Sigh, it's a sad thing to lose lives over such a war
based on false facts. I can't believe the american people let this happen. What was Bush thinking? His excuses and the excuses of his supports make me sick. :( God be with those who perished.

What's even sadder than that, is that things like this don't even get much attention. Things are seeming more and more like 1984 to me.
It's very troubling.

What a short sighted view of history. Our country has been under attack from those wishing a world theocracy, through violence, for at least one decade, if not two. We simply refused to fight back.

We had to go on the offensive somewhere. Iraq will do.

I've been once. I'll probably be back. If I die there, don't be sad for me. I believe in what we are doing there and am proud to do my part as best I can.

To me, the most frightening thing is that a slight majority of Americans have endorsed Bush's war at the polls in the Election of 2004. Of course, Americans have a long history of reelecting Presidents who get us into war, but this fact only makes me more uncomfortable, not less so. After all, the polls clearly showed that Bush was reelected primarily because of his War on Terror and his "moral values." In essence, the slight majority gave their approval to his justification for his war and viewed him as a moral man.

In a strategic sense, Afghanistan was not and IS NOT the heart of the enemy in the War on Terror. Osama Bin Laden was there as a matter of convenience. The will of our enemy lies elsewhere. If you ask me, Iraq is a much better place to look for it and affect it.

I'll agree that WMD was probably a poor choice of a justification, but then again, if not for the war, what would we really know?

And if the Libertarian party believes in the basic good sense of the common individual, maybe we should take note of the message in the election results and not discount them because they don't fit our philosophy.

I think a whole lot of people are forgetting that WMD was not the only reason the Pres. gave for invading Iraq. There were WMD found in Iraq, anyway. Even if there weren't, that means that not only was the Bush Admin. wrong about that, but also the Clinton Admin., John Kerry, John Edwards, and virtually every intelligence agency in the world.

Ryan: if you think that WMDs were not the main reason Bush gave for invading Iraq, you weren't paying attention to the news prior to "Operation Shock and Awe." From October 2002 through the State of the Union in January 2003 up until the invasion itself, everything was about claims of WMDs in Iraq.

Sure, Bush also claimed to be freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam's dictatorship. But that's not enough justification to invade a country without provocation, and the Bush administration knew it. If it had actually been enough, there wouldn't have been all the noise from the Bush administration about WMDs for more than six months before the invasion. There is filmed evidence of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and others in the Bush administration forcefully repeating over and over for the news cameras, for the talk shows, for the UN, for every venue they could find about the threat of WMDs.

And for the record, they did NOT find WMDs in Iraq. What little they found was not even close to operational or even potentially operational WMDs. Even Bush admitted it was a big mistake, which was why he struggled so hard to pin the blame on the CIA.

Further, there is substantial evidence that the CIA was trying to tell Bush from day one that there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Bush succeeded in pinning the blame on the CIA, but that was through sheer bluff, innuendo, and political manipulation, not evidence.

I strongly recommend that you view the DVD video, "Uncovered: The Truth About The War In Iraq" by producer Robert Greenwald. You can buy it used at Amazon.com for about $7.50. It shows news footage of all of the above Bush administration characters spouting their assurances. The DVD is supplemented by candid interviews with ex-CIA, military, and other intelligence officers, including weapons inspectors, who demonstrate in no uncertain terms, accompanied by the visual evidence that has been released to the public, that there was no credible evidence and that the Bush administration's appointees to the CIA were amateurishly misinterpreting the available intelligence. These were the same appointees who had fired or pushed out most of the experienced intelligence officers over the prior two year period for political reasons. The DVD also shows clearly how over time the Bush administration's line on WMDs started to change to suit the political climate of the times.

Don't trust corporate media.

I am not trying to start any conspiracy theories but I want the government to show me evidence that Bin Laden was the one behind 9/11. I think there is a very good chance and he most likely was but I also think it was President Bush's job to show us this evidence. On Iraq, I cannot figure out why they focused on weapons of mass destruction, if it was about terrorism they could have told how he provided Palestinian terrorists family's with money. Saddam was a murderer but we should never sacrifice lives for a lie.

don't worry folks... you'll all be trusting the government soon enough.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/01/trust.hormone.ap/index.html

That is an interesting link but I think most Americans have something worse than these drugs, ignorance. Most Americans I am convinced already trust the government and as a friend once told me "They won't let anything bad happen."

Jake: for evidence that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, see his own fatwah issued in 1998 on the subject at http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen2.htm

It's interesting to note that elsewhere on this website they're doing a "daily poll" to find out what people know about the Downing Street memo. Of 73 people who have replied so far, 57% said they didn't know about it. And that's among Libertarians! Imagine how much higher the percentage must be among the average voters!!!

Karl, I don't recall hearing about any terrorists or insurgents in Iraq before the invasion. Maybe the problem wouldn't be so bad if we'd stayed out of Iraq to begin with.

Morgan,

Off the top of my head I clearly remember Saddamm Hussein's pay off's to Palestinian suicide bombers' families years before 9/11.

And we found Leon Klinghoffers killer living in Bagdhad.

I will not say that we have done everything perfectly. Such is the nature of war. The one thing I will say is that at least this President is responding to YEARS of murder of our military and civilians with NO effective response.

This is not a law enforcement operation. We were attacked, take your pick which one, by a network of enemies that exists in a network of worldwdie supporters. They are in other places than Afghanistan and Iraq. They will destroy as many of us as we can when they can. Our enemies now understand this: We have regained the will to defend ourselves. We will seek them out. They have three choices: win, surrender or die!

I agree with the principle of not initiating force. However, given the years of violence against the U.S. and its citizens, I do not believe that to be the case in Iraq.

Karl wrote: "This is not a law enforcement operation. We were attacked, take your pick which one, by a network of enemies that exists in a network of worldwdie supporters. They are in other places than Afghanistan and Iraq."

You wrote this in justification for the War in Iraq. Do I take it, then, that by this same argument you believe we are justified to attack any country around the world whom we suspect of having supporters of Al Qaeda inside their borders? By your logic then, shouldn't we attack more than half the world? Is that what you believe in? Is this what you mean by believing in not initiating force? Please clarify.

Islamic extremism is horrible. War is horrible. I can't fathom a perfect solution to this complex conflict between a religious sect and a sociopolitical ideology but surely a solution that leads to death is wrong. I can only hope that America will lead by example, and not by threat of force.

Let volunteers die, for they are the kind of people that vote for bush. Surely it would be better to face dishonorable discharch from the military than a barrel of a gun. In a sense, this war is a Darwinistic tool.

Karl Wrote:

I agree with the principle of not initiating force. However, given the years of violence against the U.S. and its citizens, I do not believe that to be the case in Iraq

Since when was Iraq a threat to the U.S. and its citizens? From what I know, which is not much, Iraq has never attacked the US.

If U.S. citizens were injured or killed in Iraq before the war, was it because of the Iraqi government?

The Israelies are just as guilty of commiiting acts of terrorism against the Palestinians. Though the Israelies, until recently, got nearly unfettered support from the US. Saddam aligned himself with the Palestinians. What's the difference?

Libertarian TV,

Simply amazing.

Hand the Constitution to an Islamic radical and I guarantee you he'll burn it as the work of the devil.

If a country is harboring our enemies; yes, I believe we have the right to take the fight to them if necessary. Whether the "invasion" is 10 men or 100,000 is a matter of the task required. That is war.

There are other ways to get along in the world. But not everyone in the world sees life in the Libertarian model. Islamic radicals in particular.

Michael Simmons,

A Darwinistic tool? That is simply astounding. So what? Only the hyper-evolved, peace loving Libertarians will survive in the world because peace is the state of nature?

My child was on an airplane on 9/11, during the attacks. Her flight was grounded along with the rest of the country. I was overseas and simply had to wait and see where she turned up.

Will I go willingly into any country, seek out and kill anyone planning another event that will place my daughter and millions of others face to face with trained murderers? Yes. My Darwinian tool is to ensure the threat to my family, country and way of life dies first! Your unwillingness makes you food for the first predator to come along.

I have never been a member of any party before. If this is the way Libertarians defend the Constitution and their neighbors, maybe I have made an error joining.

Karl,

Don't judge the party on the opinions of a few members. We can't all agree all the time. I believe the Libertarians offer more solutions than problems especially when compared to the other parties.

Nobody want's their family's life to be in danger, but a whole lot of civilians and innocents belonging to other families both Iraqi and American (not to mention our armed forces) are being killed. I believe it's too late to just leave now, but I think going in the first place was a mistake.

Karl wrote: Hand the Constitution to an Islamic radical and I guarantee you he'll burn it as the work of the devil.

I agree, but that doesn't justify invasion. Next thing we know, you'll be arguing in favor of hate crime legislation.

Karl wrote: If a country is harboring our enemies; yes, I believe we have the right to take the fight to them if necessary. Whether the "invasion" is 10 men or 100,000 is a matter of the task required. That is war.

Please define "harboring." Is Pakistan harboring? How about Saudi Arabia? There are more Al Qaeda in either of those two countries than most of the rest of the world. Everyone knows it. Both governments are making noise about doing something about it, but everyone knows that their efforts are largely ineffective.

Pakistan claims to have closed their border to Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, but it's actually as porous as ever. As a result, Bin Laden could be anywhere in the world (although US intelligence still believes him to be in Afghanistan).

Saudi Arabia is mainly interested in looking good to both the US war machine and to its Muslim citizens simultaneously, and as a result Al Qaeda remains as strong as ever in that country.

Clearly, current policy isn't working. Should we therefore invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as a matter of principle? Ultimately, I don't think your logic can avoid a conclusion such as this. It's inescapable, because you have placed no limits on the policy's escalation.

----

By the way, I must take more direct issue with a comment you made earlier. You said, "This is not a law enforcement operation." I disagree completely. The attacks of 9/11 were clearly criminal. Crime fighting requires law enforcement.

I'll go further and say that the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have hindered our ability to fight the Al Qaeda crime wave, not helped it. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. The crime wave is worse than ever before.

If we had treated this as a criminal act from the beginning instead of an act of war, we'd have Bin Laden in custody by now...or even more likely, the Muslim world would have caught and killed him themselves. By calling it war rather than crime, we have effectively empowered Al Qaeda and undermined our relationships with the rest of the Muslim world.

Libertarian TV,

I agree that we should have treated it as a criminal act.
Instead, we gave people reasons to hate us. Also, we've given the extremists a great recruiting tool.

Wow. I thought blame America first was a Democrat thing.

Who's law would you enforce? They are not U.S. citizens and they are largely not on U.S. soil. Will you wait until the completion of their "crimes" to ensure you have enough "evidence" to prosecute?

You haven't answered my questions yet. You simply ducked them to ask one of your own. You're first. I'll answer yours afterward.

Blaming the government is not blaming America. Regardless of your opinions of the war in Iraq congress did not declare it and therefore it is unconstitutional and I will not be silent when the constitution is not being followed. Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States, he allowed the inspectors in but we pulled them out so we wouldn't bomb them and then President Bush had the audacity to go on tv and say Saddam kicked them out, they were forced out by us. Saddam was an evil man but why did our government fund him in the 1980's even after we knew he used chemical weapons on his own people, if we wouldn't have funded him in the first place we may have not had to fight the Gulf War. And remember the chances of you being killed by a terrorist attack is less than being struck by lightning, or being hit by a car.

Bush's action was not unconstitutional. It is the Congress that didn't fulfill it's responsibility. The Commander and Chief has the responsibility to act if he feels that the Country is threatend. I don't agree with the reason he went to war but it is not unconstitutional. Put it this way, if we were attacked and had a foriegn army on our beach heads does the commander and chief have to wait until Congress makes a declaration of war. No. He has responsibility to act. The founders gave the Congress the power to check that not so much with power to declare war as much as the power control the budget.

Libertarian TV,

In answer to your question, I consider no place off limits if they are in fact fostering violence against us. Is that the question you want answered?

I believe I covered that already.

No Karl, the questions I asked were as follows: "Please define 'harboring.' Is Pakistan harboring? How about Saudi Arabia?"

I can't support president Bush for his invasion of Iraq. God Bless our troops over there, but it seems we went about it all wrong. From the history and information I watched and read about. We should've occupied both countries a long time ago. The way I see it Bush Sr. Should've occupied Iraq when Saddam attacked Kuwait, that would've been an honerable pretext for a war in Iraq. Attack one of our Allies, and we shall destroy you. It would've made more sense then, and we would've had a better logistics for a later invasion of Afghanistan. Frankly speaking, if the documents are legit and Bush purposely lied to the country to start a war then he should be impeached. A pre-emptive strike, as well as lying to the country, is a bad precedent to set for future presidents. For that Bush should be taken out of office. However thanks to his a administration the enemies of our country now have a new political philosophy. That being, that they should attack us before we attack them. Then again hindsight is 20/20. Our country is still young, and we're still learning how to best handle ourselves.

I think this problem could have possibly been avoided if the United States government would have not funded Saddam Hussein in the 1980's.

And Al Qaeda in the 70's.

One problem is our partisan system. Loyal party members will support whatever the party leader mandates. How many have heard of a Roosevelt Democrat or a lifelong republican. Americans write a political blank check every two years, substituting free thought and critical, objective discourse for arbitrary loyalty that is rewarded by apathy and unliteral expectations for blind support. This is where third party activists must make progress, by educating people that our bipartisan system has led us here, where a president can make brash decisions and then not be held accountable by the very people who elected him.

in other words, lets have aaron russo as our candidate in 2008.

I was thinking Bob Barr

Libertarian TV,

Harboring would be knowingly providing refuge and support to an enemy of the United States who is actively engaged in planning, preparing or executing violence against the U.S. or its citizens. It is a willful act.

Are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia knowingly hiding and supporting this activity? I don't know. Is this activity coming from some of their citizens or are some of their citizens supporting this activity? I believe that has been established as "Yes" clearly enough.

I would imagine both governments, which are NOT democracies, are endeavoring to do whatever keeps them in power. This is why you make a "with us or against us" speech. It forces decisions. Maybe we won't need an Iraq type operation there. If you think we have issues now, imagine invading the country that is the "guardian" of Mecca. Yeeha! Subtlety is most likely the order of the day here.

Lyn, you may be encouraged to read former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart's current opinion that questions the strength and future of our prevailing two-party structure at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/gary-hart/the-parties-are-over_2058.html

As this school of thought gains credibility, libertarians have arrived at a most advantageous political moment in which to fill this void.

Americans died in Iraq for a cause that applies to other countries. It is effectively throwing out one bad apple in the barrel when many are bad. Should we then throw all the bad apples out and invade the other offending countries? No. We should stay out of the barrel of bad apples. Bring the troops home!

Brent,

The smartest thing I have seen here. Libertarians are at that moment. Why do you think a guy like me would join? I absolutely support the principles as espoused by the party. I am almost 40 years old and have never joined any other political party. When I have voted, it was for Republicans. I find Democrats largely fools who are just as interested in simply having power as anything else. I voted for Bush the first time. I am glad I did. As much as it pained me, I did NOT vote for Bush this last time. I could not vote for Kerry either. I simply did not vote.

The one thing I will support Bush for is his defense of this country. After that, his party bothers me as much as the Democrats. BOTH will reduce individual Liberty every time they get the chance, for their own ends.

I have submitted recently my application and paid my dues as a Libertarian. There are a LOT of people like me. The trick for Libertarians, it seems to me, is to start a publicity campaign describing who and what they are. Bush bashing will NOT get it done. Simply stating what you believe and what you are trying to accomplsh would be enough. Contrasting PARTIES would probably not be over the line. Personalizing it will drive folks away. Bush bashing as if he is the devil himself sounds like so much hysterical ravings. Leave that to the Democrats.

I am a brand new Libertarian party member. I believe in the principles of your party. I will never be a party hack. My votes will be earned by anyone who gets them. We'll see how it goes. Welcome to your opportunity!

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

-Thousands dead in Iraq
-Billions of $$$ spent
-Outright lies documented

IMO, any person who still supports our illegal war in Iraq deserves to go there now (to stay).

Anyone claiming to be a Libertarian and supporting the war really ought to re-discover reality.

"I am a brand new Libertarian party member. I believe in the principles of your party. I will never be a party hack. My votes will be earned by anyone who gets them. We'll see how it goes."

Welcome Karl,

Are you familar with the strength of a non-interventionist military policy?

Like Karl, I am sticking my toes into the waters of the Libertarian Party for the first time. For me, I have spent thirty-five years sitting on the shore as a politically apathetic libertarian. And, like Karl (maybe for different reasons) I am disappointed by the stance of so many Libertarian Party activists who are squandering an unprecedented opportunity by clinging to an "I told you so" dialogue.

For the first time in the history of the Libertarian Party there are millions of citizens who are finally fed up enough to seek and listen to political alternatives. Let's not turn them off by "Monday morning quarterbacking" and instead let's show them clearly how a libertarian agenda solves our republic's problems FROM NOW ON.

Dear wake up,

Am I familar with the strength of a non-interventionist military policy? No.

I am well founded in reality. I have been in several Arab/Muslim countries now, including Iraq since the invasion. I've probably got a better handle on reality than what the major media outlets and the "Bush is the devil" crowd can give you. But don't worry. I'll be going back soon. There's always the chance I might stay. But then you would be short one new Libertarian!

Military action is by definition interventionist. It is imposing your will on another state, organization or people. If you wish to win, you have to take away either your enemies will or ability to continue. If a laissez fare attitude will accomplish that goal and achieve our security, I am all for it. But I doubt it.

Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time?" Didn't work out too well did it?

Let me tell you how an Islamic Theocracy's execution list will run. Democrat's first, Libertarians second and some of the Republicans. Why some of the Republicans? Because they openly espouse their belief in the same God Islam recognizes. The last time Islam almost conquered the known world, they had a very lenient polcy. Christians and Jews were considered family and allowed to pay a tax. Others converted to Islam or died. Ironic that it is the Republicans have found the will to resist this threat.

Hello everyone,
I have been considering joing the Libertarian Party recently. Let me start by saying I am not a huge Bush supporter. I think there are many things that could be done better. I have been reading your website and find that I agree in large part with the ideals of the party. I do, however, disagree with many of you regarding the war. I look at it this way.

Go back to the end of the first Gulf War. Saddam agreed to multiple resolutions passed by the UN. One of which was to document all of the WMD that he had as well as destroying it. Weapons inspectors were sent in to investigate and were not there long before Saddam kicked them out. He operated nearly 10 years without UN weapons inspectors and only allowed them back in under threat of force once he had time to hide whatever he wanted to. Maybe WMD, maybe not. They did find huge cache's of weapons and even a jet fighter.
Call me crazy, I believe that if you are asked to show proof that you destroyed the weapons you documented that you had and you refuse, then you must still have something. Otherwise why not just say, Here is where we destroyed the Anthrax and here is where we destroyed the Mustard Gas, etc...
So taking all faulty intelligence out of the equation to me it would be common sense that Saddam was hiding something. Couple that with the 17 resolutions that Saddam had violated and I think that gives legal justification for Saddam to be removed from power. Otherwise, what is the use of the UN? If their resolutions are meaningless, what's their purpose.

As for the "Saddam didn't attack us" crowd. Well, your right he didn't. However, I would say, the Taliban didn't attack us either. But they allowed Al Qaeda to gather and plan their attacks. Should we not have removed the Taliban from power? Also, this may be over done by now but, Should we not have removed Hitler from power? He never attacked us. Why not just bring the boys home once we accepted Japan's surrender?

All it would take is for Saddam to give a briefcase full of Anthrax or something and they could come across our air tight borders and, all of a sudden, we have a big problem.

I think it boils down to this. Do we wait until we are attacked and fight the fight in our backyards? Or do we take it to them and fight over there. I think that since we rely on the human element in many cases, mistakes can be made. Liberating millions from mass graves & rape rooms & other horrific acts is not one of them.

And if you have stuck around to read all of this, sorry for being so long winded. I leave with this...
Stay away from the name calling and bashing of those who disagree with you. I have read too many comments on the different blogs and noticed its not just the Democrats and Republicans. To me once you start in with the NeoCon remarks and the like you start to lose credibility.

Todd,

I am glad you chimed in. I have been considering joining for almost a year. This week I did. As you can see, I find points of contention here. However, I would not have joined if I did not agree with what I have studied and read. I even had the National Party chair answer a question I asked before joining. His answer led me to join.

I agree with you and tried to make the point that Bush bashing will not get them new members. Nor will personal, shrill attacks on anyone.

I believe there are many people out there like me and you, even though we may not agree on practical application of the principles, will still be drawn to them. The time to advertise is now, not during an election.

Our party platform's policie of non-intervention is based on the libertarian principle of non-aggression. If we are to claim to be the party of principle, we must stick with our principles. If people agree with us and wish to join great. If not that's O.K. too.

If Libertarian party's principle is non-aggression under any circumstance, then they will simply NEVER win a national level election. Not enough Americans will ever believe them capable of defending the country.

It seems the consensus here belies the statement made to me by the National Chairman. Maybe he doesn't really know who is in this party. Maybe I should consider this a $25 failed experiment.

"If Libertarian party's principle is non-aggression under any circumstance,...Not enough Americans will ever believe them capable of defending the country.

The principle is not initiating force. You do not need to initiate aggression to defend the country.

A true patriot opposes empire.

Michael Wrote: And Al Qaeda in the 70's.

Now now now, let's be scrupulous and all that. We can all hate the war in Iraq with impunity now (I certainly have re-examined my position, and I don't know anymore if it was such a good idea) that some goods are out...

First, Al Qaeda was not the entity we funded, at least, not in Afghanistan. It was the Mujahadeen, who were not fundamentalists, and not practitioners of Sharia (as far as I know) and so, they would still be 'our' kind of Muslims to this day. They just wanted those damn dirty communists to get their hands off them.

Second, what does this memo in its entirety actually prove? Does it point to Bush ACTUALLY saying something, and then quote an actual statement? Does it actually quote ANYONE?

I'll be honest, I've had reservations about Bush and the Iraq war for a long time even as I vociferously supported it, demanding "the big proof" and so forth, which I could never seem to get from the detractors, and I think this falls short as well. I'm not doubting the accuracy of the report, merely its adequacy in putting a smoking gun in Bush's hand. Where small amounts of leftover Chemical weapons, and the obvious upon obvious that Saddam moved his goods out of Iraq afterwards, combined with what we know about Saddam, I think the UN should have deposed the bastard back in the '80s before the body count got as high as it has. Sadly, the UN, as always, is only good for talk and a lot of huff. Just look at Sudan, where they've put off even coming up with a decision to not do anything until after their presence is of any use.

Downing Street memo or not, one thing is obvious to me and, I propose, to hundreds of millions others around the world. The USA is not "winning" the war on terrorism. A growing consensus here at home and around the world has come to the conclusion that our leadership's strategy is flawed and because of it the world is becoming less safe and less free.

Why then, in this website and this LP Blog (the official showcase for the world to introduce Libertarian political superiority) do we continue to wallow in an endless debate whether we should have invaded Iraq or not? If one clicks, in this site, to "Foreign Policy" in the "Issues and Positions" section no Libertarian exit strategy for the mess in the Middle East is proposed. Instead there is only some outdated essay about foreign aid.

This forum should be a hotbed of ideas about the specifics of how the Libertarian Party can lead us out of this quagmire. Why can I not find this information on the official LP website? Where is Badnarik's and the official, albeit lesser known, national party leaders' latest writings on this topic?

With the possible exception of Harry Browne, I don't know of a Libertarian spokesperson who is currently resonating the libertarian message loud and clear to a worldwide audience that is ready and willing to hear workable alternatives to this foreign policy mess. Certainly there is little of this happening at this website.

Why?

Karl,

You say that you aren't sure whether Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are harboring Al Qaeda? Your joking, right? Then you finish off with, "Subtlety is most likely the order of the day here." That's a bad joke, ludicrous on the face of it. There's nothing "subtle" about invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and over 1,600 Americans. And we knew with a high degree of confidence that Iraq was not likely harboring Al Qaeda before the invasion because of the well-documented mutual hatred between Saddam and Bin Laden. It was only after Saddam was driven from power that Al Qaeda started to successfuly build up in Iraq.

Now it's my turn to answer your question. Regarding the attacks of 9/11, you asked, "Whose laws would I enforce?" I would enforce America's laws. After all, the crime was committed on our soil. But I'd go further than that. I would also call for the enforcement of Islamic law by Muslims. Muslims immediately after 9/11 considered Bin Laden's associates' act to be murder. Bush never took advantage of that.

Bush knew on 9/11 that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, as the 9/11 Commission report showed. Further, Bush was in a rush to go to war, but he wasn't interested in challenging Muslims around the world to find Bin Laden for the damage he had inflicted on Islam and for violating the precepts of the Qu'ran. Instead, he was enamored by America's position as the world's last remaining superpower, to the point that he ignored all other options that didn't glorify that position. That, in my opinion, was his biggest mistake.

From page 347 of the 9/11 Commission report regarding the evening of 9/11 at the White House: "In this restricted National Security Council meeting, the President said it was a time for self-defense.The United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attacks, but also those who harbored them. Secretary Powell said the United States had to make it clear to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Arab states that the time to act was now. He said we would need to build a coalition.The President noted that the attacks provided a great opportunity to engage Russia and China. Secretary Rumsfeld urged the President and the principals to think broadly about who might have harbored the attackers, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, and Iran. He wondered aloud how much evidence the United States would need in order to deal with these countries, pointing out that major strikes could take up to 60 days to assemble."

Clearly, Bush didn't even consider attempting to treating 9/11 like a crime and involve the global Muslim community in the effort to bring the conspirators to justice. What would have happened if he had? Chapter 17, Section 4, Verse 33 of the Qu'ran says, "And kill not the soul which Allah has forbidden except for a just cause. And whoever is slaim unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority--but let him not exceed the limit in slaying. Surely he will be helped." Remember, Muslims are almost fanatical about their literal interpretation of the Qu'ran. If it says, "...Surely he will be helped," they would consider it their religious duty to help, particularly since Bin Laden had given them such a black eye. It's almost impossible to overestimate how strongly they would have reacted, had they been called upon to do so. Sadly, Bush blew this golden opportunity.

We had nearly the entire Muslim population around the world on our side and sympathetic to us after 9/11. They weren't reported in the US, but candlelight vigils and special prayers were held over the next few days by large numbers of Muslims in Islamic countries around the world. When Bush finally announced that our quarry was Osama Bin Laden, they were horrified that someone had committed these atrocities in the name of their religion. THIS WAS THE TIME TO TAKE BOLD STRIDES WITH THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY OF THE WORLD.

Bush blew it. He had 26 days between 9/11 and 10/7 when the invasion of Afghanistan was launched to use this worldwide sympathy to enlist Islamic religious leaders in the cause of tracking down and capturing Bin Laden. Imagine it! He would have captured Bin Laden within the first year. He would have taken tremendous strides to sway Muslims to our cause on a wide variety of issues, not just 9/11. At the very least, he would have driven a powerful wedge down the middle of the Muslim world, between those who support terrorism and those who oppose it. Oh sure, he did use a few muslims, but only based on intelligence found by the US, which was sketchy at best. His secretive nature ended up alienating most of our potential support in the Islamic world and the assistance that would have accompanied it.

He also should have released the information he had linking Bin Laden to the world on 9/12. Instead, he kept his cards close to his chest. The only reason we know any of the story is that it was leaked to us over time. Bush should have made his case publicly and challenged the nations of the world to find Bin Laden. Had he done that, I believe the response would have been 100 times greater than it was...and 100 times more effective. He claimed that secrecy was essential, which was why he wasn't releasing his information. But in fact, we now know that he didn't have enough solid intelligence for the US to capture Bin Laden on its own.

To Brent, Karl, Todd, and others who decry focusing so much on whether we should have attacked Iraq, I offer this observation: why do you keep bringing it up?

Let me remind you that this blog was originally about the Downing Street memo as an example of one of the many ways that the current war is being played down in the media. This blog entry wasn't directly a rejection of the invasion itself (although it's certainly related). More specifically, the blog entry was speculation regarding why the media is playing down the numbers of soldiers who continue to be killed in Iraq to this day.

Karl reacted angrily to this and began arguing about the justness of the war and his view that we were right to invade because he felt that Iraq was much more important than Afghanistan. Ryan followed up by claiming that WMDs were found in Iraq thus justifying the invasion. This led to the whole discussion about whether we should have attacked Iraq in the first place.

If you think we shouldn't be discussing the causes of the war in such detail, then stop trying to engage us on that subject! We were trying to stay on topic. You guys dragged us to the side topic, then had the audacity to blame us for it!

Libertarian TV,

It seems that you were sitting in the room with the national security council. I therefore defer to your far superior information and obviously more highly evolved intellect.

Please save us. Go and explain to the muslim population of the world how the Libertarian view of life is the way the world should live. I am sure the Koran and sharia will fully support you. I am sure that will end all of this and we will have peace and harmony.

Lib TV,
I think it is a good possibility that the reason the Downing Street memo is being "played down" is that the media and its audiences are burned out on the subject of whether Bush was justified or not. Whether he was or not means little today. The dead are dead. The maimed are maimed.
Unless one thinks that GWB's impeachment is the most expedient way to end this mess, why do we continue to relive a three year old decision?
Is impeachment the LP strategy?
I keep bringing this up because libertarians like you are focusing so much of your prodigious talents on an issue that is moot. I mean this sincerely. I have great respect of your knowledge, perspective and insights.
I, and others here I should think, would be fascinated to hear your views on what libertarians and the LP should do next in regards to the Iraq fiasco.
Or is this too off-topic?

Heck no, Karl. I was simply reading from the 9/11 Commission's published report. It's public information. Heck, it was a bestseller at amazon.com for awhile. Want a pdf copy?

Brent: I think there is great wisdom in the old adage, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." The neocons in particularly have gone to great lengths to glorify the Bush administration's handling of Iraq. In fact, for awhile there, if any of us had the audacity to speak against the war, we were branded traitors and told to shut up until after the war was over and our troops were out of danger.

Well, now it's afterward, but our troops are still in danger. So now we're speaking up and being told that it's old news, and to stop wasting everyone's time on something that no one cares about anymore.

In case you've forgotten (or perhaps aren't old enough to remember), this is the same thing that happened during the Vietnam War. Anyone who opposed the war was a "hippy" or a "communist." It wasn't until people were so sick of the whole thing that they started to listen to those who were speaking reasonably about Vietnam in the same way that I and others are speaking reasonably about Iraq today.

Well let me ask you this, Brent: when would have been the proper time to bring it up? Clearly, the answer is: NEVER! And that's what our critics really want. They want us to bury the whole issue and pretend that it never happened. Thus the next time our country wants to go to war, the leaders will once again be justified to shout down any "traitor" who dares to question the rightness of their actions.

I don't speak for the LP. I'm just a party member, like you. But we're the party of individual rights, Brent. What about our individual right to question our own government's actions? Where does that fit into your preferred plan for the LP?

Lib TV,

In my neck of the woods (SW Florida), as well as in my travels domestically and abroad, I come across few libertarians. But, since 9/11 I have known many close aquaintances and many others whom I have met in passing who were and are skeptical of our government's ongoing "war." In this little world of mine, these people number far more than those who I know to be "Bush kool-aid drinkers." I can generalize their positions from "mildly suspect" to "frothing at the mouth" regarding current U.S. foreign policy.

I don't know how many citizens this extrapolates to nationwide, but wouldn't you agree based what you know from other sources that they number in the tens of millions of potential voters and potential LP members? Whatever their numbers, I strongly believe that this demographic is growing. Do you?

These people "care" now as they have all along.

I suppose that your point, a la Vietnam, is that since the opposition to the war in Iraq is now approaching some sort of critical mass that we are finally free to criticize the policies without being branded a "hippy or traitor." Do you mean that we are somehow more free to babble our heads off as to how wrong Bush has been and still is? The objective is what? To get 80% of our citizen's to become skeptical instead of, say, 40% while men, women and children continue to be slaughtered in our republic's misguided venture.

Lib TV, I would never deem to limit yours or anyone's right to speak out for or against their government, especially if they are as eloquent and passionate as are you. I am not suggesting that you shut up. I am suggesting that, at this time, you and I can help the LP more by understanding and developing a strategy for what we need to do from now on, rather that regurgitating how right we have been all along.

I'll put this in a scenario, as I see that I am not making my point very well.

"Stay informed" and "Spread the Word" are two of five suggested action items on this LP website. If a potential member asked me, "How is the LP going to lead us out of the mess in Iraq?" how do I answer? From what I read in these forums and in the issues section of this website I can tell them that "we have Bush nailed as to how wrong he is" and that the LP position on foreign policy is that "foreign aid is nothing more than welfare."

I don't think this will attract new membership. Why can't I find a fundamental answer from you or anyone associated with this website?

How is the Libertarian Party going to lead us out of the mess in Iraq?

Hi Brent,

I have found that there are two key points to understand regarding the expansion of the libertarian movement via the Libertarian Party.

(1) You can't change someone else's mind. You can only present the facts in such a way that you give them the opportunity to make up and/or change their own minds. Whether or not they make the decision your way is up to them.

(2) If you want to maximize your chances of getting them to rethink their position, the best way is not to attack first, but rather to respond in kind to their overtures. I believe that the non-aggression principle is not just a pretty idea that applies to theoretical, philosophical constructs. I think it's a real-world approach to spreading the word.

If you've paid attention to my own approach on these boards, you'll note that I almost never initiate an issue. I respond to what others initiate. Just as it is wrong to initiate force, so I also believe it is wrong to initiate dialog on an issue that the other party isn't ready to address. But when the other party raises the issue, then I know that on some level they're ready to address it. That's when I kick into gear.

Yes, I think there is a transition going on away from the pro-war view in this country. But that's not my motivation here. My motivation was based solely on the fact that certain persons, such as yourself, indicated that they were ready to discuss a certain issue...in this case, presidential power, its abuse, and its relationship to the media's coverage of Iraq.

If I were talking person-to-person with someone in my own local area here in Warrenton, Virginia, I wouldn't think of starting off by raging about the War in Iraq. Instead, I'd want to find out what THEIR issue was...and then address it head on.

One approach I love to use doesn't translate well to online discussions. It requires more give-and-take conversation than an online discussion can readily handle. But let me share the technique with you anyway, for local use.

I first developed my version of this technique with my wife. We've been married nearly six years now and together seven years, so she knows beyond any doubt that I'm libertarian. But while I've volunteered a few ideas here or there, I've never pushed her to become a libertarian.

One day, we were driving in the car on vacation, and out of the blue she announced that she wanted to know more about LP positions on various issues. I don't know what caused me to try this new approach, but I think it had something to do with the enormous respect I have for her as a person. Instead of presenting libertarian arguments on any given issue, I turned the tables. I had her raise the issue, then asked her to derive the libertarian position on the issue starting from the non-aggression principle as an assumption.

In the course of a three hour (or so) conversation, she successfully derived the libertarian position on about 80% of the issues correctly.

I still don't think that she calls herself a libertarian, but I have little doubt that she'll vote libertarian in most cases from now on. She's already voted for both Browne and Badnarik.

I hope this helps you understand what my approach is toward spreading the word of Liberty.

I just realized I didn't answer your question directly. You asked, "How is the Libertarian Party going to lead us out of the mess in Iraq?"

Well, since we're not in power, the LP isn't in a position to lead us out of Iraq. Perhaps a better question is, "How can America lead itself out of the mess in Iraq?"

Michael Badnarik's answer, if elected president, was that he would consult with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and direct them to withdraw our troops as safely and as quickly as possible. Then, he'd leave it to them to map out the optimimum way to achieve that. Michael is a smart man.

But I suspect the real question you're trying to answer is, "What do I tell someone who is interested in the idea of ending our involvement in Iraq but is afraid for us to do it for one reason or another?" Or perhaps it's another similar question.

This is where my "local" technique kicks into gear. With such a person in private conversation, I'd explain the non-aggression principle to them, then I'd ask them to derive the LP's position on how to handle Iraq from that assumption.

The interesting thing is that different people will give you slightly different answers, which will reflect their own biases and preferences. That's okay. The point isn't to get them to march in lockstep with us. The point is to get them to think about the issue in a way that they probably have never thought about it before...as a vital, real-world issue of Liberty.

That's the most you can do...get them to think about the issue on our terms. If we can get a majority of the population as a whole to think about all of the issues of importance to them starting from the Libertarian non-aggression principle as the primary assumption, within an astonishingly short period of time, we'll have our second American Revolution. In my opinion, that should be our philosophical goal.

The question you haven't asked is how to turn such discussions into electoral victories. I've discussed that elsewhere on these boards, but if you want to discuss it again, I'd be happy to do so.

Libertarian TV,

You seem to automatically discount one option as a way out: win.

What option is that, Karl?

Karl,

Define "win" :-)

If you'll look at the "memo" I think you'll see it as a "creation" of Rycroft and talking in third person without actual quotes that until it's verified to be true by the people present remains suspect to me! The "For UK eyes only" looked a bit Hoakie to me...I could put that on something and call it "Secret" but would it be an official "Secret" document..No. If it's real it'll be shown to be real...as for the media's slacking off of it...ask Dan Rather...Mary Mapes and CBS News...and Newsweek what they'd do!

It seems like I have heard plenty regarding the Downing Street memo, and I can say that I fully understand what it is about. Perhaps those who claim that they have not heard about it are living in a cave on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

I support the servicemembers, and the war in Iraq. I think that anyone who proclaims "support the Troops, but denounce the War" are missing a large point. We're in it, let's win it, get our troops home. This is one of the few points where other libertarians may disagree with me. While we celebrate thier homecoming, remember what they did accomplish in Iraq. Charity DOES start at home, but it's too late for "coulda, shoulda, woulda's" now. These heroes for our time have given us something that we forgot through the 80's and 90's: America is a force to be reckoned with, and anyone who forgets that will pay a huge price. If nothing else, we reminded the UN exactly who depends on whom to get a job done. The very idea that the sole superpower left on earth has to take instructions and orders from a group of third-world nations that can't even manage thier own affairs is insulting to everyone who has ever served, fought, bled, and died under the Stars and Stripes.
On that note, WHY HAS NO ONE BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT THE U.N. GAVE SADDAMN HUSSEIN ALMOST A DECADE TO STASH THESE WEAPONS THAT CRITICS ARE CROWING "I TOLD YOU SO!" ABOUT? Come on, folks! It doesn't take a bloodhound to smell the rat in THAT particular barn!
Let's get behind our troops 100%, get them home, REMEMBER what got us in this mess, get Libertarians in office to start our nation back on the track we were on, but somehow lost sight of.

Karl: define win!

Oh! Yes, given our history, that's a very valid question. I define win as where our candidate is declared the winner of the election. I think it's time for us to start setting the bar higher.

Bill: I resent your implication that if I'm opposed to the war in Iraq that I'm not behind the troops. I think that attitude represents one of the worst aspects of your side of the argument. It's condescending and short-sighted. Once again, you're basically saying that dissent is not an option. That's a carte blanche invitation for war politicians to do anything they want to do anywhere outside our country. After all, if dissent isn't option, what's to stop them? The answer is: nothing can stop them without dissent.

Win:

So thoroughly defeat and discredit violent Islamic fundamentalism that there is no longer a substantial threat.

What is happening in Iraq is a strategic move. If Islmaic fundamentalism is in fact the voice of the people, then let it be so. They will acheieve their aims though ballots and not bullets. And they will leave us alone.

That is the option you automatically discount.

Karl: You've fallen for the fallacy that having ballots automatically means no bullets. If only it were true!

It is not democracy that stops the use of bullets in order to achieve objectives.

It is LIBERTY that stops the use of bullets in order to achieve objectives.

In democracy, there are always 49% who lose.

In libety, everyone wins.

Even with the changes in Iraq, there is still very little liberty. You say I discount those changes. I say that you terribly overestimate them.

I have fallen for no fallacy. I did not say that everyone would be happy or have liberty in Iraq. I do not believe they will live in Libertarian heaven. I said that if they vote in an Islamic fundamentalist government, so be it. As long as they drop violence against us. I couldn't really care less if they live in Libertarian utopia. That derives from the principles of our Constitution here. Let them live how they wish there according to their own Constitution.

Democracy for Iraq is ultimately a tool to defeat violent Islamic extremism. That is the strategy being applied. Only the future will tell if it works.

As far as LIBERTY for the rest of the world, maybe showing the way here first would work better. A long way to go on that one.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Karl wrote: ...as long as they drop violence against us.

Iraq committed no violence against us. Nor were they in the process of committing any violence against us. How can they "drop" something that they weren't "picking up" in the first place? Their WMD program had already been shut down, as the inspectors had claimed and as our experience since the invasion has proven to be true.

Karl wrote: Democracy for Iraq is ultimately a tool to defeat violent Islamic extremism. That is the strategy being applied. Only the future will tell if it works.

It is a poorly chosen tool with a checkered history. We have much better options than that for our primary strategy, and we should use them. I'm not saying that democracy as a tool has no use--it has some minor value. I'm saying it's foolish and dangerous for the US to depend upon it as our main strategem.

Libertarian TV,

We are fighting a network woven throughout the world that has been organizing against us for years. This is larger than, but inclusive of, Iraq. Iraq simply happens to be one of the fields of battle.

I assume your mainstream strategy is to simply withdraw from the world and say mea culpa? They'll come after us any way.

I appreciate all of your thoughtful responses to my recent postings above, especially those of Lib TV. And yeah, I know the following is "off-topic." I don't know where else to go with it today. In an attempt to deal with the sad state of troubling current affairs like the Downing Street memo pro-actively, I have formed my own personal strategic response. I would like to share it with this forum (or a more appropriate one) for feedback.

Here, as follows, is a thumbnail of my current position, for what it is worth. I hope that some budding libertarian activists may find it encouraging.

To make my point, I will assume that no cataclysmic change in the world order and political power structures occur over the next three years. Thus, I speculate that Bush and his band of neo-cons will continue to misguide our republic into the further entropy of our liberties, continued military entanglements abroad, a squandering of our treasury and erosion of our status of esteem among nations and individuals worldwide.

The brightest light at the end of this three-year long tunnel is a Libertarian Party presidential victory in 2008. This could happen if enough voters understand and believe that our new Libertarian president will immediately direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to order the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq (and the rest of the world) as safely and quickly as possible. The Iraq mess will be solved and our new, improved republic will be launched.

I am inclined to think that this is the only plank we need in our platform to win the election.

Isn't this the easiest "sell" for voters who are otherwise ignorant of libertarianism.

I know little about the behind-the-scenes workings of the LP. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much knowledge to know a lot more about libertarianism than 99% of my fellow citizens. I do know that there is a draft proposal circulating among LP members to change the membership model. I propose that the LP, while they are at it, draft a proposal to change the LP nomination process.

We need national candidates much earlier in the process than in previous elections. Last year, it was so obvious that we were too little and way too late. The presidential campaign is the single best publicity and PR mechanism we have. For me it was the first time in over nine election cycles that I was excited about participating in politics. Now that the presidential election is over, I am sinking into apathy again. Let's launch our election efforts early, energize our constituency and start now to recruit the millions who want a clear, easy, dignified and workable plan on ending our lunatic foreign policy.

I've enjoyed reading the debate between Lib TV and Karl. Both of you debate civilly, which is nice to see.

I tend to side with Lib TV, though. It seems like all too many Americans, Karl, you are arguing from a short-term knowledge or acknowledgment of history.

Yes, they ( "the terrorists", the Islamic terrorists ) have been after us for years, but how conveniently we Americans forget that we (our Gov.) set up shop in their backyards and have told them how to live for even longer.

I'm pretty sure our foreign policy could find 'infestations' of terrorists everywhere we go, because we're the carriers.

All right, let me say this: Let's not accuse one who disagrees with the popular opinion of being "ignorant of history". I gotta go with Karl on this one. Mike, are you saying that we are ignorant of "revised" history, or historical facts? Because if the LP is going to be Liberal under another name, then stop the train and let me off. Some of the arguments I've read seems to point the finger back at us for breeding the terrorists. It's not our fault that the majority of the Muslim world is in the dark ages, and I, personally am sick of this nation being blamed for the hardships and ignorance of intolerant and barbaric people. We have given them the means to enter the 21st century: without a bloodthirsty, sadistic leader who believes that his own people are nothing but fodder for his own fan club and twisted experiments. Hussein is NO different than Adolf Hitler, and anyone who suggests that it was a mistake to oust Hitler is instantly crucified and denounced as racist and twisted. Why is that? If Hitler was commiting his atrocities nowadays, would we still fret and wring our hands over his "human rights" and appoint a committee of Germans to make sure his rights aren't violated? Come on, folks! Germany's defeat was neither quick nor painless. And it's no less worthy of a cause to cleanse the world (yes, the world) of his kind of leadership.
Karl, I never said you weren't behind the troops, I said that Troops and the Conflict must be supported to fruition, then get 'em home.
By the way, we would do well to demand that an oil rich country finance it's own rebuilding rather than send billions of our dollars over there. We've bled enough, let 'em pay for thier own mistakes.
And my apologies to the gentleman who also suggested that the U.N. itself is to blame for the lack of WMD found. I was afraid I was the only one who saw that, which is truly frightening.
Bill

I just finished the post by Michael Simmons that facing a dishonorable discharge is preferable to facing the barrel of a gun. Mr. Simmons, there are things worse than death, but someone with a lack of personal honor may not see that.
I just thank God that George Washington and his fellowmen didn't feel that way.
Bill

Sorry, Karl, I just caught that I misread the answer to my first post. I'll try to read closer when I answer a post.
Bill

Reading this debate, someone could certainly come away with the conclusion that Liberatarians are; 1) solidly into "Bush bashing"; and 2) possibly against the use of military force in all cases.

As for 2) while I am opposed to this war because it is un-constitutional and I believe immoral, this does not mean that I am opposed to the use of military force on our part in general, nor (as many democrats argue) that it would all be ok if we had simply gone through the u.n. I simply beleive that we should engage in war only in defense of the rights of individuals in this country. It also seems to me that if you expect to solve any kind of problem you have to use reason, and that in turn means logical consistency. You have to start with some set of principles and follow the logic of where they lead. Doing otherwise is simply emotionally respoding rather than rational thinking. (I'm not accusing any one of the latter here.) I think that on average libertarians start with the principles that Jefforson and his contemporaries accepted that the only legitimate function of a government is to protect the rights of the individuals who formed the government for that purpose. From here we get to the problem with ignoring the Constitution on principle.

In the current context this means the president ordering the milirary to execute a war without a proper declaration as the Constitution requires. On this point both the president and most members of congress are equally guilty of violating their oaths of office, and it is not unreasonable to point out how we wouldn't be in this mess had we stuck to the constitution. (That includes all of the foreign interventionism that the government has been involved in that led us to this point. The opinions of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson are well known on this point. If anyone doubts it simply lookup Washington's farewell address.) As for what this has to do with getting out of the problem we are now in, again we can either grasp blindly for solutions or we can try to find one based on principle. I would think that the solution above ascribed to M. Badnarik is the correct one.

As for 1) let me say that while I largely agree with the anti-Bush attitude expresed here, I was every bit as anti-Clinton for his un-Constitutional actions involving the use of the military in Bosnia and Sudan and many other places. When Clinton was in office, most of the pro-Clinton people I knew simply accused me of being a "right-wing-republican" rather than answer my criticisms of his actions. Now the really pro-Bush people I know simply accuse me of going along with the "leftist media".

I agree that bashing Bush won't do much for building the party. But it's not just about building the party. The whole reason for building the party is to move the government back to its only legitimate function, that of protecting the rights of individuals. (Doing anything else automatically means infringing on some individual's rights.) For this reason you have to be consistent. For the purpose of building the party people need to not only point out the errors of the republicans, but how the democrats have done the same things, and how had the libertarians been in power (and therefore, had the principles of the Declaration and rules in the Constitution been followed) these errors would not have occured, and would not occur in the future.

Jason

In a macabre sort of way, it has been interesting to be both a party to this debate and a spectator to the reaction it has engendered. That said, it is also clear to me that those of us who side with the non-aggression principle in ALL its forms have a long, long way to go in the battle we fight.

Karl, you wrote: "I assume your mainstream strategy is to simply withdraw from the world and say mea culpa? They'll come after us any way."

Why do you assume that? What possible reason have I given you to assume that Karl? I believe in self-defense. Do you truly understand the meaning of that term? Self-defense means defending oneself using violence if necessary against those who attack or threaten to attack us, by taking the battle (whether on the battlefield or in diplomacy or in the courts or in any other venue) to those who attack us. It does NOT mean diverting our resources away from that battle in order to promote democracy, and it's not a battle you can win by promoting democracy. Democracy, after all, has little respect for the non-aggression principle.

Someone (I don't remember whom) raised the question about whether the Islamic fanatics respect the non-aggression principle. Clearly they do not. But what some of you don't seem to understand is that it's not necessary for them to understand or even value it!

The purpose of the non-aggression principle is to defeat aggression, and it is uniquely suited above all other philosophies to win that battle. This is true because it is not just a philosophy. It is also a statement about life.

When people view aggression being countered by non-aggression, they see a clear contrast that is unusual and surprising. So far, this contrast has been so rarely seen that few are even familiar with it. But when those few have been lucky enough to see it, they finally see that life does not have to be an endless series of being prey to aggressors or else becoming an aggressor in order to fight aggressors. They see that there is a third option. It is the third option that attracts and has the great potential to unite the world in a way that neither aggression nor pacifism can.

But the clarity of the contrast gets immediately lost when the advocates of non-aggression acquiesce to the morality of aggression. That's what many of us believe that you guys are advocating...acquiescence to the philosophy of aggression as a principle form of self-defense.

Iraq is only now a battlefield because we made it one. We. Not Al Qaeda. What is the lesson to be learned from this colassal blunder? DON'T FIGHT THE WRONG WAR! THE CONSEQUENCES WILL BE DISASTROUS!

You don't believe it? The consequences are already disastrous because of Iraq, although perhaps you can't see it. While the initial Bush strategy was certainly highly flawed, at least he did one thing right for a short time. He went after Bin Laden. But then, he inexplicably slowed the effort before it was complete and redirected our focus on Iraq, and Bin Laden got away. We are now mired in two wars we cannot win, because how can you win a war for liberty in a land that is not yet ready for liberty? And how can you capture a master criminal with global connections if you don't devote all your attention to doing so?

America's leaders are so overconfident because they believe they can do both. And by doing both, they are losing both battles.

Meanwhile, Bin Laden watches and smiles. He laughs at us, because he knew that there were so many among us who would be so easily distracted from who our true enemies are. It's what he has counted on more than anything else...and he was right!

Many of us who believe that the non-aggression principle is being wrongly applied by some members of our party in their analysis. But the problem is so much worse that this. There is a black-and-whiteness to the thinking of our opponents within the party. It goes something like this: If you're not in favor of the war in Iraq, you're a pacifist. If you're not completely behind everything that Bush is doing, if you have the temerity to question any of it, you are a liberal. If you're not with us, you're against us.

There is no middle ground in this thought process. It is deliberate oversimplification for the purpose of pidgeonholing the opposition, so that the opposition's arguments don't have to be considered with any depth. It's an approach and a tactic learned by current generations from movies, television, popular novels, public education, and a host of other major influences.

I agree with Bill that Mike was incorrect to say that Karl was ignorant of history. The correct phrase would be that Karl was ignoring certain aspects of history, and this is true.

I appreciate Brent's comments. I agree that we need to win a presidential election. I would only point out that we can't reasonably expect to do so until we have learned to win at the local and then at the state levels. You can't learn to run until you've learned to crawl, and you can't learn to fly a jet plane until you've learned a whole lot more beyond that. It's just not realistic to assume we can simply win the presidential election of 2008 without first learning to win on the local level. You want to fight your apathy Brent? That's where the battle should be fought...at the local level. It's hard work. It seems almost hopeless until you get started at it. But that's where the initial battles of the war will be won.

Bill is sick of this nation being blamed for the ignorance of intolerant and barbaric people. I appreciate the thought, but is it truly relevant to this discussion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that anyone here has advocated any such thing. Once again, our opponents have invented a "truth" that is in fact a lie, created for the purpose of avoiding the deeper truth, for the express purpose of branding the opposition in a negative fashion.

OK, let's start from the point that we're all libertarians. So here's my challenge to all of us. What's it going to take for us to put aside our differences and work together in common cause?

I'm willing to commit right here and now to refrain from personal attacks on my fellow libertarians, but instead to find issues we can work together on and agree upon. This means that I will try to consider every aspect of what my opponents in the party say, while being careful and precise in my replies. I will go out of my way to avoid attacking others. If I find that I have unintentionally done so, I will publicly apologize.

Anyone care to join me on this pledge? If so, post here to that effect.

Anyone else here willing to join me?

Mike M,

Let's go real long term history. About 632ish Arab muslims from now Saudi Arabia began spreading the faith BY THE SWORD. About 711ish they grabbed the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal)and held it for about 700 years. In 732 Charles Martel defeated a muslim army from crossing into France. In 1529, the Ottoman Suleiman failed in his siege of Vienna. This was the high water mark of Islam's ATTACK on the west.

Somewhere in this process, they captured the land their religion shared with Christians and Jews: Jerusalem. By all accounts, they were smart, tolerant and adminstered it well. Nonetheless, all of this land had been taken by force. Christians and Jews were tolerated, but had to pay a tax. If you were not one of these, you converted or died.

All of this PRECEEDED the first crusade of 1099, which is also portayed as a horrible injustice to the poor muslims. When taken in context, it can be seen as the counterattack it was. Why does the popular media villify Christian armies defending their faith while giving a pass to the purposeful, violent spread of Islam by its armies followed by a multi-century domination of the known world?

Oh yeah! The Ottoman Empire (Muslim) happened to be on the losing side of WWI. That's how the British came along.

I harbor no ill will to Islam itself. But I will not allow the "poor muslim victim of the west" crap to pass. For a very long time, they were the most advanced people in the world. While the west may bear some guilt for taking advantage, the "poor muslim" of today moved backward in time of his own accord.

Libertarian TV,

You said: "When people view aggression being countered by non-aggression, they see a clear contrast that is unusual and surprising. So far, this contrast has been so rarely seen that few are even familiar with it."

OK. I'll go so far as to try and understand what you mean by this. It will take some time. And I may not believe it later. My first image of it is Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King. Didn't end so well in the short term for those guys. Not sure I'm signing up for that as national defense policy.

You said: "Meanwhile, Bin Laden watches and smiles. He laughs at us, because he knew that there were so many among us who would be so easily distracted from who our true enemies are. It's what he has counted on more than anything else...and he was right!"

He is one man in an organization. And we ARE still after him.

You said: "I agree with Bill that Mike was incorrect to say that Karl was ignorant of history. The correct phrase would be that Karl was ignoring certain aspects of history, and this is true."

See my previous post.

You said: "It goes something like this: If you're not in favor of the war in Iraq, you're a pacifist. If you're not completely behind everything that Bush is doing, if you have the temerity to question any of it, you are a liberal. If you're not with us, you're against us."

If I thought that, I would have joined the Republicans, not you. However, as you have noted I do support Bush's intent in the war on terror and yes I believe that includes Iraq. I will admit there have been grave misteps and errors by the current administration. These could have been avoided.

You said: "Anyone else here willing to join me?"

Yes.

Karl, Bill and Lib TV,

Just for the record I said it SEEMS Karl is arguing from a short term knowledge OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of history, which from the get-go concedes that I could be right, partially right and wrong, or entirely wrong.

Anyway, I think the fundamental difference isn't in our philosophies, but in what we believe to be truths and facts. Karl believes Iraq was a legitimate enemy. I don't. If I did, I'd be "all for" the invasion of Iraq that's killed over 1500 of our people and seriously wounded thousands more, because it would truly be self-defense. I'd like to believe that if Karl didn't believe Iraq was a legitimate enemy he would be against our invasion of that country.

I don't believe I made a personal attack of any sort, but if it seems that way I apologize.

Lib TV asked if anyone was willing to join him, and like Karl I am too.

O.K. I think I have my ducks in thier respective rows now. I have read at least two posts that insinuate that the U.S. is the blame for terrorist philosophy. I ask Mike and Morgan: would you blame a non-smoking lung cancer patient for his disease?

And Jake, comparing a terrorist attack to being hit by a car or struck by lightning? Well, that depends on if you're outside with a metal pole or playing in traffic, doesn't it? That's why lightning rods and safer cars were invented.

After 9/11, Wake up says you don't need to initiate aggression to defend the country. What do you need? 3,000 more bodies of our own countrymen buried in a pile of rubble?

Let me remind dissenters that our enemies don't care about whether they hit civilian targets or not. These people strap explosives to thier own children, for Pete's sake! Given the opportunity, they WILL attack us again.

M. Simmons said "let the volunteers die". It is Volunteers who have made it possible for you to make that sentiment. It is Volunteers who have died, bled and served so you can sit on some throne of judgement laugh at our sacrifice. It is Volunteers throughout our nations history who have the intestinal fortitude to stand up when they foresaw a tyrant and refused to allow him another inch.

And LibTV, Bin Laden may be laughing at us, but he's laughing over his shoulder as he's running. I don't think we're distracted at all, only branched out. We did it in WWII, and we can do it again.

I hope I didn't alienate anyone, only make them think. And yes, I'm with you. Libertarian views seem to make more sense than any one party I've heard so far. And as a minister of mine once said, "If everyone agrees on everything all the time, there is no need for more than one"
God bless ya'll for giving us an alternative to the mindless arguments and selfish gains of the present political parties.

According to Lib TV "the LP isn't in a position to lead us out of Iraq (since we're not in power.)" This seems obvious to me as I think it must to almost everyone reading these postings. Doesn't it follow, then, that 2008 is the earliest conceivable date that the LP could hope to be "in power" and in a position to have any viable influence upon our Iraq policy.

This timetable gives Jake, Bill, Karl (and all our other libertarian friends who proudly support our military engagements against terrorism) at least three years to learn if their leanings are justified based on the results.

There is no reason to think that the LP will field a presidential candidate in 2008 who is as hawkish as Jake, Bill or Karl on foreign policy. It is 99% more likely that the LP will field a strict "non-aggressor" like Michael Badnarik and the eight LP presidential candidates before him.

So why are we perpetuating this debate in the meantime? Let's just wait and see. In the meantime let's strengthen the party and seek common grounds.

A more poignant topic to discuss, in my opinion, is Lib TV's assertion that "we can't reasonably expect to (win a presidential election) until we have learned to win at the local and then at the state levels." I don't understand. What do you mean by "reasonably expect?" If in 2008 my precinct elects a libertarian candidate for dogcatcher and one for state representative why wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that we could also elect a libertarian for president on the same ballot?

I hope you are not being fatalistic and apologetic for 2008 already, Lib TV.

Whew! With so many replies and comments among each other, it's getting hard to follow all this. And I must admit that I'm going to have to limit my time answering specific questions and challenges, as I have a lot of work to do today. So forgive me if I don't answer each of you as completely as you would wish.

Karl: "My first image of it is Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King. Didn't end so well in the short term for those guys. Not sure I'm signing up for that as national defense policy."

No, you're confusing non-aggression with pacifism. Look again at my definition of non-aggression and try again.

Karl: "He is one man in an organization. And we ARE still after him."

Agreed, but I don't think we're any closer to catching him. That was my point.

For the record Karl, I appreciate the fact that you in particular seem to be making an extra effort to be more precise and less black-and-white in your comments. I see similar efforts from others, but your efforts stand out. Thank you.

Mike, your clarification and apology are both helpful and very classy of you!

Bill: "Bin Laden may be laughing at us, but he's laughing over his shoulder as he's running. I don't think we're distracted at all, only branched out. We did it in WWII, and we can do it again."

How much longer are you willing to be patient before you conclude that we are getting no closer to catching him?

Brent (regarding winning in 2008): What do you mean by "reasonably expect?"

I mean that we have no history of winning elections except in a few local races scattered across the country. In fact, we have never gotten more than 1.2% of the vote in a Presidential election, which we accomplished just once in 1980, 25 years ago. By that standard and our history I conclude that the record strongly suggests that we won't win in 2008 unless there are some highly significant changes in our approach.

More to the point, if the party isn't consistently winning local elections (which are 10000 times easier to win than a national election), what makes you think 2008 is the year we'll miraculously turn things around? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That maxim applies to us as well.

There are a lot of negative things we can all say about the Republicans and Democrats, but there's one positive that we need to learn from. Both of those parties know how to win elections. They do it by building local organizations that link together into state and regional organizations that link together into a national organization. We have appallingly few local or regional organizations of any significance, and our state organizations are skeletal for the most part.

More importantly, there are a number of basics regarding winning local elections that we ignore entirely. I've been buying books on the subject by Reps and Dems who have a history of winning at the local level in order to learn those basics for myself and to apply them. I think this is an activity we all need to undertake. If we don't, 2008 will be another disappointment.

Finally, we are getting somewhere. Let's begin in earnest to identify and implement "some highly significant changes in our (LP's) approach" in winning presidential elections. Lib TV suggests we must do this to succeed. If this is "an activity we all need to undertake" to keep 2008 from becoming "another disappointment" when do we get started? 2007?

Lib TV and others can help us "doomed" ones by sharing some of those Rep's and Dem's "basics" with us that they are reading about.

I am wondering these days why Howard Dean, the Democrat's party chairman, is in the national news nearly every day and our LP party chairman, Michael Dixon, is someone this libertarian wouldn't even recognize if I bumped into him at Hooters.

Every couple of months or so the LP posts a news release on this site. Sometimes Executive Director Joe Seehusen is quoted. Again, I have barely the slightest idea who this person is?

No offense, Michael and Joe. Who is handling you guys? There seems to be dozens of non-profits out there based in the beltway that run circles around us in gaining publicity. Those scary PETA people do lots better. Is it just a matter of money? Or are we sleeping at the switch? Can't we do better on this front?

Bill Wrote: " I have read at least two posts that insinuate that the U.S. is the blame for terrorist philosophy. I ask Mike and Morgan: would you blame a non-smoking lung cancer patient for his "disease?

Bill, I don't blame the US for terrorist philosophy, I blame the US foreign policy for giving them cause to attack us whatsoever. The US government is hardly analogous to a non-smoking lung cancer patient. It's more like a person going into a wolf's den and being surprised when the wolf didn't act like his domesticated dog that sits on command.

One of the biggest mistakes you can make in war is not understanding the nature of your enemy. They are willing to go to extreme lengths, as you've pointed out yourself (strapping bombs to children), to kick us out of their home. Over simplifying them to nothing more than barbaric murderers blinds us to possible solutions. Do you honestly believe US foreign policy has absolutely no blame in driving these people to commit such horrible acts targeted against the US? How long would you let an unwelcome neighbor stay in your home, even one who was only there to help? How long would you let him tell you what is best for you?

I'm upset that our foreign interventionist policy denies us the right to call our actions true self-defense. It's like a beekeeper claiming self-defense against the bees that sting him.

?Will I go willingly into any country, seek out and kill anyone planning another event that will place my daughter and millions of others face to face with trained murderers? Yes.?

So you take the ?shoot first, ask questions later approach?? You see, that is the exact approach that this administration took, and then when they found out they weren?t doing what we said they were doing, all we can do is say, ?whoops?my bad?.
?My Darwinian tool is to ensure the threat to my family, country and way of life dies first!?

And if a couple of thousands of innocent Iraqis die in the process, so be it.

?If this is the way Libertarians defend the Constitution and their neighbors, maybe I have made an error joining.?

Finally, we reach a point that we can agree on. I believe you did make an error joining. That?s because Libertarians realize that the Constitution is a document of principles, and that we should follow those principles no matter how ?out of the mainstream? they may seem. We don?t blindly rush into decisions as grave and overwhelming as this one. In fact, most people forget that Bush once said, ?Trust?but verify.? Perhaps he should follow his own advice. Good news is, I?m sure the Republicans will accept you back into the fold?as long as you sign a loyalty oath stating you?ll never join any other party again.

Are there any countries that exist under a Libertarian government today? I need a long vacation.

Man alive! Some of you guys are brutal. I don't understand this mean-spirited tone that some of us (like digitlburn above) exhibit towards some of the hawkish newbie or wannabe libertarians who are showing up on this site.

If we need to recruit millions of voters in order to advance the libertarian movement into the mainstream, how can we afford to be such ball-busters towards these first few new recruits that are showing up on this site for the 2008 election cycle?

Shouldn't we welcome and show patience towards these individuals? It seems like a few of you dyed-in-the-wool libs "get off" on preying on the uninitiated in some sort of philosophy-cleansing ritual.

My son is the Weapons Officer on a guided missile destroyer of the U.S. Navy. Am I to consider him and the other 1.5 million U.S. miltary personnel "unfit for libertarian duty" because they obviously don't understand our "principles?" What about their friends and loved ones? Not principled enough to be solicited to vote libertarian in the next elections?

I agree with Brent. Digitlburn you gotta calm down! Just because some don't agree on certain issues doesn't mean they should leave the party....unless, of course, you never want to get anywhere as a party!

Getting pissed off because some don't understand the non-aggression principle in the same way we do doesn't help. And it certainly doesn't justify getting...well...aggressive!

To all,

I joined LP for one year based on an idea that it may be the way for the country to go.

I have no real issues with domestic LP ideas as I've researched them. I support them.

Overall, I support foreign policy of LP.

I will need to be convinced on the idea of non-aggression as a viable national defense policy. I am willing to listen.

LP is at a time when they CAN grow. For that you need new supporters. Those would be the "newbies and wannabe's." I may be a new LP member and if my experiences are satisfactory to me, I certainly will continue "wannbe" one.

Fair warning though. I am far from a "newbe or wannabe" out on the streets of the real world. The burden is on you to attract and keep me and people like me. Treat us like pledges in a half-ass college fraternity and you can continue to wallow in your 1% of the vote or whatever it is you have been getting. We'll walk and simply continue to be independents with no particular political or ideological affiliation.

You need new talent. Piss it off at your peril.

Libertarian TV seems to understand this. He has earned my respect in this forum. Many of the rest need to take note.

While I can appreciate Digitlburn's frustration (how did we get to the point where Jeffersonian principles are only something we read about in history books?), I agree completely with Brent, Lib TV and Karl.

Telling people to take a hike because they don't agree is a missed opportunity to convert. Clearly I am not the most gifted of debaters, but people like LibTV who are very articulate can help win people over. And they don't do it by telling people to leave.

And like Karl pointed out, 1% or less of the vote isn't going to move federal policies in the direction of libertarian principles. It would be nice to be in a majority.

Karl,

You're absolutely right. And I think I can say with confidence that you'll find a majority of libertarians are on the same page overall.

Regarding non-aggression...I ask for your patience. It's one of those concepts that one either easily grasps or finds very difficult. There doesn't seem to be any in-between, and I've never figured out to my satisfaction why that is true.

I wish we were face to face. One of my greatest frustrations with the 'Net is that online posting is so very difficult for communication. I can't see your reactions. I can't read your body language. I say this because I've found that it's the subtle, non-rational clues that help me the most when attempting to bridge a communication gap.

The tasks I've been working on today are mind-numbingly boring, which is why I took a little break to read the latest posts here. Unfortunately, I've got to get back to them. (Ugh!)

Karl,
You may have been offended by my choice of words ("newbies and wannabes") above. I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else. In retrospect, it seems to be a poorly chosen phrase that I will refrain from using again.

It was and remains my sincere intention and my recurring theme to promote respect and consideration for your views and participation. My apologies.

I believe that the LP should piggy back on the popularity/advertising power of NORML and ACLU. Why not band together for the benefit of advertisement and exposure? As far as I am aware, these organizations do not ideologically oppose each other.

I know this is not the topic at hand, but there is no blog available for the latest LP topic - the Supreme Court ruling on Medical Marijuana.

FYI: It's 6:50pm on Monday, 6/6/05, and Fox News (Brit Hume) is reporting (or "reporting," depending on your view of mainstream media) on the Downing Street Memo. Here's my summary of what's being said:

Ceci Connolly: The Downing Street memo is not a "smoking gun." It hasn't received much coverage here because it received coverage in England and Tony Blair was reelected anyway. The only thing it seems to indicate is that "intelligence was thin."

Brit Hume: The Downing Street memo didn't get much coverage here because everyone already knew the intelligence was flawed.

Guy #1: The media is not trying to protect George W Bush.

Guy #2: The point is that the intelligence wasn't manipulated, but it was flawed.

Well, that was a short report. If you've been tracking the media's coverage (or "coverage") of the DSM, you can probably get a transcript on the fox site.

This is the weakest debate I have ever read. Who cares about Bush bashing...he deserves it, maybe you don't want to hear it....it's still true. He talks like an idiot, he lies over and over, he did skip out on his service, the deficit is huge due to him, jobs low, poverty up, envionmental wreckage, missing Iraq money. I can go on and on, jeez people. Nixon was impeached for a stupid break in, Clinton was impeached for a BJ and you want to still give Bushey a chance after all his lies. Impeach him no, maybe we'll save some face in the world and move on.

Tru Lib,

50.8% of the voters selected Bush. At least some of them are potentially LP supporters. What makes you think that ANY of them will want to listen to us if our main thrust is to bash Bush?

I agree that Bush has been horrendous in most ways. But other than giving you the opportunity to vent your spleen, what will bashing him accomplish? How does it contribute to your vision of helping the LP win local, state, and national elections?

Those who dislike Bush won't like us more for bashing him. Those who like Bush won't either.

In fact, I know very few people who like to be around other people who are negative all the time. And bashing is the ultimate in negative.

So please, tell us your plan for the LP. What will bashing Bush accomplish?

Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

I don't know if this is "offensive" but I feel this statement applies here. If too edgy, please remove this post - I'm not trying to offend. The point is that I'd hate for people to get pissed off here over bickering. Chill out.

Karl,

Just for the record and in case you are still wondering what the libertarian movement "is really all about" and as has been mentioned previously, not all libertarians share the same views as those vocally against the war in Iraq. There were a lot of libertarians, I think, for it. At the time I was against it. I am clearly a minimal statist (if you knew my positions) so that I am definitely a libertarian. I've been a member of the LP for several years now as well as a supporter of the Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice.

It is actually the insurgent activity since we took possession of Iraq that makes me think in retrospect that it was a lot more justified than I had thought it was originally. This makes Iraq a threat to America -- not because their country will declare war against our country, but because of the reasons many conservatives have been proposing. That war *is* about defending the rights of *individuals* in this country -- much more so than to expell "the British" from "America", for instance.

Plenty of people were saying, then as they were now, that it was just all about John Hancock's merchant trade interests, for instance, and so on. When you consider how the British treated the colonists as opposed to how Saddam treated the Iraqis, it was far less justified then than now. Of course, you do not hear about all the innocent people that died in that war, that perhaps didn't even support the war that was errupting right in front of them. "But, you see, they defended the rights of individuals to fight an enemy on their own soil." And no one mentions those that were not their enemies but not their soldiers -- just their neighbors who wanted to be left to live in peace under the British -- that they also sacrificed *on their own soil*.

But nowadays you *will* hear about it -- if so much as one person's rights are violated CNN or Dateline or someone will do an expose on it.

Incidentally, I doubt Bin Laden is sitting back laughing at us. I think the network of enemies that Karl speaks of that Bin Laden is a part of are sitting around wishing they hadn't bombed our buildings. I think they have lost a great deal of credibility amongst their own people and never imagined such dire consequences for their cause as THIS -- two countries invaded due to their actions.

It really takes a certain k