"Neal Boortz has done more for the Libertarian Party"
I've received a lot of email since the effort to remove Neal Boortz from the national convention speaker roster kicked off. A lot of it -- perhaps 50% of the mail opposing our efforts, which in turn constitutes about 50% of the mail relating to the issue -- includes a claim to the effect that "Neal Boortz has done more for the Libertarian Party than anyone [insert 'I know of,' or 'in the nation,' or 'on earth' here]."
Now, that kind of claim is admittedly a subjective matter of opinion. There are lots of ways to "do things for the Libertarian Party" that are difficult to quantify. I could make a case that George W. Bush has done a lot for the LP by making it clear that his own party is, and always has been, the party of big government. Or that the Democrats are doing a lot for the LP by waffling and infighting on the war issue, leaving the anti-war vote to us if we have the stones to step forward and take it.
So, I'm willing to acknowledge that there might be ways in which Neal Boortz has contributed to the LP's current or future success that aren't easily calculated. I say "might," because, to be honest, my own subjective opinion is that any perceived association the LP has with the guy tars us as quasi-Republicanoid morons; so I don't necessarily agree that Mr. Boortz calling himself a libertarian is a "contribution." The mileage of others, naturally, varies.
However, there is one simple criterion by which support for a political party CAN be quantified, and that criterion is ... money. Thanks to the nanny state and its concern for keeping the public informed, finding out who has given how much to what organizations is a simple matter of pointing one's browser at:
http://www.fec.gov/finance_reports.html
... selecting "individual search," and typing in a name. In this case, let's use the name "Boortz."
This search returns five entries. One of them is obviously not our man, as the contribution originates in California and seems to be to an industry or union PAC.
The other four, however, are instructive. Two of them refer to a Neal Boortz of Atlanta, and one of those two specifies as this Neal Boortz's employer "WSB Radio." Sounds like our guy, doesn't it? The remaining two refer to a Donna Boortz, also of Atlanta ... and a quick Google reveals that this Donna Boortz is, indeed, Neal Boortz's better half.
So, four contributions to the Libertarian Party. Wow!
But wait a moment. Actually, only one of those four contributions is to the Libertarian Party, in the amount of $250 from Neal Boortz. Now, $250 is a good deal of money, and I expect that the LP should be grateful.
But what about those other three?
The other contribution from Neal Boortz was ... $1000. To a Republican candidate. To a Republican candidate for US Senate (Saxy Chambliss) running against a Libertarian opponent (Sandy Thomas).
What about Mrs. Boortz's contributions, presumably made with the knowledge and consent of her significant other (Georgia is not a community property state, but generally recognizes property acquired in marriage as marital property, which would mean that that money came, more or less, from both of them)?
One of them was to ... The Georgia Republican Party. $1000 again.
The other was, you guessed it, to a Republican candidate (John Linder), running in a race where the LP was attempting to highlight its own candidate (Carole Ann Rand) and the medical marijuana issue (remember that ad campaign? This was the GOP primary in which Linder unseated Bob Barr after redistricting). Another $1000.
So, in summary, the Neal Boortz family, of Atlanta, GA, has, to the extent that FEC reports tell the story, given $250 to the Libertarian Party ... and four times as much to the Republican Party ... and EIGHT times as much to Republican candidates running against Libertarian candidates.
Of course, as I admitted above, there are other ways of contributing. Mr. Boortz's way of contributing to the LP seems to be to appear at the party's events and improve our image by helping us appear to be a bunch of people who support drug warriors like John Linder and chickenhawks like Saxy Chambliss.
With friends like these ...
Immigration and other topics
Okay, let’s get our bearings.
The primary purpose of this blog is to provide Libertarian Party members with an “information package,” that will help them form a clearer picture of what it means to link Neal Boortz with the Libertarian Party in the public mind.
It’s clear that Mr. Boortz’s viewpoint of the invasion and occupation of Iraq diverges from the party’s stated position. It’s also becoming more clear that this isn’t just a disagreement over a single military action. Past and present statements by Mr. Boortz indicate that he also doesn’t agree with the general foreign policy of the Libertarian Party, which is strict military non-interventionism and zero taxpayer-funded foreign aid.
This larger disagreement with our foreign policy has been exhibited most recently by his attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq on purely humanitarian grounds, saying that those who didn’t support the invasion would prefer that Saddam were still in power, his tyranny over the Iraqi people still in place.
(My apologies; embedded links still aren't working out. -J.S.)
See Tom Knapp's comments and reference here:
http://www.freedom2008.com/bootboortz/archives/002571.html
Or, scroll down this link for the following quote:
http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01012004.html
..this is the man that Howard Dean wishes was still in power in Iraq. No ... don't give me any flack on that statement. If Dean was opposed to the action that ousted Saddam .. then that means he necessarily wishes Saddam was still in power. Sorry, Deanie Babies. You can't have it both ways. Dean is sure he wants Bush out of power .. but he says it only "might" be a good thing that Saddam has been captured. Oh .. and ditto for many libertarians, I'm sorry to say.
Boortz's view contradicts the Libertarian Party's position in two ways: He would use America's military for reasons other than the direct defense of this country, and also (in contrast to his domestic policy) provide a welfare program for Iraqis.
(It should be pointed out that the LP Platform prohibits these acts only when sanctioned by government. Private individuals should be free to aid whatever foreign cause they choose.)
In addition to his foreign policy views, Boortz has made objectionable statements in support of federal intrusion into the affairs of anti-war activists:
http://boortz.com/nuze/200311/11242003.html
The FBI is investigating the backgrounds and organizational methods of antiwar demonstrators in the US. Hopefully that doesn't come as a surprise to you. It is safe to assume that a large number of these demonstrators are out there in the streets because they want America to fail in its efforts to fight terrorism and its efforts to bring secular representative governments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Translated: Many of these demonstrators are pro-Saddam and anti-US. So, who wouldn't want them investigated by the FBI?
While his questionable statements involving civil liberties have so far concerned only isolated government policies, it also seems that his feelings about the Patriot Act itself may be a bit ambiguous:
http://boortz.com/nuze/200312/12092003.html
I frequently get inquiries as to why I don't spend more time railing against the Patriot Act. Read this essay from from two University of Chicago law professors. Is the Patriot Act really the monster that some say it is? You may be a bit surprised.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004403
But now, in addition to foreign policy and civil liberties, he has also come out against the Libertarian Party's position on a third issue of high current significance, that of immigration. On Jan. 7, he had this to say:
http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01072004.html
It's pandering for votes time. This time Hispanic votes. Bush is going to propose some grand plan whereby people who broke the law to get in the United States, and then broke the law by obtaining employment, and then broke the law by using false Social Security cards to avoid arrest ... how these people can "earn" a legal status by signing a few documents and promising to follow the law from now on.
Arizona, Florida, California ... all key states with large numbers of Hispanic voters. If the 2004 election is close Bush is going to need these Hispanic votes ... and he's paying for them today by trashing the rule of law in America.
One may argue that the primary issue here isn’t necessarily the spirit of open immigration, but rather the technical means by which such a policy is brought about. For example, one could argue that in Bush's proposal those who have violated the law are receiving better treatment than those who have pursued citizenship while obeying the law.
Be that as it may, and although the Libertarian Party hasn’t made an official statement yet on the Bush plan, one may remember that prior to 9-11-01 President Bush was considering a plan very similar to the present one.
Steve Dasbach, the party’s executive director at the time, penned this press release, outlining the party’s view of the matter:
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=223
Amnesty for immigrants is "a great leap forward," Libertarians say
July 19, 2001
[July 19] WASHINGTON, DC -- President George W. Bush's proposal to grant amnesty to 3 million illegal Mexican workers is "a great leap forward in immigration policy," Libertarians say, because immigration is good for America.
"Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery," said Steve Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian Party. "Every industrious immigrant who comes here is making a statement that they want to live and work in the freest, most prosperous nation on Earth -- as so many millions of our own forefathers have. America should welcome them."
In an attempt to woo Hispanic voters and address the issue of illegal immigration, Bush has floated a controversial proposal to grant amnesty to the approximately 3 million Mexicans working illegally in the United States and create a "guest worker" program for seasonal workers.
But in response to criticism from some conservative and anti-immigration advocates, the administration has shown signs that it is retreating from that position.
"George Bush, stand your ground and defend America's proud tradition of accepting new immigrants," said Dasbach.
Here's why immigration is good for America:
* Immigration creates jobs. "Since 1962, the U.S. economy has expanded by 126 million jobs, despite hundreds of thousands of immigrants arriving every year," said Dasbach. "That's because so many immigrants start businesses that employ American workers."
For example, a recent Cato Institute study found that the top five immigrant-founded firms in Silicon Valley, CA, alone employ more than 80,000 people. And an analysis of the 85 largest cities reported that those with the highest number of immigrants create jobs at twice the rate of other cities, according to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
"The fact that immigration and a record-low unemployment rate coexist indicates that immigrants create new jobs," said Dasbach.
* Immigrants stimulate the economy in general. "More workers increases the demand for all products and services, which fuels economic growth and creates a greater need for workers throughout society," said Dasbach. "That's because immigrants aren't just workers, they are consumers as well. In fact, in the 1980s, the U.S. accepted 7 million new immigrants, while unemployment fell sharply and family incomes rose. So the immigrants-are-taking-our-jobs argument just doesn't make sense."
* Immigrants provide immeasurable cultural benefits. "What would America be like without sushi, pizza, wiener schnitzel, burritos or any of the other foods brought to our shores by immigrants?" Dasbach asked. "Or imagine radio stations and concert halls devoid of salsa, flamenco, techno, or classical music, all of which originated in other nations. Or try telling sports fans that baseball would be the same without Sammy Sosa, tennis would as exciting without Monica Seles, or basketball would be as much fun without Dikmbe Mutombo.
"The point is that American culture would be more bland without our rich tradition of immigrants."
Dasbach acknowledged that many Americans are concerned that more immigration drives up welfare costs, thereby increasing the size and power of government.
"Democrats and Republicans have worked for decades to create a powerful welfare magnet, and they shouldn't be surprised when it attracts millions of Americans and non-Americans alike," he said. "The solution isn't to reduce immigration; it's to eliminate the welfare state.
"President Bush should ignore his critics, recognize that immigration is far more American than welfare -- and grant amnesty to every hard-working immigrant who comes to America in search of a better life."
Follow-up to the 'bigot?' piece
I came across an interesting article that I thought would shed additional light on Neal Boortz's attitude toward Islam and Muslims; particularly in the context of how he views the Israel/Palestine issue.
This May, 2002 article appeared in an Atlanta Jewish newspaper. It highlights various Jewish viewpoints on Neal Boortz, and how he affects public perceptions of the Middle East.
http://atlanta.jewish.com/archives/2002/051002cs.htm
Oh -- for those of you who think this doesn't have anything to do with the Libertarian Party, scroll down to the bottom of the article and see what his "ambition" is.
Here are a few Boortz quotes from the article that seem relevant to his on-air view of Islam and Muslims:
To a caller:
"The Muslim religion has undergone many transformations since Mohammed stopped being a rug merchant and founded the religion. It has become a religion of hatred and violence. . . . We are now in this era when the Muslim religion is the scourge of the earth. . . . If Muslims like you don't get a grip on your leaders and rein them in. . ."
And here's a quote to put next to his agreement (with Paul Harvey, see previous 'bigot?' piece) that Islam "encourages killing":
"Of course I know that Islam is not an inherently violent religion, just like Christianity is not, even though it has gone through violent periods, with the Crusades and what have you," Boortz said. "But I do think that Islam is going through a period where it is largely under the control of people whom Muhammad would not necessarily want to have dinner with."
Perhaps the most telling is this:
In an interview in his office last week, Boortz says he takes the "Israeli situation" seriously because "Sept. 11 has forced all of us to look at it." But he insists he is primarily an entertainer, "not educator, not journalist."
"I only have one purpose in that studio, and that is to attract an audience to listen to radio commercials," he said. "That's what I'm there for. That's why I always include that caveat in my show - 'Don't accept anything as true that you hear on this show. I will flat out lie to you if it serves the entertainment value of this program.' I want to make people curious, and then I want them to go out and do their own research. I don't want anybody to take my word."
And, in the same spirit, I encourage you to thoughtfully read the entire article and make up you own mind.
Some questions and answers
I crafted a rather lengthy response to some questions and comments posed by one of the nicer individuals to respond to my "Boortz the religious bigot?" piece.
(Okay, I'll admit the title was a little challenging, although I do think the subject matter justified raising the question.)
I chose to post here in the main section the comments from this individual (along with my answers) that have to do with issues not directly related to the original piece.
My answers may be fairly involved, but I believe the concerns raised justify this treatment.
Since these issues are of a fundamental nature (justifications for war and their refutations, Boortz at the convention, etc.) I thought they may be of some interest and value here in the main section.
The individual I am responding to goes by "JSubstance." I'm assuming that to be an alias, so this person won't be offended by my sharing their comments along with my answers.
I should also say that previous comments from this person indicate they are addressing not only me, but also David Tomlin, and perhaps everyone associated with this project.
These are my responses to comments and questions from JSubstance:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“You my friend are what I fear in this country. You support dying causes and have no intentions of displaying any type of rational thought. You call out a man who is some one I actually look up to for his ability to blunt and to the point.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**I suppose the “rational thought” you‘re referring to is that which arrives at the knowledge that one is in danger. While I agree that al-Qaida has proven itself to be a danger, I don’t believe the evidence exists to support the notion that Iraq was an imminent threat sufficient to justify invasion.
In addition, I think the American public has been indoctrinated big time into all sorts of false notions that justify or cover up the fact that US foreign policy has been, for a long time, of the kind which is bound to attract enemies. Further, many of these enemies are acting against us according to grievances that we ourselves would feel justified in fighting for, were the situation reversed.
Therefore, I believe any productive discussion of how better to safeguard American citizens must involve an enlightened look at our decades-long foreign policy in those parts of the world now producing ‘blowback.”
I believe the disinformation required to lead an entire country into war, over and over again--including all those interventions we were not quite allowed to call a “war”-- requires more than ignorance. I believe there is a great deal of knowing cooperation on the part of the media with US foreign policy.
This is something I think requires a fair amount of specialized reading and research to uncover.
I’m afraid we operate on very different assumptions regarding how much truth the government can be expected to provide when it comes to foreign policy, and how much the established media actually plays along with the government’s foreign policy objectives.
Nor are these differences of perception accounted for strictly by dividing the media between “liberals” and “conservatives.” The fact is that most of the stuff that the Democrats are talking about, regarding “lapses of intelligence,” failed assumptions about WMD, etc. showed up prominently in the mainstream media only after the war in Iraq was well under way, although it was available in less-known media outlets significantly earlier.
I am an avid critical student of present and past US foreign policy. It is a fact that one can go back through all the foreign wars this country fought in the 20th century, and find that the public usually were led to believe the causes leading up to each war were quite different from what they actually were. Most people now also realize that the Civil War (or War for Southern Independence, if you prefer), was understood for a longtime according to a false set of assumptions.
This disinformation happens because of deliberate action, and most of us have a hard time understanding how the mind of someone works who would use war for their own advantage, or knowingly deceive the public. It’s hard to imagine that people like that exist, but it’s happened time after time, not only in the US but all over the world.
In light of this past history, the proper attitude toward any foreign war would seem to be extreme skepticism.
See, I don’t think it’s just “the liberals,” or the “Bush Administration.” I distrust them both.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I can't believe you people in the Libertarian party think it is so bad to have some speak who is a Libertarian but differs on a few views. I think that is alittle childish. One speaker out of how many? Is he even the keynote speaker?”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**These “few views” you speak of, most particularly his views on the war, far outstrip in importance a whole slew of others that he holds, given the priority foreign policy now must have in the US. Mr. Boortz agrees this is the most important issue facing the country, and, judging by the way you speak, so do you. There are other pieces on the site which go into this in more detail, and why we feel that the strategic concerns surrounding the Boortz appearance are more significant than just having somebody show up and speak at the convention who happens to disagree with the official LP position on the war.
In particular, check out the "Boot Boortz" piece by Tom Knapp, and perhaps my "The Petition and Free Speech."
No, Mr. Boortz will not be the keynote speaker, but because of his fame this may not matter much. The only two speakers who were broadcast on CSPAN from the 2002 convention were Harry Browne (’96 and ’00 LP presidential candidate) and Neal Boortz. If I were a television network I’d certainly try to broadcast the famous people first.
You may like the guy, but he isn’t a set of views we want associated in the public mind with our party. Maybe if you really thought about this awhile you’d begin to understand: Imagine yourself belonging to a party that is still defining its image, membership and constituencies, and think what it would mean to you having Hillary Clinton be the most recognized figure at the event which is a big bi-annual shot at publicity.
There are many other issues, such as the fact that Boortz is in effect being rewarded for undermining the modest promotional efforts the LP has been able to make in promoting a non-interventionist foreign policy. I think it’s entirely possible he has done more to support the war than the whole Libertarian Party has done to call the war into question. Strictly from a financial standpoint, why draw up a budget if you intend to reward someone for canceling out what you’ve been able to accomplish with that budget?
It’s pretty obvious that Mr. Boortz not only disagrees with the LP over Iraq, but the whole idea of returning to a Jeffersonian non-interventionist foreign policy. The libertarian tradition includes the idea that trying to “leave people alone” at home won’t work, as long as you don’t do the same overseas. The two fields of action are not separate.
Boortz seems now to be, somewhat like the Bush Administration, developing the "humanitarian" justifications for invading Iraq. ( I'm referring to his "if you opposed the war in Iraq, you'd rather Saddam were still in power" approach, which he used again in the 1/1/04 "Nealz Nuze.")
That amounts to massive foreign aid in my eyes. Why should I admire someone who believes I have the right to keep that of my income now being spent on domestic programs, but thinks he has the right to take from me in order to satisfy his favorite foreign charity? Is that consistent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I believe with my whole heart that we are right in Iraq and that a pre-emptive war was the best route. After 9/11 we had no choice. We went into Afghanistan and got rid of the Tailban and sent al-Queda running.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**I guess we’ll just jump over all the Constitutional issues involved in the “preemptive war” idea, as well as the congressional responsibility to formally declare war, etc., and what that means for America (an America that essentially exists, BTW, as a collection of ideas, rather than as a land mass or group of people).
BTW, I don’t support the UN, but our non-UN-sanctioned invasion of Iraq also violated Article VI of the US Constitution, which binds us to upholding treaties such as our membership in the UN. Quoting UN resolutions in the face of that is a joke, as well as the fact that we’ve disregarded a whole slew of UN resolutions in the past.
The Taliban is still a very active force in Afghanistan. The turmoil in that country is far from over. By the way: How do you feel about the fact that some credible sources (particularly a New Hampshire professor who conducted an ongoing study that matched data from multiple media outlets) said more innocent Afghani civilians were killed during the first several months of that war than were killed on 9/11/01? Even more conservative sources estimated two years ago that civilian deaths from just the original bombing numbered between 1,000 and 1,300. There were also 20,000 estimated refugee deaths linked to the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.
(Sources for casualty numbers follow at bottom.)
Do you think it’s possible the families of some of these people, or the many more that were injured and maimed, might decide they have a legitimate right to retaliate against the US? The number of innocent dead in Iraq is approaching 10,000. Do you expect people affected by this to respect the right of the US to “defend itself,” but give up their own similar right?
Many sources believe that prior to 9/11/01 hardcore al-Qaida members numbered only a few hundred. Any speculations on what the above casualty numbers mean, and will continue to mean for al-Qaida's recruiting efforts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“After that what are we supposed to do wait for another terrorist attack?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**No, I believe we need to increase awareness of the destructive nature of past and present US foreign policy, and hope that we can change its course. In the meantime we need to think more in terms of dealing with individuals and groups, not entire countries that include masses of innocent people.
Ideally, we would cease problematic military and economic interventions in the affairs of other nations, particularly in problematic areas, then announce that we were starting with a "clean slate." Anybody attacking us after this worldwide announcement could expect to be dealt with accordingly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Iraq was supporting terrorism. Abu Nidal, a Palestinian terrorist, was running a camp there and possibly even trained Mohemmed Atta with the Iraqi governments knowledge.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Feb. 6, 2002 New York Times carried an article on Baghdad’s record:
“The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials.”
There were also revelations about Baghdad’s links with Abu Nidal:
“In 1998, American and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies discovered that Abu Nidal, the Palestinian who had been one of the most feared terrorists of the 1970’s and early 80’s, had moved to Baghdad. Abu Nidal had been ousted from his previous haven in Libya, after Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi decided he wanted to end Libya’s ties to terrorists in order to get out from under international sanctions. But Abu Nidal does not appear to have engaged in any anti-American operations since his arrival in Iraq, and he may have ended his terrorism activities, officials said.”
And of course Abu Nidal is now dead.
All efforts to link Mohammed Atta with Saddam Hussein have so far failed. Most recently a document found in Iraq, initially said by many to prove this linkage, turned out to be a forgery.
The much publicized intelligence, alleging visits by Atta to Iraq and meetings with Iraqi intelligence, (which involved knowledge gleaned from Czech sources), proved to be false long before the mainstream media stopped talking about it, and before Bush people stopped alluding to it.
The camp in Iraq that was known to have some history of Islamic terrorist involvement, operated in the section of Iraq controlled by the Kurds, who were supposedly our allies. Nor was this group (Ansar al-Islam) al-Qaida. This is the same camp that was bombed during the war, and there was great hope of finding some evidence of chemical or biological weapons in the rubble. That hope turned out to be one of a seemingly endless string dangled before the public, only to turn out false in the end. It was also the camp that Secretary Powell showed pictures of in his UN address. After the UN speech, Kurdish officials who were interviewed (New York Times 2/6/03) doubted the accuracy of Powell's claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Also, on the WMD's Saddam Hussein acknowledged that he had them and that is on record in 1998.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Hussein said he still had them in 1998? I’d have to see proof of that.
In any case, I would still put more faith in the judgment of Scott Ritter, US Marine and former chief UNSCOM weapons inspector in Iraq, who has repeatedly said --and no one has disproved the accuracy of his assertions-- that the inspection teams, by the time they were pulled from Iraq in ’98, verified between 90 and 95 per cent of Saddam’s weapons had been destroyed. As far as the remaining 5 to 10 per cent, Ritter believes that this amount was either destroyed (without documentation) by the Iraqis (as they claimed), destroyed during the Gulf War, or would have been rendered harmless because the materials in question have a known limited shelf life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When you are threatened by countries that support terrorism you abolish the threat. Not entertain it like Clinton did. After all wasn't it Clinton that could have had Bin Laden in 1996 from the Sudan”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Well, hey—don’t misunderstand me. I’m no apologist for Clinton or the Democrats.
.
After all: Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was responsible for a great deal of the medicines available in that country. The deaths that resulted over time from that are in the tens of thousands. The scope of humanitarian loss stemming from that single act is staggering, but remains largely hidden from the American public. And, no evidence whatsoever surfaced to prove that the plant was involved in the production of chemical weapons, contrary to the much-vaunted “intelligence” of the Clinton Administration. I don’t think that’s funny, although Clinton kept right on smiling.
Madeline Albright, who at the time was Clinton’s ambassador to the UN, was asked by Leslie Stahl on national television if she felt US policy in Iraq was worth the deaths of 500,000 children (reported by UNICEF) due to US-led sanctions. She answered in the affirmative, and only within the last year has she tried to qualify that statement somewhat.
So you see, I believe the difference between the two major parties, when it comes to foreign policy, is not as great as we are led to believe. To a great extent, I think foreign policy is an area that is largely handled by powers transcending the two-party structure.
Just because people like Neal Boortz find it expedient to paint everyone who opposes the war in Iraq with the “liberal” brush, doesn’t make it true.
Ever hear of Congressman Ron Paul (R) from Texas?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sources, added 1/7/04
Conservative estimate for Afghan civilian casualties:
http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html
Study by Prof. Marc Herold on Afghan casualties:
http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
Other info:
http://www.fair.org/activism/afghanistan-casualties.html
Afghan Refugee deaths:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,718635,00.html
Current situation in Afghanistan:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03362/255275.stm
Iraqi civilian casualties:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
