Now that the ridiculous platform plank that called for defaulting on debt instead of repaying debt is gone, maybe we can do something on this. Iraq is going to be "the issue" on 08 - but I think the LP should pull a Perot and make the national debt and entitlement reform at least a co-issue along for the ride.

Framed in the proper manner, it's the one issue that neither major party has a solution for or a defense against. Tie the war into it, propose a real solution combining spending cuts with entitlement reform, and simply tell the truth. Propose this on a united front, from our POTUS candidate on down to state level candidates. Tell the American people we can no longer afford guns and butter, and that we have no more time to wait.

Iraq will fester, but outside of being for 100% withdrawal, the LP has to give the public something to vote FOR on the domestic side this time around. Fiscal responsibility and a end to institutionalized curruption is the thing to do.

Steve Kubby on Iraq:

http://www.kubby2008.com/node/2

And on taxes and spending:

http://www.kubby2008.com/node/20

The Democrats actually have no stand on Iraq. Hillary voted for the war and is only against it because she thinks it'll help her get elected. Only the Libertarians opposed the war from day 1, which is something the electorate needs to know.

Campaigning on government waste is a good idea. After all, the Dems have "The King of Pork" Robert Byrd and the Reps have Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stephens. Government waste is a much better issue than Iraq anyways, especially since Iraq was started so that Dick Cheney's previous employer Haliburton could get some business. There's so much government waste and voters love to vote out wasteful politicians. It's the perfect issue, provided that it doesn't stick Hillary Clinton in the White House. We only made it through those 8 years of Bill Clinton because he slept with everything that moved. We don't need 4 years of Hillary Clinton, especially since she won't be sleeping around for those 4 years.

I like the way you guys think. It's this type of stradegy that I think is lacking in the LP. Keep it up!

Hillary Clinton is no friend of peace.

http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/02/01/when-hillary-attacks/

Oh yeah, she wants to invade Iran, too.

NY Times is reporting this, as usual, with a leftist slant to it. The GOP did not block debate on the issue, but blocked a motion to table the issue, meaning they blocked a vote on it in order to continue debate. Not that I am pro-GOP, but we can at least get the facts correct before relying on something like the NY Times to do our fact-checking for us.

Forget the BS non-binding resolutions, the LP should pressure the Democrats to stop funding the unjust and illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush wants them to steal and extort another $90 billion from taxpayers for this continuing genocide and mass murder in the Middle East, and so far the cowardly and spineless Democrats are predictably caving in and betraying all the voters who gave them a Congressional majority this past November.

The Libertarian Party should be there in force to let the Democrats now that a true antiwar party stands ready to take the antiwar growing majority vote away from them if they keep betraying the reason they got the majority in the first place.

There will be a Match on the Pentagon on March 17
to protest the fourth anniversary of the Iraq invasion. I hope the LP will be there in force.

Veterans for Peace is also sponsoring a blockade
of Congress members offices to get them to not vote for the $90 Billion additional tax extortion for mass murder in Iraq. The LP should join!

From their site:

Later this month, the Bush administration will hand Congress a request for another $90,000,000,00 for the war. Not since the beginning of
this criminal operation have we had a better chance of shutting it down. The Democratic majority will not defund the war of their own
free will. But that's where the Occupation Project and VFP come in.

Across the nation, people are signing up to occupy their local congressional offices until they get a signed pledge from their Congressperson and Senators that they'll vote against the $90 Billion
supplemental spending bill. Veterans For Peace can provide a crucial contribution in this effort. People in peace groups all over the country will take heart when they see VFP members throw their hats in the ring. We can provide important moral support to greatly expand participation in this important endeavor.

So far, actions are set to happen in the following locations: Minnesotta, Des Moines, Portland, Fairbanks, St. Louis, South Bay, California, North Alabama, Los Angeles, Illinois, Maine, North West
Ohio, and Seattle.

Voices for Creative Nonviolence is organizing the Occupation Project, a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending
the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq. The campaign will begin the first week of February 2007 with occupations at the offices of
Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding.

Your headline is not only inaccurate, but demonstrates a lack of understanding how the Senate of the United States operates. (And also, incidently, repeats the misrepresentations of Liberals and their media lackeys.)

The Republicans did not "block" debate. By voting against cloture, they voted to CONTINUE debate; what they blocked was a vote on the issue.

"GOP Blocks Vote on Iraq Resolution" would have been a far better description of what happened.

John Shuey:

There are very few people on this planet that know how the Senate operates and most of them are either Senators or former Senators. The Senate's arcane rules are frequently misinterpreted and confused by laymen.

What actually happened was that the Republicans filibustered on the motion to proceed to the Iraq War resolution. The Democrats were unable to obtain cloture. So in reality the resolution never was debated nor voted on, because it was never allowed to come before the Senate as a pending motion. There was a small amount of debate, but the debate was on the motion to proceed, not on the resolution itself. If you wish to know more go to http://thomas.loc.gov and check out the Senate proceedings for February 5th.

But, we can agree they will screw it up either way, right? They must cut the funding to end the war, because Bush would never sign a law taking away the right to fight the war that he was granted a few years ago, and they'll never get enough votes to over rule him. Just creating a non-binding resolution with no teeth is just politicians voicing their opinions without acting on them in the real world. I still don't understand why anyone votes for these jokers.

A resolution is about the only step they can take short of cutting the funding. Since they see doing that as hurting the troops and not the president they won't do that. If they did the American people would (rightly in my opinion) fry them.
Unless another major shift in opinion or power occurs there is no way to stop the war pre-2008. Sorry guys but that's the way it is. I dislike the congress as much (if not more) than most of you, but to blame them for not doing something they can't do is not fair.
Hindsight being 20/20 you can say they shouldn't have voted to authorize force in the first place and hold them accountable for those votes.
However it is interesting to see how Democrats that voted for the war get more of a pass on it from the anti-war left than Republicans.

The Congress can do much to thwart the President. They can stop all his nominations dead. That includes all nominations for military promotion. Any Senator that had a pair, could tie any attempts by the Senate to fund the war effort into total knots. A courageous Senator could simply stay on the floor of the Senate and object to every unanimous consent request and keep the Senate tied up in procedure, making it impossible to pass a military appropriations bill.

What the Democrats SHOULD be doing is using the Congressional subpoena power to drag the administration across the coals and to keep the admininstration off balance.

If I was in Congress, particularly in the Senate, I would be doing everything I could to tharwt war funding.

"A resolution is about the only step they can take short of cutting the funding. Since they see doing that as hurting the troops and not the president they won't do that. If they did the American people would (rightly in my opinion) fry them."

Cutting the funding would end the war. The troops would have to come home. Most Americans want the war to end NOW and that's why they elected a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Unfortunately, and predictably, the Democrats will betray the American people and vote for the funding (serial mass robbery) anyway.

If enough people rise up and use every means at their disposal to demand that the Democrats cut off the funds and end the war, it could happen. Unfortunately, most people are either too apathetic, too discouraged, or too unaware of the various means at their disposal to do this.

But those of us who are aware, unwilling to give up, and not so lulled into complacency as to shrug it off on someone else should certainly try anyway. Who knows, we might just embarass the SOBs into doing the right thing and defunding this monstrous war after all.

So, I'm curious, is the Libertarian Party now becomming the Party of Surrender? Should we just hand over our country to the Islamo-Fascists without a fight?

Does anyone in the Libertarian Party care about civil liberties any more? Have you seen how these Radical Muslims treat women?

Just remember, if they take over our country: Your wife will be forced to wear an ugly black burqa from head to toe, you will be forced down to kneel to Allah five times a day at the point of a gun, your marijuana-smoking buddy will be thrown in jail for life, booze and gambling will be outlawed and loose women will be stoned to death in your town square.

Look what they're doing in the Netherlands! Look at how they murdered civil liberties advocates Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh.

It can't happen here? Try to catch a cab at the Minneapolis airport these days. Or ask the 6 Jewish women who were gunned down by a crazed Islamo-Fascist at the Seattle Jewish Community Center last summer.

We Libertarians need to be on the forefront of this battle against Islamo-Fascism. If anything we need to be critizing Bush and the Republicans for not fighting this War hard enough.

Eric Dondero, Member
Libertarian Defense Caucus

Eric, fighting the War on Terror by taking our civil liberties away gives the terrorists just what they want. They know they can't really take over our country so they give a shot here and there and make us destroy ourselves from within. I am all for advocating for civil liberties in Muslim countries but not at the expense of losing them here. Too many have been taken from us already. Our government has no right to take away our rights and due process in fighting ANY war, especially one where the enemy achieves a tremendous victory by us being hypocritical.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-- Thomas Jefferson

“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither”
-- Thomas Jefferson

Yeah, I like T.J.

Coach, it's unfortunate even some libertarians just don't get that. It usually comes from them not personally being inconvenienced, but ignoring the assault on liberties while they are against the few will certainly lead to greater assaults later on the many. Give a little now, lose a lot later.

It is worth noting that Mr. Dondero is listed as a central figure to the establishment of the RLC, a group that has since disavowed him due to his being far more conservative than libertarian.

Take for example this blather on "Islamo-Fascists" and the typical conservative threat; i.e.; "Teh Dark Faces is Gunna GITCHA!!!"

A society that endorses, embraces, and idylizes (not that's not idolizes) liberty -- freedom, independent thought, and self-responsibility (worded that way for a reason) is inherently immune to the assaults upon its liberty that any "islamo-fascist" might engage upon.

It's called "*HONEST* moral superiority" Mr. Dondero. Combined with economic might, it alone will more than suffice to ensure the safety of the nation.

"Just remember, if they take over our country: Your wife will be forced to wear an ugly black burqa from head to toe, you will be forced down to kneel to Allah five times a day at the point of a gun, your marijuana-smoking buddy will be thrown in jail for life, booze and gambling will be outlawed and loose women will be stoned to death in your town square."

Right. And if we hadn't of nuked Japanese (twice) we'd all be speaking Japanese right now.

You're a riot, Eric! You've been warmongering in the guise of a "libertarian" for the last five years!

Frankly, anyone who suggests that we nuke Mecca (as you did a couple of years ago) has forfeited the right to call himself/herself a libertarian.

Anyone who runs a radio show that promotes Rudy Giuliani as a libertarian-friendly candidate either has no sense of libertarianism stands for--or worse--knowns what it stands for but deliberately distorts it.

So anyone who disagrees with your stand on Iraq/War on Terror is not a true Libertarian?
I am not for violating the constitutional rights of citizens of the United States. However there is a group of people, some call it Islamo-Fascism, that is trying to bring down the West through terror. Whatever you want to call this group something must be done.
The primary (and some here would say only) purpose of government is to protect people as much as possible from harm.
I have seen much the same people here who advocate withdrawing all military personnel outside our borders also be in favor of completely open borders.
I asked the question in another thread and will ask it again here - how do you propose to fight them?
I know Paulie (and probably some others) believe that the threat is not real. They have paranoid conspiracy theories about Bush being behind 9/11. I personally don't believe the government can carry out anything as well-planned as 9/11. If you are one of those the debate is moot and pointless.
For those that don't believe in the Bush/Darth Sidious theory (like the character in Star Wars being behind both sides of a war started to gain more power) something must be done.
If we do as you say and pull out everywhere. We must have very strict border/airport entry security. I know most of you are against that. But trust me the great herd of american sheep will give up freedom for security in a heartbeat if another 9/11 happens. Why do you think Patriot passed in the first place?
You can't have your cake, eat it too and have another piece. Something, somewhere has got to give.
I personally prefer attacking countries that fund, arm and promote terrorism in their backyard rather than waiting for them to come here. I dislike much of Patriot. However I know if we don't kill them where they live, they will kill us where we live. Then people will call out for measures that make Patriot look like the Bill of Rights.

John Brandimore, et al.:

I am, of course, willing to tolerate dissenting views in the LP. Every political party has factions and the LP is no different in that regard.

However, I will at the same time stand firm in my own views. I promote the immediate and unconditional return of all U.S. forces where ever they may be in the world. And I do promote open borders.

9/11 was, at the very least, a failure of U.S. Human intelligence gathering. Whether or not the government was forewarned or actually complicit is not a question that can be answered or even needs to be answered. Future 9/11 can be foiled via better use of both technology and human intelligence.

If I was in the position of being a Libertarian President, the first actions of my administration would be, not necessarily in this order:

1. As soon as I took the oath of office, sign an executive order withdrawing U.S. troops worldwide within 14 days.

2. Immediately after 1. above, arrest former President Bush, VP Cheney, Rumsfeld and numerous others for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

3. Purge the U.S. executive branch totally of Neo-conservative and Zionist supporters. Purge the Military of officers known to have aggressionist views.

4. Sequester all economic and military aid to Israel and all other nations.

5. Order all executive branch officials to immediately stop enforcing the Patriot Act.

6. Order the F.B.I. to stop any drug enforcement activities and to totally focus on anti-terrorist enforcement.

7. Order the F.B.I. and the Border Control to stop hindering immigration but instead to screen immigres for terrorist ties.

8. Order radiation detectors into widespread use.

There would be more, of course, but that is a good start. There is much positive action that can be taken that neither involves war nor infringes on civil liberties.

How would any of those measures stop terrorist attacks?
How do we improve our intelligence if we don't have agents in other countries?
How do we stop terrorists from carrying out attacks when they can simply walk across the border?
What good does a radiation detector do until after a nuclear explosion? Even if they have them people aren't going to take them everywhere. I have a rifle but I don't take it with me to the store.
With a porous border how is the FBI and Border Control going to screen these emigres? And if they're not to hinder immigration what do they do when they find terrorists?
The other actions you mention are all about punishing people who support the current administration and, even if justified, would do nothing to prevent attacks.

If the F.B.I. is not so busy harassing recreational drug users, it stands to follow that they will have more time and resources to devote to law inforcement of a more useful nature. The sheer number of agents that would become available by ending the war on drugs would, in itself, greatly help domestic security.

I am not at all against having human intelligence agents in other countries. In fact, human intelligence is vital and should be conducted vigorously.

It is much easier to monitor a border if your traffic is constricted to a few entry points. Any body crossing at other points will stand out like sore thumbs, rather than blending in with the mass of immigrants.

Radiation detectors can detect minute amounts of radiation and could detect smuggled radioactive substances.

"So anyone who disagrees with your stand on Iraq/War on Terror is not a true Libertarian?"

paul: I'd have to say so, yes.

"I am not for violating the constitutional rights of citizens of the United States. However there is a group of people, some call it Islamo-Fascism, that is trying to bring down the West through terror. Whatever you want to call this group something must be done."

paul: Stop provoking them.

And worry a little more about the fascist, privacy-violating, trillion-dollar costing measures undertaken by the Bush-Clinton gang
in the name of fighting this phantom menace.

Which does nothing about the Islamic threat except make it worse, while itself being a far greater threat to our freedom than the Islamists can ever hope to be.

"The primary (and some here would say only) purpose of government is to protect people as much as possible from harm.
I have seen much the same people here who advocate withdrawing all military personnel outside our borders also be in favor of completely open borders."

paul: Closed borders will no more protect you than trillion dollar "defense" budgets or heimland stupidity. Lots of drugs and other contraband get into maximum security prisons.

How are you going to make the whole US more secure than a maximum security prison?

"I asked the question in another thread and will ask it again here - how do you propose to fight them?"

paul: By getting rid of the things which make them mad at America:

American occupation of middle eastern nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, and mass murder, looting and rape Americans and their proxy armies are carrying on there.

American bases in their holy land of Arabia.

Financial and military aid to Israel and the secular regimes of the Muslim world which are the enemy of the Islamists. End all foreign aid.

A well armed citizenry, true free trade (not globally managed trade) with all and alliances with none, and financial privacy (secret banking) are the best defense this country could ever have.

"I know Paulie (and probably some others) believe that the threat is not real. They have paranoid conspiracy theories about Bush being behind 9/11."

Nothing paranoid about it. I've shown you the links to extensive evidence before.

By the way, the regime's account of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory, just a different one.

The regime engages in conspiracy theories all the time. District attorneys and prosecutors build their careers on them.

"I personally don't believe the government can carry out anything as well-planned as 9/11."

paul: What about the Manhattan Project? Gulf of Tonkin? Remember the Maine? Ever read the book "Day of Deceit" about Pearl Harbor? Know anything about operation Northwoods, MK-ultra, Reichstag fire in Germany?

"If you are one of those the debate is moot and pointless."

paul: Why? I'll grant the regime's paranoid and disproven "19 Arabs" conspiracy theory for the sake of argument, and I can still make my case jsut fine.

Which conspiracy carried out 9/11 is hardly central to my case.

"For those that don't believe in the Bush/Darth Sidious theory (like the character in Star Wars being behind both sides of a war started to gain more power) something must be done."

Paul: Actually, that's a great analogy. Something must be done all right, which is to stop Bush from becoming the Emperor. Impeach his ass now! Make the Democrat cowards stand up on their hind legs, and defund the war.

These are the things they were elected to do. They are in dereliction of duty.

It is the moral duty of each and every member of Congress to introduce impeachment of Bush, Cheney and their cronies now. This includes Ron Paul.

"If we do as you say and pull out everywhere. We must have very strict border/airport entry security."

Paul: It won't do you any good. Better yet, just stop inviting trouble.

"I know most of you are against that. But trust me the great herd of american sheep will give up freedom for security in a heartbeat if another 9/11 happens. Why do you think Patriot passed in the first place?"

Paul: I'm well aware of that. When looking at who did it, ask the same questions detectives ask: who benefitted the most?

"I personally prefer attacking countries that fund, arm and promote terrorism in their backyard rather than waiting for them to come here."

paul: If Osama was not a CIA agent, that would have been his line.

"I dislike much of Patriot. However I know if we don't kill them where they live, they will kill us where we live."

paul: Why would they wait for you to do that? They can kill you where you live just as easily now, especially with much of the national guard deployed overseas.

"Then people will call out for measures that make Patriot look like the Bill of Rights."

paul: Which is exactly the purpose of the attacks.
Both the ones that already happened, and the ones that have notyet happened.