Replies

"No Truce," you have no clue. Your rendition of my record is wrong. I supported a police action against Al Qaeda (see my article "Kill 'Em -- and get out!", posted on FR). You also don't seem to understand the difference between opposing a war on Iraq and supporting its government. I don't support the present government of, say, Andorra, but does that mean I should also support a US invasion of said country? I don't think so. You are also wrong about Serbia: Milosevic was elected. But, then again, so was Clinton. So was Hitler. Elections do not a free country make. Like George W. Bush, I admire Musharraf because he is taking risks in order to rid the region of its many problems -- and because of his expressed view that the Afghan war should be "short and sweet." My view exactly. Go, Musharraf, go!

"No Truce," you have no clue.

I have no clue? I do not believe I am the one singing the praises of a third-world thug, a dictator who overthrew the elected government of a country, and is only on our side because he was given a choice between a lead bullet and a gold coin. I am not the one who believes that "elections do not a free country make," to justify support for a dictator (certainly as Orwellian a position as I have seen on this board in a long time).

Elections may not a free country make, but it seems to me a necessary, if not sufficient condition. Hitler and Milosevic were initially elected, but as with Musharraf, abused the powers they had to pervert and overthrow representative governments. It seems to strange that someone who claims to be a libertarian spokesman finds so many good words for a thug who spits on the principals of libertarianism. So give me a clue oh great one. How do you square Musharraf with libertarianism?