The Debate Archives
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
On the Boortz radar screen
Mr. Boortz provided his "Nealz Nuze" audience with a link to this blog today, Dec. 31, 2003.
He also chose, along with the blog mention, to print a letter that I believe seriously misunderstands the issues involved in the effort to have Mr. Boortz removed from the list of convention speakers.
In the extended entry section I provide the blog mention and letter in question, followed by a rebuttal that I just e-mailed to Mr. Boortz. In an accompanying message, I asked that my "The Petition and Free Speech" piece (first posted here a few weeks ago) be printed as a response.
Anyone taking the time to read around this site will better understand the intention and thought of some of us, including Tom Knapp, the petition's author.
I should add that while we appreciate the attention Justin Raimondo and other non-LP writers have given to this matter, we who continue to work in the LP do not necessarily agree with or advocate the same responses they do.
Speaking solely for myself:
Although I continue to adhere to the original spirit and wording of the petition, which seeks to remove Mr. Boortz entirely from the list of convention speakers, I realize that the recent LNC resolution represents a serious setback to that position.
My chief intention in contributing to this blog will remain the same, no matter what the outcome of the "Boot Boortz" campaign; that intention is to help provide a concise collection of views, quotes and commentary to better inform Libertarians about what it may mean in the public's mind to prominently feature Neal Boortz at our convention.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.htm
THE BROUHAHA CONTINUES
We still have an organized effort out there to get me booted off the speakers list for the Libertarian National Convention in Atlanta next year. Their principal complaint is that I support the war in Iraq. Web Guy forwards a few email messages to me every day from people saying "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure you don't speak to the Libertarian Convention ... blah blah blah."
Here's an email from a different point of view:
Dear Mr.Boortz,
I am amazed that there are Libertarians that want to prevent you from speaking at the national convention in May. In my opinion, those who are attempting to silence you do not deserve to be called Libertarians, but instead deserve to be called totalitarians.
Mr. Boortz, I supported the war with Iraq as well. I supported the war because I believed Saddam Hussein was a threat to this nation and had to be stopped. I believed that we had no other choice and I believed that by ridding the world of this dictator, the U.S. done a great service not only for ourselves, for the people of Iraq, but for the whole world. It was the right thing to do. There are those within the party that do not see it that way. I, like you, followed my conscience, and if that is a crime, then pronouce me guilty as charged.
Mr. Boortz, I believe the war on terror is not only a war on the American People but a war against Western Civilization. It saddens me that some in the party don't see it that way. It also saddens me that the some libertarians want to practice the fine art of political correctness, gagging those that don't agree with their view of purity, instead of practicing liberty. If these forces succeed in preventing you from speaking, then the Libertarian Party should cease to exist. They would be committing biggest crime of them all. The crime against liberty of thought.
I hope you do speak at that convention, and I hope to see you on C-Span giving a great address as I know you can. In the meantime, may God bless you and may God be with you as well.
Your's Truly
Alex Pugliese
I fear that this is going to be a bad year for Libertarians. This country desperately needs the message of freedom, property rights and limited government that libertarianism brings, but the American people are not going to warm up to a political party that will not fight for those freedoms or fight for our security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(And, here's my rebuttal. -Jeff S.)
THE PETITION AND FREE SPEECH
While circulating the petition, I've had some LP activists whom I respect a great deal express to me concerns about the intent of the petition.
It's been (very politely so far) suggested to me that those of us supporting the petition are holding rigidly to our own preferences and point of view, to the point of intolerance.
Is this really an issue that involves the right of free speech?
First of all, no one that I know of who had a hand in getting the petition together is afraid of Mr Boortz' views per se. Our concerns are purely strategic, having to do with the link-up in the public mind between these views and the LP.
I ask that those concerned with the free speech issue consider one simple truth.
The Libertarian Party is a voluntary membership organization, in which members have every right to influence the way our organization is presented to the public.
Naturally, those who disagree with the petition have that same right.
It's no different than a private corporation that has just hired a CEO. Suppose that this person absolutely refused to come to work in anything close to proper business attire, while treating prospective customers with outright disdain.
The stockholders would have every right to bring their concerns before the corporation's board of directors, and ask for the new CEO's dismissal.
Those opposing the petition may differ with petition supporters on what the definition of "proper business attire" should be for the LP, but they shouldn't try to make their case on the basis of a perceived violation of rights.
The Petition and Free Speech
While circulating the petition, I've had some LP activists whom I respect a great deal express to me concerns about the intent of the petition.
It's been (very politely so far) suggested to me that those of us supporting the petition are holding rigidly to our own preferences and point of view, to the point of intolerance.
Is this really an issue that involves the right of free speech?
First of all, no one that I know of who had a hand in getting the petition together is afraid of Mr Boortz's views per se. Our concerns are purely strategic, having to do with the link-up in the public mind between these views and the LP.
I ask that those concerned with the free speech issue consider one simple truth.
The Libertarian Party is a voluntary membership organization, in which members have every right to influence the way our organization is presented to the public.
Naturally, those who disagree with the petition have that same right.
It's no different than a private corporation that has just hired a CEO. Suppose that this person absolutely refused to come to work in anything close to proper business attire, while treating prospective customers with outright disdain.
The stockholders would have every right to bring their concerns before the corporation's board of directors, and ask for the new CEO's dismissal.
Those opposing the petition may differ with petition supporters on what the definition of "proper business attire" should be for the LP, but they shouldn't try to make their case on the basis of a perceived violation of rights.
Debate: Neal's Pre-Emptive Strike Doctrine
Here's your scenario: Kim Jung Il launches a three-stage rocket over Japan all the way to the equator in the middle of the pacific. At that point the world, and the United States knows that Kim Jung Il has a missile that could reach virtually any portion of the United States. The little hedgehog then announces that in exactly 60 hours he is going to launch another such missile aimed at Los Angeles, and this missile is going to be carrying a nuclear warhead.
So, what would you "no pre-emptive war" idiots have us do at that point? Common sense would suggest that we should send out the long-range U.S. bombers to destroy as much of Kim Jung Il's military capability as possible ... especially his nuclear and missile facilities.
But wait! That would be a pre-emptive strike, wouldn't it? We just couldn't do that, could we? After all ... he hasn't attacked us! How can we strike at him until he actually attacks us?
Now .. if that isn't enough to make you "no pre-emptive war" whackos hide under your blankets, they you have lost all capabilities for logical thought. But, then ... you're liberals, aren't you. It goes with the territory.
Discuss. (Post comments below.)
