Posted on 12/08/2003 5:17:21 AM PST by 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
Clarify the question please. Does this ask which of our wars I would not have supported in advance?
BS!
Not sure how to respond to that except that it's my answer. I've found that not everyone agrees with my answers, regardless of their ideological predilection.
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.
I think the counter-argument to calls for proof of WMD stocks and programs before the war (and before going to war) was that we weren't being allowed the access, as you point out. Other than that, I interpret your complaint as now having that access, we have not in a matter of months found all, or more, of those answers. That's a fair, if not ambitious, complaint. I think I've heard the same complaint from within the ranks of the GOP, be they 'conservative' or not.
On a side note, I see FoxNews hardly discusses WMDs anymore, why not? Now it's about building a democracy isn't it?
I don't get FoxNews, so I'm not in a position to answer what they are or are not discussing now, or anymore. Perhaps you could ask FoxNews?
If it would be easier to provide example(s) of the wars you would have supported, please do. The question is probing your anti-war motivation. Anti-war motivations are sometimes based on strict constitutional complaince to form, pacifism, ideological enmity, etc. In cases other than pacifism, sometimes I find it helps me to understand a person's opposition by asking the counter question of which wars meet approval and why.
I am in favor of any war which defends our country or the rights of it's citizens. I am opposed to any war which has any other purpose. And I am well aware that people in favor of nation building and adventurism will aways attempt to paint their favorite wars as doing those two things. Some are tricked, I am not.
Therefore, I support WWII and the War against Afghanistan. Off the top of my head I can't think of any others.
From what I can tell, no nation in that region is unaffected by our current operations.
Do I think we should have simultaneously gone to war on all the nations in the Middle East and North Africa that support(ed) terrorism? No, I think the "why not" of such a decision is self-evident.
Do I think a decision not to go to war with all those nations simultaneously excludes going to war with the two we have to effect a strategic change regionally? No, picking our battlefields, both in location and timing, makes sense to me.
Are 'we' planning to go after them next? I am not privy to the future 'plans'. I would imagine 'next' and the when of 'next' has to do with who puts themselves in the line of fire at this point and how much the American people will accept. I think we're pretty max'd out right now barring another attack within our borders.
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.
You may certainly discount that reason, and it has historically been one emphasized after the fact. However, if it makes the masses feel happy, if not better or more committed, to a war - it often is a reason not easily discarded.
LOL - or the Druid, or the guy who fled to Canada...
I think there are interesting contrasts and analogies that can be made between those two.
For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese and the attack on the WTC/Pentagon by Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan governed by the Taliban.
Hitler's declaration of war on the US after the Japanese attack and our status of a "hot" cease fire with Saddam's Iraq (including Saddam's provocations after the cease fire was put in place), and Saddam's reaction to the WTC/Pentagon attack.
Our adventurism in Africa and Europe as part of the WWII alliance, and our adventurism in the Middle East as part of (and leader of) a NATO alliance in Afghanistan and a (rouge, from world government's view) coalition in Iraq.
I think there are analogies and contrasts with the wars I imagine were intentionally left off the list:
Our intergenerational commitments in Europe and Asia in national building as victors in WWII combat, our intergenerational commitment to South Korea, Bosnia/Kosovo, and our predictable intergenerational committment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Another interesting contrast might be our intergenerational commitment to what might be called anti-nation building toward Vietnam and Cuba.
So much to consider...so little time to debate....
Yep... I made the mistake of sending him a link to an article here- foolishly thinking that the information would be at least appreciated, and got a thoroughly nasty "don't you EVER send me anything from Free Republic!" reply.
Needless to say, he made an enemy with that. He did not have to be rude and crude.
It is clear at this point that we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue in the foreseeable future. Only finding banned weapons will bring us together - you to our position - because regardless of any discovery, this war, IMO, was completely justified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.