Libertarian candidate seeks national debate invite

Columbia Daily Tribune ^ | July 10, 2004 | Josh Flory

[MikeJ75]

Down on Dubya? Cranky about Kerry? Michael Badnarik hopes you’ll give his campaign a look.

Badnarik is the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president, and he spent part of this week campaigning through Missouri. During a visit to the Tribune yesterday, the candidate emphasized his opposition to an "unconstitutional, unjustified" war in Iraq and to a military draft, as well as his commitment to reducing federal spending.

Badnarik is a native of Indiana who more recently hailed from Austin, Texas, and worked as a computer programmer and consultant. He won the Libertarian Party’s nomination in May.

Badnarik said the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress never declared war and unjustified because the Iraqi people weren’t responsible for the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks.

"Congress should not be … giving the president latitude to decide, you know, whether or not to do the invasion," he said.

The candidate said he believes the United States should go to war "when we are clearly under attack" and shouldn’t have troops in countries around the world. Asked which countries are the top priorities for removing U.S. troops, he cited Germany, Japan and South Korea. "Those countries have a strong enough economy that they should be providing their own national defense," he said. "It’s inappropriate for the American taxpayer to be funding troops in those countries."

Paul Sloca, a spokesman for the state Republican Party, said President George W. Bush has taken decisive action to make the nation and the world safer. "The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror and the president is committed to winning the war on terror," he added.

While a few federal lawmakers have pushed the idea of mandatory military service for all young Americans, the Selective Service System’s Web site says the agency is not planning to conduct a draft. It also notes "both the president and the secretary of defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq."

Asked about such denials, Badnarik said, "Typically we can tell that a politician is lying because their lips are moving."

During the 2000 election, the third-party candidate who attracted the most attention was Ralph Nader, who ran under the Green Party’s banner and is credited in some quarters for ensuring Bush’s victory.

Badnarik was dismissive of Nader’s current candidacy, saying he won’t be on the ballot in enough states to have a shot at winning. "Although he is a celebrity and a name that people recognize, he has politically less clout than I do," he added.

Badnarik said he’s hoping to raise $5 million to spend on his campaign. "We plan to have television commercials broadcast during prime time that will make my name familiar to the American voter," he said. "And our next goal is to get invited to the presidential debate so that we can potentially change the political discussion in this country."

[AlbertWang]

Badnarik said the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress never declared war and unjustified because the Iraqi people weren’t responsible for the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks. Sound of a bong gurgling.

I looked on the Globe and there isn't a country called Al Quida. Terrorism is where you find it.

[DameAutour]

While a few federal lawmakers have pushed the idea of mandatory military service for all young Americans

DEMOCRATS

[Tijeras_Slim]

Too serious. I liked the guy who turned himself blue better.

[Condor51]

In 2000 O'Reilly had the Libertarian candidate on his show - the guy was a loon.

(no offense meant to other 'loons')

[Commie Basher]

I looked on the Globe and there isn't a country called Al Quida. Terrorism is where you find it.

Which is why there can be no "War on Terror," and claims to the contrary are a lie. Terrorism is a law enforement problem, analogous to going after the Mafia, and not something you can declare "war" on.

[Commie Basher]

Too serious. I liked the guy who turned himself blue better.

Old news. It's as if we libertarians were still making Gringrich jokes. If that's the best jab you've got against libertarians, it shows how pathetic the GOP has become.

[Capitalism2003]

I've seen plenty of Freepers here who support the draft as well.

[The Libertarian Dude]

Which is why the two-party duopoly will NEVER say "okay, let's be fair and not act like arrogant schmucks" and let anyone without a D or R in front of their names, into the debates...

[sinkspur]

Which is why there can be no "War on Terror," and claims to the contrary are a lie. Terrorism is a law enforement problem, analogous to going after the Mafia, and not something you can declare "war" on.

That's what Clinton thought too, and we got 9/11.

You libertarians are friggin' cowards. We can't afford cowardice in the White House.

Also, Bednarik ridicules Nader, but Nader will pull double the votes of Bednarik.

[The Libertarian Dude]

Speak for yourself. I'm for turning some Saudi sand into a sea of smooth, shiny glass.

[Commie Basher]

Which is why there can be no "War on Terror," and claims to the contrary are a lie. Terrorism is a law enforement problem, analogous to going after the Mafia, and not something you can declare "war" on.

That's what Clinton thought too, and we got 9/11.

So what? It doesn't mean he was wrong. Crime has existed for millennia, despite being treated (correctly) as a law enforement problem. Likewise, terrorism is millennia old, and will continue to exist regardless of whether's it's treated as a crime or a war.

The question is, which is the better way to fight terrorism? Your Clinton comment in no way proves that war is better than law enforcement. It's not like Bush's wars have stopped terrorism. Bush has, however, aliented many potential allies who might otherwise have helped the US fight terrorism.

[Commie Basher]

I'm for turning some Saudi sand into a sea of smooth, shiny glass.

I believe that's called "genocide."

[sinkspur]

It's not like Bush's wars have stopped terrorism. Bush has, however, aliented many potential allies who might otherwise have helped the US fight terrorism.

We've had no attacks in the U.S. in three years.

Who the hell cares about France and Germany? Those are the only two "allies" who are sitting on their asses in the war on terror.

If Clinton had taken the war on terror to Afghanistan, against the Taliban, instead of wanting to build a pipeline, bin Laden might have been otherwise too preoccupied to pull off 9/11.

You Libbies think we can, like ostriches, stick our heads in the sand when terrorists want to kill us.

[William Terrell]

Badnarik said the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress never declared war and unjustified because the Iraqi people weren’t responsible for the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks. Sound of a bong gurgling.

The Irqi's may not have been responsible for 9/11, but they well could have been responsible for future 9/11's.

In a way, Badnarik is right about the unconstitutionality of the war with Irag. Congress didn't declare war using our only constitutional form to wage war, art 1, sec 8, cl 11. They used the power confered by UN treaties to authorize the conflict.

So, the power came from the UN, not the US constitution, and under art 6, sec 2 treaties are no more or less than legislation. 1-8-11 is a constitutional provision, superior to treaties or legislative law. A treaty can be repealed on the floor of the Congress.

That last sentence, I didn't see it in the article anywhere.

[Commie Basher]

We've had no attacks in the U.S. in three years.

After 1993, we had no attacks in the U.S. for eight years. So by your logic, Clinton's record beats Bush's.

Who the hell cares about France and Germany? Those are the only two "allies" who are sitting on their asses in the war on terror.

Not true. Nearly the whole world sympathized with the U.S. after 9/11 -- now that goodwill has been squandered. Most of the "European street" is disgusted with Bush's wars, including the British people, despite Tony Blair's pro-Bush policies.

And much of Latin America's populace is also disgusted with Bush (based on what some Latin residents have told me).

The way to fight terrorism is not war, but Interpol -- the International Police force that facilitates cooperation among law enforcement agencies worldwide, including that of the FBI.

If Clinton had taken the war on terror to Afghanistan, against the Taliban, instead of wanting to build a pipeline ...

Oh, you don't think Bush's oil backers are eying those central Asian/Caspian Sea pipelines that pass through Afghanistan? In 1997, the BBC reported that a Texas oil company had place a bid with the Taliban for the pipeline, but was outbid. Gee, I wonder why Bush's oil backers are angling for a "war on terror" rather than law enforcement?

You Libbies think we can, like ostriches, stick our heads in the sand when terrorists want to kill us.

If we declare neutrality in all mideast disputes, if we stop interfering in the region (no foreign aid, just free trade with all and on equal terms), then the terrorists won't want to kill us.

[Commie Basher]

It's amazing how often libertarians share ideas with DU types.

It's amazing how often Republicans share deeds with Democrats. Both support huge spending and war (the welfare/warfare state). Clinton gave us a string of wars, now Bush, and Kerry promises the same. The only difference is that each party claims they can do it better.

[sinkspur]

Most of the "European street" is disgusted with Bush's wars, including the British people, despite Tony Blair's pro-Bush policies.

The European Street is worthless in the war on terror. They're pussies, just waiting to be hit.

The way to fight terrorism is not war, but Interpol -- the International Police force that facilitates cooperation among law enforcement agencies worldwide, including that of the FBI.

Uh-huh. They're so damned effective now. They didn't stop the Spanish bombings.

You're very naive.

If we declare neutrality in all mideast disputes, if we stop interfering in the region (no foreign aid, just free trade with all and on equal terms), then the terrorists won't want to kill us.

Oh, and I'm sure that means we stop supporting Israel, right?

Your statement above is the single reason why Libertarians should never get anywhere near the levers of power in this country!

[evolved_rage]

Indeed, that would be cost effective in terms of money and American lives.