Huckabee DEFENDS Obama's Trip To India!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

A general critique that some conservatives had was that the trip was too expensive-- given the economic woes of our country.

Huckabee, Rush, Beck and others jumped on that bandwagon, citing that it would cost America $200 Billion, thus implying that it is an unnecessary squandering of tax-payer dollars.

That number was GROSSLY overpriced-- given that combat ops in Afganistan for last year topped at $190 Billion!


Huckabee back-peddled, admitting that the trip to India was very important for the President to make. When he admitted and emphasized the importance of the trip, he implied that the costs of said trip is not a squadering of tax-payer dollars, but a necessary expense, to ensure that our Indian ally not feel "snubbed" by the President backing out.


The critique of the President taking the trip was cetered on cost.
For him to not make the trip would have offended the Indians-- esspecially since this trip had been pre-scheduled.

In suggesting that the President should not make this trip because it would be too expensive, his critics were suggesting that the President "snub" a key ally.

If the President had cancelled his trip, regardless of the intent, the Indians would have felt "snubbed."


So do you understand now?

I don't see the corralation. There is a huge difference between saying the President should NOT go and "200 Million a day" is too expensive.

So again I ask, WHO suggested Obama should snub the Indians?

Got quotes of anyone saying "Obama should not go"?

That doesn't sound like a back peddling.

That sounds like "200 Million a day is too much money, but he definitely needs to go", those are not contradictory statements

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't see the corralation. There is a huge difference between saying the President should NOT go and "200 Million a day" is too expensive.

So again I ask, WHO suggested Obama should snub the Indians?

Got quotes of anyone saying "Obama should not go"?

That doesn't sound like a back peddling.

That sounds like "200 Million a day is too much money, but he definitely needs to go", those are not contradictory statements

Dude,

In criticizing the costs of his trip, the implications are that he should not take the trip because it would cost too much.

That decision could result in offending a key political and economic ally.

No one suggested to snub the Indians, but had he listened to his critics and not taken the trip, then the Indians could have felt snubbed.


A=B=C


If the trip was necessary, then there is no valid reason to criticize the costs, citing some imaginary dollar amt that is not even sensible in the first place.


and I think they were quoting $200 Billion, not $200 Million.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So? Who said he should cancel it? Wasn't the issue that it costs too much? Not that he shouldn't go to India....

Huckabee criticized the costs of the trip.

A few days later Huckabee defends that same trip by emphasizing the importance of that trip.

So, when Huckabee criticized the costs of the trip, it is reasonable to believe that the angle they were coming from is that the trip is an unnecessary expense for the American tax-payer-- especially given our current economic situation.


No one said that the President should not take the trip, but the implications were there in the criticism of the costs of the trip.


Ok.

Now do you understand?

[berkeley]

Prax, it was a pre-emptive trip... Operation Don't Snub the Indians.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Berkley

Prax, it was a pre-emptive trip... Operation Don't Snub the Indians.

Man!

I know that sometimes my clarity leaves much to be desired, but wow.


Anyway, the whole point of this thread was to give Huckabee his props for reversing an unnecessary criticism launched at the President using some bogus number that wasn't even realistic in the first place.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Man!

I know that sometimes my clarity leaves much to be desired, but wow.


Anyway, the whole point of this thread was to give Huckabee his props for reversing an unnecessary criticism launched at the President using some bogus number that wasn't even realistic in the first place.

Was Huck in a play? Huckabee Finn??

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Berkley

Was Huck in a play? Huckabee Finn??

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Dude,

In criticizing the costs of his trip, the implications are that he should not take the trip because it would cost too much.

That decision could result in offending a key political and economic ally.

No one suggested to snub the Indians, but had he listened to his critics and not taken the trip, then the Indians could have felt snubbed.


A=B=C


If the trip was necessary, then there is no valid reason to criticize the costs, citing some imaginary dollar amt that is not even sensible in the first place.


and I think they were quoting $200 Billion, not $200 Million.

No the implication was :"it shouldn't cost that much", not "He should not go!"

If it really did cost that much he did need to listen to the critics and CUT SPENDING

Again there is a huge difference between calls to "cancel" the trip and calls to "cut spending" on the trip