Libertarians turn against Neil Boortz [Title Mine]

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

[DeuceTraveler]

MAYBE A NICE CRUISE IN THE GREEK ISLANDS WOULD BE FUN ....

Well ... it looks like I might want to make some alternative plans for next Memorial Day. Right now I'm scheduled to stay in Atlanta to deliver a speech to the Libertarian National Convention. We now have a "Libertarians for a Boortz-Free National Convention" petition online. The petition reads:

To: Libertarian National Committee and 2004 Convention Coordinator

We, members and supporters of the Libertarian Party, object to the scheduled appearance of talk radio host Neal Boortz as a speaker at the Libertarian Party's 2004 National Convention.

We further request that said appearance be cancelled.

The reasons for our objection and request are as follows:

1) Mr. Boortz's publicly stated opinions on foreign policy, especially with respect to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, diverge wildly from the Libertarian Party's positions;

2) Mr. Boortz's publicly stated opinions on the FBI's investigations and surveillance of anti-war demonstrators are flagrantly at odds with the Libertarian Party's positions on privacy, freedom of expression and the proper function of law enforcement in a free society;

3) Because of Mr. Boortz's prominent public profile, it is likely that any appearance by him at the LP's 2004 national convention will have a substantial impact on the public's perception of what the LP stands for;

4) It is not in the best interests of the Libertarian Party to facilitate public misidentification of its positions on foreign policy with Mr. Boortz's divergent views.

This petition will be presented to the Libertarian National Committee at its December 13-14, 2003 meeting in St. Louis, MO, with all signatures gathered to date appended. The petition itself will remain available for signing through May 26, 2004, the day prior to the opening of the Libertarian Party's 2004 national convention.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

You can view the signatures and the comments of those who signed by clicking here. http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?noboortz You will note that some of the signatories seem to think that I'm being paid to address this convention. Just to set the record straight, I spoke to the 2000 Libertarian National Convention in Anaheim, California and did not charge a fee. I spoke to the 2002 national convention in Indianapolis .. and only asked for a hotel room for that evening. No fee, no travel expenses.

I think I'm beginning to understand why the Libertarian Party has a tough time getting the respect one would like to see. Keep me posted folks. I'm loving the attention. One thing for sure .... If I remain on the speaker's schedule, the speech is going to be one helluva lot different than my two previous efforts. Then again ... I could be hiking outside of Zermatt.

WHAT DID I SAY THAT MADE THEM SO MAD?

Just trying to stir the puddin' I guess ... but here's a bit I put in Nealz Nuze about two weeks ago about the FBI spying on anti-war demonstrations in the United States. This is one of the things that have the Boot Boortz crowd so upset. Knowing, as we do, that communists and Islamic radicals have been behind much of the planning of anti-war demonstrations around the world, why is it so surprising that we would be gathering information on who is running these demonstrations in the US? Didn't 9/11 teach us anything?

WE MAY BE COMMUNISTS AND ISLAMIC RADICALS .. BUT DON'T INVESTIGATE US! The FBI is investigating the backgrounds and organizational methods of antiwar demonstrators in the US. Hopefully that doesn't come as a surprise to you. It is safe to assume that a large number of these demonstrators are out there in the streets because they want America to fail in its efforts to fight terrorism and its efforts to bring secular representative governments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Translated: Many of these demonstrators are pro-Saddam and anti-US. So, who wouldn't want them investigated by the FBI?

The demonstrators, that's who. Now we have so-called "civil rights advocates" and (God help us) "legal scholars" who are saying that these investigations could signal a return to abuses directed against civil rights protestors of the 1960's 70's.

Remember, as you've already learned, the organizers of the demonstrations last week in London were largely anti-American communists and Islamic radicals. So we're supposed to assume that all of the protestors in the United States are Boy Scouts and volunteers at nursing homes?

Know your enemy .. and keep him close.

Nealz Nuze, Monday, November 24, 2003

[freekitty]

I don't buy that many Freepers support of the war is purely emotional. I believe their are many clear thinking people here.

[xrp]

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.

Toss them a bone here, most of the time, Democrats and Republicans don't have a good handle on the US Constitution.

[looscnnn]

First see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036116/posts

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "It is 100 percent accurate."

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

Now, he does not say what has happened to the stuff, but that they had it. Considering how large Iraq is, it is going to take time. Think back to the centrifuge under the rose bush at a scientist's home and the jets buried in the desert. Also, there have been reports that the stuff was trucked out of the country and is in Syria or Lebanon.

Second, the UN did not even enforce its own resolutions (which I think would involve military action if Iraq did not do as required).

I don't agree with the way we financed the war & rebuilding, there were/are other ways of doing it. The Lucom plan looks like an interesting way of taking care of people like Saddam and Bin Laden. I would have prefered doing loans, not grants, for the rebuilding.

As far as the next country (I am no neocon), I would take North Korea to task for threats they have made towards us.

I would also seriously start looking at China over the threats that have made towards us over Tiawan. I would go in front of the UN and demand they be held accountable, file some resolutions, etc. I realize that the UN will do nothing, but will give you a sense of who is on which side.

[Redbob]

"...these investigations could signal a return to abuses directed against civil rights protestors of the 1960's..."

And God knows there were no Communists or bomb-throwing subversives involved in those protests!
</sarcasm>

[billbears]

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "It is 100 percent accurate."

Sheesh. Is any source not questionable? Or is it just when they don't agree with the administration does it become questionable? Why should we believe him? Thousands of man hours by 'our' inspectors and top of the line technology can't find a thing, but hey we've got this out of work general wanting to stay on the good side of the US Armed Forces so it must be true!! If it is, then I'm quite sure he would be able to lead inspectors to the 'cache'.

That is unless he has selective amnesia, but then of course there will be some excuse for that too won't there?

[optimistically_conservative]

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?

There were four reasons consistently given for going to war with Iraq:

1. Iraq's continued non-compliance with, and active material breach of, UN resolutions (a.k.a. cease fire conditions) which arguably cover the next three.
2. Iraq's continued WMD ambitions.
3. Iraq's ties to terrorism.
4. Iraq's contined human rights violations.

(remember Powell's presentation of 'facts'?)

Kay searched and found nothing more than rudimentary labs, if they could even be called that.

The "Bush lied" mantra concerning WMD in Iraq is a dangerous gamble. I'm convinced Saddam had WMD in 1991, when we were exposed to chemical weapons at Khamisiyah and elsewhere during cleanup ops.

I think he still had them in 1995, when Kamel defected providing proof of Iraq's deception and continued efforts in it's WMD programs. To be fair, Kamel said Iraq did not possess WMD in 1995. He also said it really was a baby milk factory we bombed in 1991 (and again in 1998) and there was no military significance to the air defense shelter we bombed.^{39, 40} But the documents on his chicken farm and the discovery by Dr.Diane Seaman on 25 September 1997^{41, 42} throw into question Kamel's denials of weapons. In addition, remarks by Khidhir Hamza contradicted Kamel's claims, and in return Kamel attacked Hamza's credibility in the UN transcript.

There was consensus through 1998, 2001 and 2002 by the world's intelligence agencies (including the CIA, Canadians and BND), within Congress (including Democrats) and from UNMOVIC that Iraq was pursuing WMD. Viewing Kay's recent and future findings in light of historical documentation of Iraqi WMD programs harldly makes me more skeptical that they were there.

How many more searches will it take?

As many needed until we have a definitive answer. I want to know the what, when and where answered - period. If everyone was wrong for so long on this issue, I really want to know that without equivocation.

[Cultural Jihad]

... will have a substantial impact on the public's perception of what the LP stands for;

The only thing holding the LP down in the mind of the public is the LP. In the open marketplace of ideas, the public consumer well sees their shabby political product sitting on the electoral shelf, and wisely walks away from it.

[Protagoras]

This guy is the poster boy for Republicans. His skin isn't blue. But his suit will soon have stripes on it.

[Cultural Jihad]

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

For many people, doing so in 1992 got us 8 years of someone ... feeling our pain.

[Protagoras]

There were four reasons consistently given for going to war with Iraq:

Not to the exclusion of the one you conveinently overlooked, namely "Regime change".

Iraq's continued non-compliance with, and active material breach of, UN resolutions (a.k.a. cease fire conditions) which arguably cover the next three. Iraq's continued WMD ambitions. Iraq's ties to terrorism. Iraq's contined human rights violations.

Going to war at the beheast of world government? Hmmm, very conservative. The rest are thus far unproven allegations and suspicions with the exception of human rights violations. Which were not against our citizens.

So when do we attack the other hundred countries that violate human rights?

[billbears]

I'm not saying Bush lied. But I am saying that some of his advisors did not have the best interests of this nation of states at the top of their lists. And I think Hussein may have had some sort of program back in 1991. But that was 12 years ago.

As for the reasons you listed as being given, one could easily argue that almost every Arabic nation there, some even considered 'allies' (i.e. Saudi Arabia), have not only been in support of terrorism in the past but are still supporting it. Are 'we' planning to go after them next? If not, why not? Human rights violations? I'm sorry but that's not even a reason. It may be an excuse to make the masses feel happy but it's not a reason

As many needed until we have a definitive answer. I want to know the what, when and where answered - period. If everyone was wrong for so long on this issue, I really want to know that without equivocation.

Now that's not the 'conservative' answer. How is it when this very request was broached before the war it was practically 'anti-American' to suggest such a plan? And now is any different? 'We' have access now where it wasn't allowed in the past and still no WMDs. On a side note, I see FoxNews hardly discusses WMDs anymore, why not? Now it's about building a democracy isn't it?

[Snuffington]

PJ O'Rourke and other libertarians also were against the war

You sound confused. P. J. O'Rourke is a solid Republican, and while he might have made fun of some silliness about the way the war was conducted, he didn't oppose it.

[DeuceTraveler]

My apologies to Mr O'Rourke if I have erred, but a Libertarian page that opposed the war awhile back attributed an anti-war quote to him.

[sheltonmac]

Oh. Saddam and Osama had a close relationship "according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD." Hmmmm. A "secret" document brought to light (over two years after 9/11) by one of the biggest cheerleaders for the war in Iraq. I guess that settles it.

[billbears]

You don't belong in the GOP.

You're right. I'm a conservative

[optimistically_conservative]

Not to the exclusion of the one you conveinently overlooked, namely "Regime change".

I think there were other reasons for going to war with Iraq, and regime change was certainly the objective. It wasn't conveniently overlooked and neither are the other reasons. But regime change in Iraq has been a codified goal of our foreign policy toward Iraq since 1998.

Going to war at the beheast of world government?

The UN asked us to go to war with Iraq? Strange, I thought the argument was we unilaterally went to war with Iraq without the world's permission, but did it based on the statutory powers granted by Congress? Are you sure you're not thinking of another conflict: Bosnia, Kosovo, ??

The rest are thus far unproven allegations and suspicions with the exception of human rights violations. Which were not against our citizens.

I don't think there is any question that Iraq was in violation of it's cease fire conditions:

"Resolution 687 required, as a precondition for a formal cease-fire, that Iraq officially notify the United Nations of its acceptance of the provisions of the resolution. These provisions included:
(1) respect for the international boundary as agreed between Iraq and Kuwait in 1963, which the Security Council guaranteed;
(2) the creation of a demilitarized zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border and the deployment of a U.N. observer unit into that zone;
(3) the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and nuclear-weapons-usable material, together with facilities related to them, and international supervision and inspection to verify compliance;
(4) the creation of a fund, drawn from future Iraqi oil revenues, to pay compensation for losses caused by the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait;
(5) the continuation of the embargo of all exports of arms to Iraq;
(6) the phased relaxation of certain other aspects of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq as Iraq complies with its obligations under the resolution; and
(7) the renunciation by Iraq of support for international terrorism."
(http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1991/91051704.html)

I don't think there is a question Iraq supported terrorism, I think what you allude to is the degree Iraq and Al Qaeda formed ties and whether that met a threshold of a threat to the US (and some might be concerned with the threat to allies), justly so.

I'll let my previous post on Iraq's WMD ambitions stand. The current "unproven allegations" are based on proven violations in the past, from 1992 through 2002. Again, I think your disagreement should not be with fact, but whether your threshold was crossed for resuming hostilities with Iraq. Obviously it was not, but I'd be curious which of our past conflicts - without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - would have been in your opinion.

So when do we attack the other hundred countries that violate human rights?

Good question. I imagine we'll get around to all of them as time goes by, unfortunately. I try to be optimistic that it won't be us hoping for liberation from a foreign oppressor or domestic tyrant, it's much better being on the other side picking which battles to fight and which to turn a blind eye to - such as Rwanda.

[Snuffington]

My apologies to Mr O'Rourke if I have erred, but a Libertarian page that opposed the war awhile back attributed an anti-war quote to him.

It's not uncommon for Libertarians to quote Ronald Reagan out of context in a way implying his opposition to the Republican Party also. I don't think the Gipper himself would agree.

[JohnGalt]

The American Conservative reports that the leak of the Feith Memo was approved by Rummy, who was in Asia at the time. Feith then hired a contractor to give the memo to the friendly Weekly Standard and of course, Fred Barnes being an editor at the Weekly Standard trumpeted the memo on Fox News.

Feith will probably be spending more time with the kids next year, so it wreaks of a desperate ploy. However, the neocons in general are starting to bail with Safire tossing a bouquet of flowers to Hillary over the weekend, and Newt Gingrich, a Rummy, confidante, slamming the Administration on its post war Iraq policy.