Posted on 06/10/2008 12:27:50 PM PDT by pissant
From Barr 2008:
Washington is filled with rumors of pending American or Israeli military action against Iran, says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for President. But “an attack on Iran would be unnecessary, counterproductive, costly and dangerous,” he warns.
Our own intelligence services tell us that Iran is not actively working to build a nuclear bomb and is years away from having nuclear weapons capability. “There is no imminent threat, and only an imminent threat can ever justify a preemptive strike,” insists Barr. “The tragedy in Iraq demonstrates the counterproductive consequences of initiating war without any compelling justification.”
Although Sen. John McCain claims to want diplomacy to work, he has joked about attacking Iran, singing “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the old Beach Boys’ tune Barbara Ann. Sen. Barack Obama has raised the issue of talking with hostile regimes essentially at any time and any place with any hostile regime, but nevertheless pointed to the possibility of military action when he spoke to AIPAC. “Neither Sen. McCain nor Sen. Obama can be trusted to keep the peace,” says Barr.
The potential consequences of war, Barr explains, “include attacks on our troops stationed in Iraq, threats to the Gulf oil trade, terrorist attacks around the world, subversion of friendly Arab and Muslim governments, destruction of the democracy movement within Iran, and enduring hostility towards America throughout much of the world.” To risk paying such a price without attempting to deal directly with the Iranian regime “would be counterproductive, costly, and dangerous. Even as our hand-picked and supported Prime Minister Maliki in Iraq talks with Iranian leaders, and even as the Olmert government in Israel talks with the Assad regime in Syria, the Bush Administration refuses to engage one of the largest and most important countries in that part of the world – Iran. This makes no sense.”
Moreover, notes Barr, a former House member, “the power to declare war on Iran lies with the Congress, not the president.” Unfortunately, presidents have routinely abused their role as commander-in-chief of the military. “The president is to direct any war, but the Constitution vests the power to decide if there will be a war in the legislative branch,” emphasizes Barr.
Defusing the confrontation with Iran will not be easy, notes Barr, “but any nonproliferation strategy must begin with diplomacy and include a willingness to address the other side.” In this way President George W. Bush has failed, and Sen. McCain is set to follow in his footsteps. Sen. Obama may be more inclined to try a new approach, but “he is a weather vane, pushed around by the lightest political breezes,” says Barr. “We need new leadership that is both strong and thoughtful to meet today’s many serious foreign policy challenges, such as Iran.”
Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA for eight years. He has graduate and undergraduate degrees in international relations and has lived in both Iran and Iraq.
Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and has teamed up with groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to actively advocate every American citizens’ right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom.
Yep, great plan. Worked for Chamberlain at Munich.
Name these domestic political problems which would not exist if we went to war with a "formal war declaration."
Cool. With that kind of stand, he’ll take votes from Hussein.
I haven’t made my mind up yet on Barr, but he does have a point here in that we cannot afford another war. The dollar is worthless as it is now, I can’t imagine what things would be like if we had to borrow even more money to fund another front in this war.
I recall a theory that one of the last acts of the Brit forces that burned the WH in 1815 was to put a curse on the entire area that would suck the brains, balls and honor out of anyone lingering there.
Barr just proved the da** theory.
Given their conduct in the past and the current choices for elected officials to carry on for the next however many years, I’ll vote for the least odious, write in if that test results in ties but spend most of my time in keeping my family close to home and inventory of my own resources for self-defense.
If this turkey is anybody’s idea of a faintly qualified candidate for office higher than dog catcher, I’d have to say I’m just going to have to plan on going it alone. Sorry about you.
Who is threatening Iran with war?
To be fair, I might vote for the Barr-Root ticket, but only because Wayne Root is an acquaintance.
That’s part of the problem with our country today... too many people think that other countries are just like that, save with a different language and a different culture.
Leaders of countries like Iran respect only one thing: strength. Dictators only bargain when they fear that they have much to lose in not doing so.
Talk has its time and place, and certainly diplomacy is preferable to war. Unfortunately, diplomacy does not work in countries like Iran unless there are dire consequences to not cooperating in full.
A failure to back our words with strength makes us appear weak in the eyes of Iranian leaders. They will take any concessions we might give them and simply continue with their activities in secret.
There is a name for this if we allow it to happen: appeasement. Diplomacy itself is certainly not appeasement, but making concessions to a vicious enemy from a position of weakness most certainly fits the bill.
I suppose next he'll come out in favor of legalizing heroin and crystal meth to appese his Libertarian masters. Lindsey Graham's "sellouts" since entering the Senate pale to comparision to the "principles" Bob Barr embraced since joining the LP.
I suppose next he'll come out in favor of legalizing heroin and crystal meth to appese his Libertarian masters. Lindsey Graham's "sellouts" since entering the Senate pale to comparision to the "principles" Bob Barr embraced since joining the LP.
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.
