regarding Iranian border incursions into Iraq?

What does he intend to do regarding Iraq's political infrastructue development?

What does Huckabee intend to do regarding contractor protection forces, like Blackwater?

What, and this is a big one given today's events, would Huckabee do regarding Pakistan's political chaos?

You may want to note that I make the same complaint about Huckabee that I do about Fred Thompson; lots of general talk, but nothing in detail, nothing that really gets down to the details. I've spent the time to read his words, but it's all overview, no real hard numbers or plans. If he's provided them, you should be able to relay his specific positions to us.

DJ - You ansswered it, but provided no proof. A link to CLinton's website and your claim that yu got here information there -- somewhere -- isn't proof that you aren't just editorializing and making it up, as usual.

That's sad. At least deal with facts and reality, and quit making crap up -- or have g=the balls to link to and quote the information. right wing liars are a dime a dozen these days -- have the guts to prove your point.

My apologies to all for the typos...

I stand by my review, Lee. But out of curiosity, what do you say is Ms. Clinton's position regarding troop withdrawal from Iraq?

"Rudy Giuliani: Excellent prospects in all potential General match-ups."

WTF??? The Ghoul is the WEAKEST candidate.
The ONLY candidate Hillary can beat 3/3 times.

M-A-F-I-A
W-T-C-7
$$9-11$$
Father Placa and his Love Boat...for men!
Recommending Kerik to Bush and Bush biting like a catfish...Bushbots no likee Bush being exposed as a pinhead. And by extention, themselves.

Of course, there's the standard issues as well (all of which earn the Ghoul straight Fs:

Gun Control, Open Borders, spending, etc.

ESPECIALLY gun control: THE 3RD RAIL, Sherlock!

I predict the Ghoul will drop out early. He has his slip-and-fall act all worked out and is finding reliable quack doctors to assure the nation that his patient is NOT a flatulent pussy.
------------------------
"Again, a big part of the problem is that the recent debates have been embarrassingly trivial. We need Ollie North to moderate one.-Alan Orfi"

Um, Ollie must reside behind 3 levels of production firewall lest someone unauthorized asks him about the several tons of coca paste he imported for refining in the US as payment for small arms and mines to ElSavador, Honduras, and Nicaruagua during the Contra War.

So, Ollie is happy narrating "Death Valley Days" on Fox, thankyouverymuch!

So, DJ, you admit that it's your opinion, not something you can quote or link to - and even though you (a) admit that you didn't watch the debates, and (b) claim you read it on her website but steadfastly refuse to show us where on her website she makes that statement.

FIne, but next time don't claim you read it on her website and just hope no one asks you where.

Now you're just lying, Lee. And even that, you do poorly.

Sheesh!

Bryanbryanbryan,

That comment of yours was as disjointed and nonsensical as a Ron Paul speech or a Dennis Kucinich pep rally.

DJ, allow me to simplify:

Ghouliani is a gun grabber.
And that's not a gay joke (as in "fun gun").
I speak of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
So your analysis is all wet, viz. Republican lead dog... (Unless "lead" (long e) is really "lead" (short e), as in:
The drooling Ghoul went over like a "lead" balloon when Republican primary voters considered his gun-grabbing proclivities in New Yawk City.)

In which case, I concur....anyway:)

UNLESS you can name ONE (just 1!) REMOTELY successful Republican candidate not 100% de jure Pro-2nd amendment....

Australia has a huge Italian community. I suggest he try out for the Queen's Jeeves at her winter house. Or perhaps wise-cracking stable boy/mascot/midget.

Mr. Drummond,

The Huckabee website (issues section and archive speeches) does address each of your questions in considerable detail with the exception of the contractor forces issue. In fact, his stance on Musharaff, written several months ago, is remarkably astute given the events that have transpired in Pakistan today.

Regarding the Iraq conflict, I have always been impressed with his ideology on the use of force: "If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an "occupation with a light footprint" that was our paradigm for Iraq always struck me as a contradiction in terms. Liberating a country and occupying it are two different missions. Occupation inevitably demands a lot of boots on the ground. Instead of marginalizing General Shinseki when he said we needed several hundred thousand troops for Iraq, I would have met privately with him and carefully weighed his advice and his underlying analysis."

On the other hand, your question about Iran has me flummoxed because his "summit" strategy is rather Clintonian. I did see a video of him addressing Iran in terms of the Isreali attack on Syria, but that was months ago.

I still maintain that your criticism of Mike Huckabee's lack of specificity is unfairly directed by the simple fact that it could (and should) be applied to all five candidates. Giuliani and Romney have skated all these questions as well... and Thompson's campaign has been one cliche after another (and I was a big Thompson supporter this summer). Yes, if foreign policy becomes the main topic in Republican debates, Huckabee and Romney could be exposed. However, they could impress as well... but we won't know until we can get some of these questions asked in a debate. We cannot continue to let liberal whack-jobs moderate our debates. A single issue-laden debate could bring so much clarity to all this.

"I stand by my review, Lee. But out of curiosity, what do you say is Ms. Clinton's position regarding troop withdrawal from Iraq?"

Upon which day are you referring?

An excellent link that refutes your contention about lack of specificity and direction from Mike Huckabee regarding foreign policy:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=507

Alan Orfi,

Besides Huckabee not being Rudy or Mitt or McCain (indebted to the establishment money-bundlers), what really really gets the RNC's (and camp followers') goat is Huckabee's speech before the establishment gatekeepers at CFR criticizing the Bush administration.
Huckabee in effect went over the party heads. Broke the unspoken protocol; skipped their illusory "chain of command". Embarrassed the hell out of them. Bravo!

Here's the speech:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14335/

P.S. Huckabee's a real stinker :-)

Remember the week of free publicity?
1001 pundits asking:
"When is a bookcase a Christian symbol?" LOL

I predicted he'd be Big Trouble months ago!

The "highlight" of this particular speech was NOT the criticism of the Bush Doctrine -- that was a media-generated issue. The main point of dissention was the administration's poor efforts at communicating with the nation and the strivings to appease the loony left during a war effort. Those criticisms were warranted.