Replies

"At issue was Raimondo's patriotism ..."

At issue is Richard Poe's smearing of anyone who disagrees with his wacked-out theories of who is "really" behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

He claims he wants to discuss my "ideology" -- but that is hardly a secret. I'm a libertarian: I believe that we cannot have an empire AND a constitutional republic. And my view is being confirmed even as Ashcroft prepares what Drudge calls "Part II" of the "Patriot" Act: secret arrest, stripping Americans of their citizenship, government spies everywhere. To call my patriotism into question, in this context, is to virtually call for my arrest by our war-maddened leaders.

To that, I can only reply, as I did in my original column on this subject: Go ahead -- make my day.

<< He claims he wants to discuss my "ideology" -- but that is hardly a secret. I'm a libertarian... >>

Well, I am a libertarian too. But that hardly settles the issue, does it? Obviously that word doesn't mean much anymore.

I used to think that libertarians opposed "imperial adventures" abroad but regarded an attack on the U.S. homeland as a clear casus belli. Since 9-11, I have learned that many self-styled "libertarians" have developed a nearly infinite capacity to oppose action -- even in the face of 9-11.

This I cannot understand. It makes me wonder if I was a fool all those years to wear the name "libertarian." It makes me wonder how many people who bear that name really love this country, and how many just use the word "libertarian" as an excuse to justify their fence-sitting on a host of vexing issues.

To call my patriotism into question, in this context, is to virtually call for my arrest by our war-maddened leaders.

Go for it. Or is this just more of your "legend in his own mind" stuff? Like you calling people chicken hawks

Don't try to obfuscate the issue of the War on Terror/War on Iraq, with your complaints about the Patriot Act.

I am totally against the Orwellian-titled Patriot Act. I believe it's an abomination to the Bill Of Rights.

But that doesn't mean I have to be against the War on Terror in general, or War with Iraq in particular.

People on both sides seem to get caught up in these either-or arguments; in most cases, the real perceptions are (or should be) somewhat more nuanced.

Your antiwar views seem to be based on dogma and reactionary pacifism, rather than on any interest in what the actual foreign dangers to our Republic are.

It's hard to argue that the U.S. has no national interest in seeing the Iraqi regime fall.

Only the President, and maybe Congress, have access to the complete intelligence information.

You need to ask yourself why so many DEMOCRATS are supporting the President against Iraq.

I will defer the the President in this case. If he concludes that there is a clear and present danger, then I am with him.

This situation is to be distinguished from the laughable Kosovo intervention, and such others, in which the US had no compelling interest.

The fascist Patriot Act can go to Hell; and so can Saddam...