Libertarians turn against Neil Boortz [Title Mine]

Neal's Nuze ^ | December 8th, 2003 | Neil Boortz

[looscnnn]

"As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks"

Really, what about Salman Pak? I don't think we have heard all the details yet about connections with 9/11. There are most likely details that have not be found yet and some that have not been released yet. That is like the anti-war crowd saying there were never really any WMDs, because we have not found any proof. We just haven't found it yet. I supported the war, but not on emotional terms and not because of oil.

[DeuceTraveler]

Really? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1035320/posts

[looscnnn]

What about the Reform Party? I am thinking of joining up with them, as I am feeling your pain.

[eyespysomething]

That's odd. I write him on a regular basis, he has never responded, but he has read some of my emails on the air, and I even got put on NealzNuze one time!!

I don't know who responded to you, but I will bet it wasn't Neal Boortz. He has no need to curse like that, he is opne of the best debaters I have ever heard.

Something about that doesn't sound right.

Of course, unless you wanted to argue abortion or gays-choosing-their-lifestyle with him. But I'm pretty sure he wouldn't send an email full of profanities.

[DeuceTraveler]

I'm right there with you, and although the French government saw its own interests, the French people were definitely for the liberty they felt their own government was surpressing.

[LowCountryJoe]

...As it turned out, Iraq didn't have anything to do with those attacks...

Maybe, maybe not! I think there were many factors that led to the decision of war. Let's just stick to the fact that Iraq's leadership stuck their middle finger at us and the United Nations for too damn long! At some point one has to follow through with the consequences that are laid out if an undesirable behavior still is exhibited.

[billbears]

That is like the anti-war crowd saying there were never really any WMDs, because we have not found any proof. We just haven't found it yet

And when will 'yet' come to the realization that they just weren't there? How hard is it for 'conservatives' to accept the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, the reasons given for the war weren't the actual reasons? That if some of those reasons were shared, many 'conservatives' would bolt like lightning from the agenda. Over $200 billion dollars later when will we find these weapons?

We were told to wait for Kay's report. Kay searched and found nothing more than rudimentary labs, if they could even be called that. How many more searches will it take? Surely with the cutting edge technology available to the DoD, if they were able to pinpoint where these weapons were (remember Powell's presentation of 'facts'?), surely the same technology should be able to tell us where these weapons are now.

What's the next nation on the neocon agenda? Iran? Well surely they must be in Iran...

[bc2]

Libertarians were "against the war" in terms of the Constitutional legality.

If you think that sticking to Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is "anal" maybe you are the type of person who has no problems with where our nation is in terms of Constitutionality.

While I agree with the war in general I don't think that making Congress and the President stick to the US Constitution is "anal".

[Maelstrom]

It was Bush's seniors actions against these three that made me a libertarian in the first place.

[jimt]

There is a very good reason why: they are rigid ideologues who simply don't understand either human nature or politics.

As a card carrying Libertarian since 1984, there's some truth in what you say.

[mhking]

It took long enough...I was wondering how long it would be before they went after Neal.

The LP's take on the War on Terror was enough to chase me out of the Party blame near two years ago.

As long as they side with the Dems on the war, they're gonna continue to look as if they are drifting even farther afield than they already are.

[LanPB01]

I listened to an interview with P.J. O'Rourke while the Iraq war was going on, and he didn't sound against it to me. In fact, I can't recall the exact wording, but I remember he made some comments about how the Iraqi army deserved what they were getting, based on the damage they caused to Kuwait in the first Gulf War.

[CatoRenasci]

It's a pity, isn't it?

[bc2]

I'm not familiar with Reagans 11th Commandment, however I will agree with the poster who said that a lot of times libertarians don't have a good handle on the art of politics.

[DeuceTraveler]

Good to hear, but during the build up to war I went on a Libertarian homepage and found them opposing the war and using this famous O'Rourke quote:

"I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime."
O'Rourke, P.J.

[DeuceTraveler]

It's ashame, too, because I am all for their position on removing government involvement in people's lives.