Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”     Adam Smith

March 9, 2007

Why Rudy Giuliani Should Not Be President

by Doug Mataconis

Jim Sleeper, a New York neoconservative, has an article at TPM Cafe detailing the reasons why Rudy Giuliani should not be President.

While admitting that Giuliani did have several stunning successes as Mayor of New York even before September 11th, Sleeper argues that the style of governing revealed by his tenure as Mayor should raise serious concerns in the mind of anyone who cares about civil liberties and limits on executive power:

The first serious problem is structural and political: A man who fought the inherent limits of his mayoral office as fanatically as Giuliani would construe presidential prerogatives so broadly he’d make George Bush’s notions of “unitary” executive power seem soft.

Even in the 1980s, as an assistant attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department and U.S. Attorney in New York, Giuliani was imperious and overreaching, He made the troubled daughter of a state judge, Hortense Gabel, testify against her mother and former Miss America Bess Meyerson in a failed prosecution charging, among other things, that Meyerson had hired the judge’s daughter to bribe help “expedite” a messy divorce case. The jury was so put off by Giuliani’s tactics that it acquitted all concerned, as the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus recalled ten years later in assessing Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s subpoena of Monica Lewinsky’s mother to testify against her daughter.

At least, as U.S. Attorney, Giuliani served at the pleasure of the President and had to defer to federal judges. Were he the President, U.S. Attorneys would serve at his pleasure — a dangerous arrangement in the wrong hands, we’ve learned — and he’d pick the judges to whom prosecutors defer.

As mayor, Giuliani fielded close aides like a fast and sometimes brutal hockey team, micro-managing and bludgeoning city agencies and even agencies that weren’t his, like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Board of Education. They deserved it richly enough to make his bravado thrilling to many of us, but it wasn’t very productive. And while this Savonarola disdained even would-be allies in other branches of government, he wasn’t above cutting indefensible deals with crony contractors and pandering shamelessly to some Hispanics, orthodox Jews, and other favored constituencies.

Even Giuliani’s signature moment, the aftermath of September 11th, is, Sleeper argues, troubling:

Giuliani’s 9/11 performance was sublime for the unnerving reason that he’d been rehearsing for it all his adult life and remains trapped in that stage role. When his oldest friend and deputy mayor Peter Powers told me in 1994 that 16-year-old Rudy had started an opera club at Bishop Loughlin High School in Brooklyn, I didn’t have to connect too many of the dots I’d been seeing to begin noticing that Giuliani at times acted like an opera fanatic who’s living in a libretto as much as in the real world.

In private, Rudy can contemplate the human comedy with a Machiavellian prince’s supple wit. But when he walks on stage, he tenses up so much that even his efforts to lighten up seem labored. What drove him as mayor was a zealot’s graceless division of everyone into friend or foe and his snarling, sometimes histrionic, vilifications of the foes. Those are operatic emotions, beneath the civic dignity of a great city and its chief magistrate.

Most of America only knows Rudy Giuliani from the events of September 2001. His tenure as Mayor, and more importantly as U.S. Attorney, however paint the picutre of someone who has an expansive, almost limitless view of executive power, and zeal to turn almost anything into a crusade.  Based on his record, it is clear that a Preisdent Giuliani would be an authoritarian pro-government leader along the lines of Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and George W. Bush.

There have been some, one frequent commentor on this blog in particular, who have claimed that Giuliani is a “libertarian Republican.” I’ve responded more than once that even a curosory examination of his record as Mayor would demonstrate that that simply isn’t the case. With Giuliani taking the lead in the race for the nomination now, one can imagine that more evidence in support of that proposition will come to light.

H/T: Hit & Run

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/09/why-rudy-giuliani-should-not-be-president/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

84 Comments

  1. Guiliani combines the worst aspects of American modern political thought. An authoritarian style of governing, likes to use taxpayer dollars to force his moral views on the populace, and the people love him. He’s the scariest politican in America.

    Comment by Kevin — March 9, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
  2. I would still choose Rudy over Hillary any day of the week.

    Comment by Stephen Littau — March 9, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
  3. [...] Video here. … Giuliani is also starting to attract comments about his history in NYC of being power hungry. … The coup de grace against Giuliani: failing in a comparison to Ann Coulter. … And [...]

    Pingback by » Friday Night GOP Roundup 2008 Central: Your Source for the Most Comprehensive Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Election — March 9, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
  4. “I would still choose Rudy over Hillary any day of the week.”

    I’d also choose a turd sandwich over a giant douche…doesn’t make the turd sandwich any better of a candidate. (With apologies to Trey Parker and Matt Stone.)

    Comment by mike — March 10, 2007 @ 5:36 am
  5. Your website “Frequent Commentator” here.

    I don’t claim that Rudy Giuliani is a “Libertarian Republican.” I claim, as I’ve always claimed that he is a “Libertarian-leaning Republican.”

    Put me on record right here and now on this:

    I believe, Rudy Giuliani, just like William Weld, Jack Kemp, and David Dreier, straddles the line between the Moderate/Centrist and the Libertarian areas of the New Political Spectrum.

    The distinguished non-partisan OntheIssues.com apparently agrees. They gave Giuliani a “Moderate Libertarian” rating of 60/60.

    GIULIANI WAS THE ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ON THEIR SURVEY TO GET THE DISTINCTION LIBERTARIAN!!!

    Other scorers included:

    Brownback = Conservative, 80/40
    McCain = Moderate Conservative, 60/40
    Romney = Populist Conservative, 50/40

    Clinton = Liberal, 30/60
    Hussein Obama = Liberal, 30/60
    Edwards = Populist Liberal, 30/50

    Now you tell me. Which one of these candidates would you rather have as President??

    One could make the argument for Brownback, as well. And I do kinda like the guy. He’d be acceptable.

    But all the others besides Giuliani, (and maybe Brownback) fail badly on the Liberty-scale.

    You decide. You want a Hillary Clinton at 30/60 as President or a Giuliani at 60/60?

    And honestly, does anyone here believe that we could EVER do any better than a 60/60 as President of the United States given the Socialist/Nanny-State leanings of the American Electorate?

    We should be enthusiastically supporting Giuliani for President!! In fact, the Libertarian Party should seriously consider giving him their Nomination as a Florida LP member recently suggested, instead of running a candidate against him.

    Libertarians for Giuliani at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 10, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
  6. One more for Kevin above:

    You say Giuliani “likes taxes.” Really?? Is that why he recently said “tax increases are dumb, stupid and idiotic.” Is that why he is on record of having cut taxes 26 times (!!!) as Mayor of NYC? Is that why the NY Times once called him a “budget slashing, privatizing Ayn Randian”?

    You can attack Giuliani on a lot of things from a Libertarian perspective. I myself am really uncomfortable with his position on legalized prostitution and hope to have the opportunity to talk with him on that one day and try to convince him to be pro-prostitution.

    But taxes is not one area where you can attack him on. He’s TOTALLY LIBERTARIAN on the most important issue of the day — taxes.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 10, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
  7. Eric,

    Did you read the post? To me, it didn’t seem to be criticizing Giuliani for being pro-taxes. It criticized him for being the type of authoritarian who tried to dominate New York as a ruler, not as a member of the executive branch.

    Bush has proven that he doesn’t have much respect for separation of powers, and is trying to rule the country from the Oval Office. We’re worried Giuliani might do the same.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 10, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
  8. Eric,

    I lived near NYC for more than 20 years and saw Giuliani up close as both an overzealous US Attorney and Mayor.

    He was authoritarian and quick to attack anyone who dared question his tactics.

    I don’t want someone like that in the Oval Office.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 10, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
  9. Whenever i read people bag Giuliani, it only makes me want to vote for him even more.

    Comment by Ken Fozzard — March 11, 2007 @ 8:21 am
  10. Doug,

    What you argue, makes me respect the man even more. We need a “balls-to-the-wall” give ‘em hell, the bucks stops here sort of President of the Greatest Country on Earth.

    We are at War with Islamo-Fascism. This is a very serious and long war. These Islamo-Fascists want to kill us!!

    Would you rather have a weak-kneed Hussein Obama type in the Presidency cowtowing to Al Quada. Or perhaps even worse a Liberal Woman like Hillary?

    Hell no! Rudy told that Saudi Prince to stick that $10 million up his rear-end. For that and that reason alone he deserves to be President of the United States.

    Doug, you above all others know Libertarians tend to be wussy computer geek types. Let’s shed that image. Let’s be real men, and stop the wussiness that prevails among the Libertarian set. Let’s back a Real Man for President; Rudy Giuliani.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 11, 2007 @ 9:55 am
  11. Eric,

    I prefer to both defeat Islamofascism and remain a free country at the same time. Guiliani has not proven that he is willing to respect civil liberties and the rights of the individual during his tenures as mayor and US Attorney. What’s the point of defeating Islamofascism while being enslaved here at home?

    Comment by Kevin — March 11, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
  12. Doug, you above all others know Libertarians tend to be wussy computer geek types. Let’s shed that image. Let’s be real men, and stop the wussiness that prevails among the Libertarian set. Let’s back a Real Man for President; Rudy Giuliani.

    That is by far one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.

    Comment by Jason Pye — March 11, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
  13. If we are to choose OnTheIssues.org as a valid basic reference, here is their quote on Rudy Giuliani:

    “I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed…we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.
    Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000 ”

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rudy_Giuliani_Gun_Control.htm

    This quote is almost 7 years old at this point but I don’t imagine Mr. Giuliani has made any turnabout in the meantime.

    And this doesn’t even point out his instigation of a lawsuit against gun makers in June 2000.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Guliani#Gun_control_lawsuit

    I’ll consider supporting Rudy Giuliani as soon as I see a favorable article on him on the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership web site http://www.jpfo.org

    I have a feeling that I could be waiting for a very long time.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=site:JPFO.ORG+%22RUDY+GIULIANI%22 = 0 hits

    Mr. Dondero argues that Mr. Giuliani is Libertarian enough, I say he is not.

    As for Mr. Dondero’s comment about “wussy computer geek types”, it matters not that Mr. Dondero believes that Mr. Giuliani would be willing to use the destructive power of the US government willingly and with glee. George W. Bush uses the powers of the US military quite freely too. That doesn’t make those who believe that the lives and effort spent on the war on Iraq and Afghanistan are completely warranted “Real Men”.

    Comment by Thane Eichenauer — March 11, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
  14. Eric,

    Would Rudy Giuliani turn Saudi Arabia into glass and quit wasting resources on trying to domesticate these people? Any indication he is serious about killing Salafis or is he into turning a blind eye to Saudis funding Islamofascist?

    Does he want to confront Iran, supporting terrorist against the Shia. They are the opposing ideology of Salafis. Iranians probably want to kill them too and they want to kill the Iranians. Shiite death squads in Iraq do their job well. I’m sure many Sunnis are innocent but what can one do except get out of their way.

    I’m all for killing Salafis if it can be done cheaply without further destroying our Constitutional Republic. Here is an article, concerning Afghanistan saying we should not worry about domesticating them but focus on killing the Salafis and then getting out.

    The Federal Government is corrupt from head to toe, hiding behind State Secrets. Would Rudy take care of this little mess?

    Comment by uhm — March 11, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
  15. No, I would argue that Bush is not really man enough in fighting this War. He’s essentially no different from the liberals who attack him on a daily basis. That’s what’s so amazing.

    Do you realize that it took Bush 6 (!!!) friggin’ weeks to attack Afghanistan after 9/11.

    Do you know Bush has only identified our enemies as “Islamo-Fascists” on one single occasion.

    Bush has also covered up for Clinton on the Iraqi connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing.

    And Bush is too soft on dealing with Pakistan and the Saudis.

    Then he was more than willing to sell our Nation’s security away with that idiotic Port Dubai deal.

    I really don’t understand why Liberals are so upset with him. At least on foreign policy, he’s almost one of them.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 11, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
  16. Kevin, Rudy stands up to both the Islamo-Fascists abroad and the Religious Right here in the United States.

    The latter have tried to get him to change his Pro-choice views on abortion a million times, and he’s standing firm. Similarly they are entirely uncomfortable with his tolerant views on homosexuals. And still he doesn’t budge.

    Yes, Rudy sucks on legalized prostitution. I’m a huge Rudy fan, and I’m the first one to admit that. As Libertarians we need to work to get him to support a more libertarian stance on this issue.

    But two out of three ain’t bad.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 11, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
  17. Eric,

    Does Giuliani support the PATRIOT Act ?

    Does he support warrentless wiretaps ?

    Does he support holding an American citizen without trial and without access to counsel ?

    Does he support eroding Habeus Corpus and blurring the line between law enforcement and the military ?

    Does he support the use of “national security letters” to obtain information on American citizens without a warrant ?

    Does he believe that we should give up civil liberties to “protect” us from terrorists ?

    I suspect the answer to each of those questions would be yes. If so, then there’s just no way I can support him.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 11, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
  18. Do you realize that it took Bush 6 (!!!) friggin’ weeks to attack Afghanistan after 9/11.

    And what’s wrong about that ? There was no evidence of another attack being imminent.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 11, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
  19. Do you realize that it took Bush 6 (!!!) friggin’ weeks to attack Afghanistan after 9/11.

    Because we were setting up bases in the region, getting allies, neogotiating overflight rights with Pakistan, putting CIA agents on the ground in Northern Afghanistan to aid the Northern Alliance, mobilizing the forces needed to fight, getting a UN resolution authorizing the war, and finally conducting a last minute diplomatic appeal to the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. In other words, Bush was doing what most serious leaders do when they go to war, they prepare for it.

    Do you know Bush has only identified our enemies as “Islamo-Fascists” on one single occasion.

    Again, public diplomacy. Bush does not want to be seen as anti-Muslim. I’m not defending him, but I can understand why he doesn’t use the word “Islamofascist”.

    And Bush is too soft on dealing with Pakistan and the Saudis.

    Consider the alternative in both places. Osama bin Laden would win a free and fair election in both countries.

    Then he was more than willing to sell our Nation’s security away with that idiotic Port Dubai deal.

    Bullshit. Ports Dubai was just going to take control of the business operations of the ports. Port security was going to stay in the hands of the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security. The blatant xenophobia on display by the deal’s critics have only reinforced the perception in the world that Americans are racists and xenophobes.

    Yes, Rudy sucks on legalized prostitution. I’m a huge Rudy fan, and I’m the first one to admit that. As Libertarians we need to work to get him to support a more libertarian stance on this issue.

    Honestly, I don’t care what Rudy’s position on prostitution is. It’s not a national issue.

    Comment by Kevin — March 11, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
  20. I will vote for Giuliani. As a lifetime New Yorker, I have a different take on his authoritarian leader ship style:

    New York was begging for it.

    The Democratic mayors that preceded Giuliani (Dinkins and Koch) were so afraid to offend anyone that they did nothing and lost control of the city to the Al Sharptons of the world.

    After one term, Dinkins was tossed out of office by a fed up electorate desperate for someone to actually run the city and lead. Giuliani was elected even though Democrats outnumber Republicans by 5 to 1. And he was easily re-elected.

    Comment by Rich CD — March 11, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
  21. What Muslim groups are Islamo-Fascist? Is it all Muslims? Is it the ones that won’t get on their knees and obey us? Is it the Salafis, the ones who attacked us?

    Is Giuliani for nation bulding, wasting resources on trying to bring these people out of the dark ages? Or does he have a more sensible plan as just kill the ones we want dead then leave?

    Comment by uhm — March 12, 2007 @ 5:31 am
  22. Public funding for abortion? He said it take a look.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALDfwXIYUX0

    Comment by uhm — March 12, 2007 @ 6:56 am
  23. Doug, I don’t know about Giuliani supporting the Patriot Act, but I most certainly do!! We are a bunch of War Wimps in this country. We’re afraid to do what needs to be done to defeat the greatest threat to our human liberties in our Nation’s history: Islamo-Fascism.

    And if that means jailing a few illegal immigrant Muslims who’ve snuck into our country without cause, or sending a few jerkoff Terrorists to Poland to be tortured to find out what the plans are for the next 9/11 attack on US soil, I’M ALL IN FAVOR OF IT!!!

    I suspect Rudy has a more modest view on such issues. Which frankly troubles me.

    I hope he’s better than Liberal on Foreign Policy George W. Bush on fighting the Islamo-Fascists.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 12, 2007 @ 9:09 am
  24. Kevin, Bush waiting 6 weeks to attack the Taliban after 9/11 is nearly unforgiveable. I voted for Bush. I even supported him in 2004 over that jerk Badnarik. But I have some serious, serious reservations about the way he is conducting this War on Islamo-Fascism. He’s being far, far, far too cautious.

    He should have held a press conference on September 14, and informed the entire Muslim World, (Doug, excuse my language here), YOU FUCKA WITH MY COUNTRY, WE FUCKA WITH YOUR COUNTRIES TEN TIMES OVER!!!

    And it was only Afghanistan he attacked!!! He should have bombed the shit out of any Muslim country harboring Terrorists, including Saudi Arabia.

    Like I said, I used to like Bush. But looking back, I’m now starting to think he’s a near total Liberal on Foreign Policy.

    Which makes it mind-boggling that Leftist Libertarians who are non-interventionist despise the guy. Hell, Bush is basically a non-interventionist Anti-War guy these days.

    Sheesh!

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 12, 2007 @ 9:15 am
  25. Well show me a liberal that would be callous enough to sell off the business or the security of our shipping ports to an outside firm of an Islamic country and I’ll show you a compassionate conservative. Bush’s family has some rather good connections in that part of the world.

    Liked Rich’s comment about how New York City was “begging for it.” It is difficult to judge about Rudy for someone like me that never knew him before what he did on 9/11 made him famous. What anyone suddenly thrown in that position could have done is beyond imagination. But Rudy is a republican and, especially after the last few years, that is almost giving himself a bad name.

    Comment by Watercloset — March 12, 2007 @ 10:29 am
  26. Eric,

    Read this post and then tell if you still think the PATRIOT Act is a good idea.

    And keep in mind the fact that law enforcement has been using the powers granted to it by the PATRIOT Act for things completely unrelated to terrorism investigations.

    As far as I know, the Fourth Amendment was not repealed on September 11th.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 12, 2007 @ 10:43 am
  27. Eric,

    We attacked Afghanistan for a very simple reason….that’s where the terrorist group that attacked us was located. Not to mention the fact that it was the Taliban government that was providing support and security to al Qaeda.

    I supported the Afghan War. It’s one of the few foreign policy decisions that George Bush made after 9/11 that I think he got absolutely right. Quite honestly, I often think we didn’t go far enough in Afghanistan, and I am convinced that the expedition in Iraq has distracted us from the goal of destroying al Qaeda.

    Bombing Riyadh on September 14th would have accomplished absolutely nothing.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 12, 2007 @ 10:45 am
  28. Wrong! Al Quada was and is still in Somalia, Yemen, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and MOST CERTAINLY IN IRAQ!!

    Though the Leftist media tried to downplay the story, and then later on tried to say that it never happened, THERE IS SOLID UNDISPUTABLE PROOF, that Muhammed Attah met with Iraqi Intelligence, not just once, BUT TWICE in Prague before the 9/11 attacks.

    Even more, THERE IS SOLID PROOF, that Terry Nichols met with Muslim Extremists on 5 visits to the Phillipines in 1995 before the OKC attacks. And many speculate that these were Iraqi and Al Qaeda intellifence officials.

    Even more, Salman Pac and Al Answar al Islam both strongly linked to Al Qaeda, actually the latter was simply an offshoot of Al Qaeda in another name, both had stations in Iraq before 2003.

    Even more, Zarcawi was in Baghdad for TWO YEARS BEFORE WE INVADED IRAQ in 2003.

    You sound like a victim of the Leftwing Bush-bashing propoganda machine. You should learn the truth about Iraqi-connections to attacks on the United States.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 12, 2007 @ 11:07 am
  29. Doug, I don’t need to read any “links.” No doubt it’s from some Leftwing site, that hates Bush.

    You need to read the Jayna Davis Book “The Third Terrorist.” Or the Bruce Bawer book “While the West Slept.” Or just about anything from Daniel Pipes, Michelle Malkin, Robert Spencer or Jack Wheeler.

    These days, even the so-called “Conservative” media like Fox News, Drudge and even Human Events are being soft on coverage of the threat of Islamo-Fascism.

    You can only find real coverage at WND, Malkin, Little Green Footballs, and Debbie Schlussell.com.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 12, 2007 @ 11:10 am
  30. Eric,

    Doug, I don’t need to read any “links.” No doubt it’s from some Leftwing site, that hates Bush.

    Actually, it was a post from this site linking to and discussing a newspaper article about how the FBI has used the sham of “national security letters” to collect private information on American citizens for reasons unrelated to terrorism, in violation of it’s own policy.

    And you don’t honestly consider World Net Daily a credible news source do you ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 12, 2007 @ 11:14 am
  31. Eric,

    The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no link between Saddam and 9/11, and no credible evidence of the same has been produced.

    And don’t even get me started on the OKC conspiracy theory. That was so obviously linked to Waco that it’s not funny.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 12, 2007 @ 11:16 am
  32. Eric,

    One question:

    Do you believe there should be any limits at all on law enforcement ?

    And as for torture, if you really think it works why bother taking the suspects to foreign countries, why not just do it here ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 12, 2007 @ 11:17 am
  33. Do I believe there should be limits on law enforcement? Sure, tell those friggin’ cops to STOP PULLING ME OVER FOR NOT WEARING MY G-DAMNED SEAT BELT!!!

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 12, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
  34. There’s no “conspiracy” about Oklahoma City Bombing linked to Muslim Radicals. It’s all fact.

    But of course, Lefty Libertarians such as yourself refuse to read the Rohrabacher Commission Report from last December, or Jayna Davis’s extensive well-documented investigations on OKC, cause it doesn’t quite fit y’all’s template.

    Ya see, if OKC bombing is proved to have Iraqi connections, well, that would be further justification for Bush’s War in Iraq, along with the violations of the No Fly Zones, and the bombing of the USS Starke by the Iraqis killing 27 US Sailors.

    So, the only choice you Lefty Libertarians have is to write off OKC bombing connections to Muslim Terrorists as just “fringe talk,” and “conspiracy.”

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 12, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
  35. Actually, Eric, I think the constant infringements of the cease-fire agreement (due to attacking aircraft in the no-fly zone) are the legal justification we needed to go to war with Iraq. In fact, it makes for a nice fallback position from the WMD issue.

    That doesn’t mean that the Iraq war was necessary.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 12, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
  36. That doesn’t mean that the Iraq war was necessary.

    I’m not sure about that. What probably would have happened if Saddam died of natural causes is the country would have broken up into various factions and a civil war would have ensued. Oh wait, that’s the case now. However, the only question is, do we deal with the Iraqi civil war now or later?

    Comment by Kevin — March 12, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
  37. Saudis and Iranians are fighting a proxy war there and we are caught in the middle. These people have been fighting for thousands of years and they aren’t going to stop for us.

    Comment by uhm — March 13, 2007 @ 12:36 am
  38. Do I believe there should be limits on law enforcement? Sure, tell those friggin’ cops to STOP PULLING ME OVER FOR NOT WEARING MY G-DAMNED SEAT BELT!!!

    Ummm, I oppose seatbelt laws too, but I was thinking of more serious violations of the Fourth Amendment like warrentless wiretaps and national security letters.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 13, 2007 @ 8:45 am
  39. Ummm, those issues you talk about are not only stupid, they are insignificant and completely irrelevant to 99.9% of all Americans.

    Civil liberties issues that matter include: Pro-choice, Prostitution, Gambling, Seat Belt Laws, Booze, Drinking Age Repeals, ect…

    “Warrentless wiretaps, national security letters…”

    Snooze, snooze, snooze (falling asleep at my keyboard… 1%#!%vt t]040ttctrigg5y$%@$%trreqewrqercqrqjkwtri4t4c

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 14, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
  40. Eric,

    I am somewhat distressed to hear that you consider yourself a libertarian and yet don’t think the Fourth Amendment is important.

    Nonetheless…..

    Civil liberties issues that matter include: Pro-choice, Prostitution, Gambling, Seat Belt Laws, Booze, Drinking Age Repeals, ect…

    With the exception of abortion, I am willing to bet that Giuliani would oppose the libertarian position on each of those issues.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 14, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
  41. No, I’d be willing to bet that he is absolutely in favor of Gambler’s rights. Perhaps you missed the news, but his friend Alfronse D’Amato was just appointed Head of the nationwide Poker Player’s Alliance.

    On seat belt laws, my guess is that he’d take the same position he takes on guns: leave it up to the states to decide.

    Booze? Last time I checked Rudy was a drinker, not a teetolar like George W. Bush.

    Yes, I agree on the Drinking Age. I’m sure he, like just about every other politician in the US, favors keeping it at 21. Sadly!

    And yes, Rudy’s position on prostitution absolutely sucks. This is the one issue where I have seriously difficulties with him on. I only hope to meet him one day and dissuade him from his stance.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 16, 2007 @ 9:25 am
  42. Eric,

    The fact that Al D’Amato is working for the Poker Player’s Alliance is merely an indication to me that someone is paying him enough money to do so.

    And don’t you think that there are graver threats to liberty than seatbelt laws ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 16, 2007 @ 9:49 am
  43. Civil liberties issues that matter include: Pro-choice, Prostitution, Gambling, Seat Belt Laws, Booze, Drinking Age Repeals, ect…

    Eric,

    In other words, in your vision of big tent mainstream libertarianism; pro-lifers like Ron Paul, Michael Badnarik, Walter Williams, Vox Day, Mark Sanford, and Andrew Napolitiano are not welcome; but authoritarians like Guiliani and socialists like the Main Street Republicans are??!! What separates you from the wanna be commissars over at LewRockwell.com again?

    As Doug has been trying to point out, there is more to libertarianism than drinking, gambling, prostitution, sex, drugs, and abortion (although I would disagree that libertarians have to be pro-choice). There is protecting civil and economic liberties as well.

    Comment by Kevin — March 16, 2007 @ 11:41 am
  44. I think Eric’s “mainstream libertarian” is really a shortened version of “mainstream view of libertarians.” Damn, his civil liberties issues basically confirm that we’re all a bunch of nutcases. All we wanna do is go out, get drunk/high with an underage prostitute, and when we knock her up, force her to get an abortion.

    I recommend ignoring Dondero.

    Nick

    Comment by Nick M. — March 16, 2007 @ 11:53 am
  45. Underage prostitute? Where in the world do you get that impression from?

    Overage — 18 — prostitute, by all means. Underate — under 18 — avoid like the plague. Under no circumstances would I ever advocate underage prostitution.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 16, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
  46. Kevin, Walter Williams Pro-Life? That’s news to me.

    What I’m trying to point out is that the Libertarian Party I joined, and that I was recruited into back in 1985 was all about such civil liberties issues.

    Hell, back then going to a Libertarian Party of Florida Convention was like going to a huge Swingers Party with a bunch of Booze and Marijuana thrown in.

    Those were the days. Back then, it was fun to be a Libertarian. Issues that the LP emphasized back then were issues that mattered, like legalized Prostitution, allowing Titty Bars in Tampa, Adult Porno, legalizing Gambling, ect…

    Now the LP has become almost the Prude Party. You don’t see those issues emphasized any more. It’s all these boring-ass arcane so-called civil liberties issues that nobody cares about outside of ultra-Liberal college professors.

    We need to bring back the LP of the 1980s. The ole’ Sex, Booze and Rock ‘n Roll Libertarian Party was much more fun, and attracted a bunch more people, than the new boring-ass humorless computer geek LP.

    That’s why I’m hoping Doug Stanhope wins the LP Nomination.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 16, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
  47. Oh, and Nick is no libertarian. He’s some Leftist America-hater poser who has infiltrated our libertarian movement.

    I highly recommend that he be ignored.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 16, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
  48. Mataconis, if you had read the NY Times article from a week ago, on Al D’Amato you would know that he’s a hardcore Poker Player himself. In fact, the article focused mostly on his own Poker Playing, and the fact that he’d been hired to head the group was almost an aside.

    I never really like D’Amato before. But now since he’s supporting a libertarian stance on gambling, he’s almost a libertarian hero!

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 16, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
  49. Kevin, funny definition you have there for “authoritarian.” Calling Giuliani an “authoritarian.” I guess you know more than the London Times-Herald, NY Sun, Washington Post, Washington Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, National Review, Insight and American Spectator all of whom have called Giuliani a “libertarian” or “libertarian conservative” in recent weeks.

    Golly gee, I’m so honored to be in the presence of someone who is smarter than all those media outlets combined.

    Oh, and did I happen to mention that Giulian scored a 60/60 “Moderate Libertarian” on the non-partisan ontheissues.com. The only Presidential candidate to get the Libertarian designation.

    Oh, and did I mention that Giuliani just appointed libertarian conservative Bill Simon as his National Campaign Policy Advisor. You might know that Simon is the son of famed libertarian economist William E. Simon (close friend of Ron Paul).

    Oh, and did I mention that many have speculated that if elected, Giuliani’s cabinet will “look like the Manhattan Institute” a libertarian think tank so says the NY Times.

    Now, you may know this but libertarian is the polar opposite of authoritarian.

    It’s hard for Giuliani to be both an authoritarian and a libertarian at the same time.

    Oops, I almost forgot. The NY Times once called Giuliani a “privatizing, budget slashing Ayn Randian.”

    You may know Ayn Rand? She was hardly an “authoritarian.”

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 16, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
  50. Looked at your site.

    I agree on property rights, energy policy,individual liberties, gun rights, growing the economy, and cutting spending. Private alternatives I hope means quit stealing money from people and let them invest it or not.

    I think a guest worker program won’t work but will be passed. The flaw is our government is filled with whores. They granted amnesty already. Two border patrol agents were sent to jail for shooting at a criminal. Foreign governments will lobby to get criminals in the US.

    Education, government needs to get out of it.

    Defense, how about government corruption surrounding it? The facts surrounding Sibel Edmonds case is fascinating.

    Sibel Edmonds’ case is about the intersection of illegal arms trafficking, heroin trafficking, money laundering, terrorist activities and the corruption of many “highly-recognizable, highly-known names” in and around the US government. Link

    Here is an interview with some details. I love the line, “the US is run by a bunch of terrorist-financing heroin dealers. Link

    We need to clean house and keep it clean.

    Humanitarianism, we can give moral support but we shouldn’t fight their battles for them.

    I’ll be watching Giuliani along with the other presidential candidates. People have plenty of choices this time around. I don’t want to keep the status quo.

    Comment by uhm — March 16, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
  51. Doug, actually I have to disagree with one thing you said. Or, rather, point out that you only have half the story. Yes, the OKC bombing, on the surface, is linked to Waco. However, there is highly credible evidence, swept under the rug by both Clinton and Bush 43, of ties to, training by, and financial support from Iraq. The third man, the one that police were searching for the first week afterwards, likely Iraqi. Read Jayna Davis’ book.

    One of the very few things Dondero has said recently that I agree with. Broken clock, twice a day, etc.

    Comment by Adam Selene — March 16, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
  52. Thank you Adam. But you’ll never get a Lefty Libertarian to read the Jayna Davis book, even if you knock ‘em upside the head with it.

    You see it doesn’t fit their template; Iraq War = Bad, Iraqis were not our enemies.

    Just like the little teensy weensy fact that Libertarians always ignore of the Iraqis killing 37 of our US Sailors in the USS Starke incident in the late 1980s.

    Again, Iraqis killing American sailors doesn’t fit the Leftwing Libertarian template.

    I’ve tried a million times to get Libertarians to read the Jayna Davis book. None of them ever do. They just go silent about it.

    Isn’t it funny how Libertarians were all up in arms about Waco in the 1990s. They latched on to every single conspiracy theory out there. They produced videos about it, help protests, ect…

    But when it comes to the Oklahoma City bombing, Lefty Libertarians are completely silent.

    Talk about extreme hypocrisy.

    And there’s brand new evidence just released and coverend by the House Intelligence Comm. Report that suggest strongly, the FBI flubbed the case, and didn’t follow up on leads to Iraqi connections.

    Did you notice how there was complete silence from all Libertarian camps on that? Reason didn’t say a word, Cato – nothing, Liberty Papers – nothing, LewRockwell.com – nothing.

    Shameful!

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 17, 2007 @ 9:18 am
  53. Why would Clinton and Bush cover it up?

    Comment by uhm — March 17, 2007 @ 10:06 am
  54. Just for the record, the website dondero keeps referring to is http://www.ontheissues.org not .com

    Nick

    Comment by Nick M. — March 17, 2007 @ 10:36 am
  55. Nick,

    Thanks for the link. It looks like they basically just recycle stuff from the media and stick it into their conveniently labeled cubby holes.

    Frankly, I didn’t find the site informative at all after looking at the “profiles” of several 2008 candidates.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 17, 2007 @ 10:46 am
  56. Wow, and when they have Ron Paul as also a “Moderate Libertarian”, I don’t necessarily trust their analysis. Brownback as a “libertarian-leaning conservative”??

    Yeah, these guys are not entirely accurate, if you ask me.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 17, 2007 @ 11:53 am
  57. Does anyone else find it funny that the guy who wants the LP to go back to being the party of partying is posting on a blog at 9 pm on a Friday?

    Comment by Nick M. — March 17, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
  58. I actually am confused; I thought that everybody who joined the P in the ’80′s had to take the Zero Aggression Pledge, yet here we have one member screaming that soldiers should go and indiscriminately slaughter people in the hopes of killing a couple of thousand who had something to do with a string of mass-murders.

    Am I wrong about the Z.A.P.? Or had people in the LP started treating the ZAP in the way most politicians treat the U.S. constitution – playing lip service to it while ignoring it in word and deed? Or has Eric changed his mind and embraced mass murder? Or is some third person trying to blacken Eric’s reputation by posting batshit insane crap and attaching Eric’s name to them?

    Comment by tarran — March 17, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
  59. I find myself strongly leaning to Giuliani, even as I search sites like this for the negatives. I want someone that is pro-trade, pro-immigration, and willing to accept social moderates as part of the coalition. Giuliani seems to fit this best. But, if he were an authoritarian with a distaste for liberty and an instinct for control, I would back someone else (even if they disagreed with me on stem cells).

    But is he authoritarian? The argument that he is seems to be based on a) his grudges against some political critics, b) his de-funding of some public art that was controversial, and most of all, c) his campaign against small civil disturbances in NYC (which sometimes included street musicians, graffiti artists, and unlicensed street vendors). While I disagree with him on a) and b), and have mixed views on c), I just do not think this makes him Juan Peron.

    Comment by Mark — March 17, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
  60. Mark,

    All you need to do is look at that scumbag’s actions as a D.A. going after Milken.

    Look at his actions, not words. I fear a Giuliani presidency would in many ways resemble the FDR one; the guy is a demagogue who is a serial liar and cheat.

    Comment by tarran — March 17, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
  61. Brownback as a “libertarian-leaning conservative”??

    Yeah, these guys are not entirely accurate, if you ask me.

    The liberty index put out by the RLC also has Brownback as a libertarian-leaner. Maybe his rhetoric doesn’t meet his votes.

    Comment by Kevin — March 18, 2007 @ 11:25 am
  62. tarran,

    The Zero Aggression Pledge is the main reason why I am not a libertarian.

    Comment by Kevin — March 18, 2007 @ 11:26 am
  63. Just like the little teensy weensy fact that Libertarians always ignore of the Iraqis killing 37 of our US Sailors in the USS Starke incident in the late 1980s.

    Again, Iraqis killing American sailors doesn’t fit the Leftwing Libertarian template.

    The Iraqis mistook the Stark for an Iranian ship. They apologized and paid compensation to the victims’ families. The pilot was executed. What would you have done?

    Comment by Kevin — March 18, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
  64. Eric,

    I said you were right on OKC. That doesn’t mean I agree with you on everything else. This site is not “Lefty Libertarian”, that much I can promise. We have spoken out in favor of using the US military when it makes. The position of the majority of the contributors on Iraq is that

    1. The WMD thing was blown intelligence and a faulty foundation for the war.
    2. Hussein was a really bad guy that needed to go.
    3. The Bush Administration is trapped in an ideological view of the Middle East that is making things worse, not better.
    4. The Bush Administration tried to make war on the cheap and are now paying the price, much like Kennedy and LBJ in Vietnam.

    That said, do you really believe that Iraq’s involvement in the attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush, the OKC bombing (possible, not proven) and so forth called for the expenditure of billions of US dollars, thousands of US lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives?

    I’d also point out to you that Kevin, Chris, Mike and Stephen are much more hawkish than, say, Doug. And that Brad was fairly hawkish too, and still is, but cannot support the ineptitude of the Bush Administration (neither can I, for that matter).

    Lew Rockwell, left libertarian. CATO, not so much. TLP ……. are you smoking crack? Or do you not bother to read the articles and just leap in and call us that because we think the Bush Administration is horribly incompetent?

    Comment by Adam Selene — March 18, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
  65. I believe the bombing of the USS Starke killing 37 US Sailors justified us blowing Saddam Hussein and his forces back to Kingdom Come.

    As for the attempted assasination of Bush, and OKC, most certainly. But the Starke incident trumps them both.

    I actually agree with your Number 4. Yes, Bush tried to do it on the cheap. But I would argue it was more because he’s almost a Liberal on Military issues. He’s far too scared of the Liberal Media, and how they would portray him. So, he launched a politically correct soft, gentle War on the Iraqis, instead of raining all hellfire on them, like he should have done.

    This is why I’m baffled by the Left Libertarian view on Bush. Hell, Bush is a Liberal on the War on Terror.

    You know how many times he’s used the phrase Islamo-Fascism? 1!!! One single time has the phrase Islamo-Fascism publicly passed through the lips of our President.

    Know how long it took Bush to launch the War against the Taliban after 9/11? 6 friggin’ weeks!!!

    Bush is almost a Liberal on foreign policy. Which makes it awfully strange that other Leftys like Lew Rockwell hate him so much.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 18, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
  66. Kevin, that’s what the MSM wanted you to believe.

    I was in the Persian Gulf for 9 long months, in the upper Persian Gulf as a matter of fact.

    I am not permitted to disclose any information. Let me just say, that there was a lot, a lot, a lot more going on over there during the Iran/Iraq War than the public and media back at home knew about.

    Don’t believe everything you read in Time and Newsweek or watch on the Nightly News.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 18, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
  67. Tarran, PLEASE understand that that silly pledge is only accepted by a tiny minority within a tiny minority of the overall libertarian movement. Even a majority of Libertarian Party Libertarians reject the thing.

    PLEASE I IMPLORE YOU WITH ALL MY HEART. We need you in the Mainstream Libertarian movement. Do NOT judge the libertarian movement by the whacked out extremists who shout the loudest.

    We want you in our movement.

    Please check out the Republican Liberty Caucus at http://www.rlc.org or Mainstream Libertarians at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

    I guarantee you will find a political home with us Mainstream Libertarians.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 18, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
  68. Tarran, the NAP was hoisted on the Libertarian Party in the middle 1970s by the Anarchist Radical Caucus.

    Before that the libertarian movement, and even the Libertarian Party was mostly Pro-Defense.

    The Leftist Anarchists have done a spectacular job at propogada whitewashing the original Pro-Defense Libertarians like Dana Rohrabacher, Jack Wheeler, Earl Ravenal and others from the movement.

    But some of us oldtimer Libertarians are still around and remember the old days in the LP, when everyone just agreed to disagree about foreign policy, and we left it at that.

    The originaly Libertarian position was Pro-Defense. The Libertarian position in the 1970s and 80′s and well into the 1990s was NAP and Pacifist.

    Now we Libertarian Defense Caucus members are winning back the libertarian movement to the originaly Pro-Defense stance.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 18, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
  69. Eric,

    Frankly, I want nothing to do with your political organizations. Your support for war-socialism is dangerous at worst and ludicrous at best.

    Honestly, I like the Zero Aggression Pledge. It forms the basis of civilization. I am one of those “whacked out” extremists you condemn. If you were willing to support murdering people overseas on your own dime, I would ignore you.

    However, you want to force me to pay for your war-making, at gunpoint, to short-change my children’s security and future via extortion to satisfy your bloodlust and cowardice. Should you have your way, you proclaim that the people killed by your agents are doing it in my name. You have earned my enmity, contempt and scorn.

    Comment by tarran — March 18, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
  70. Wrong. Dead wrong. I’m a big advocate of a tax write-off check-off box on our tax returns for those who do not wish to contribute to our country’s National Defense.

    I’m all in favor of you being able to opt out of supporting your country’s Military.

    This, so long as the names are made public, so that Patriots such as myself can publicly shame the yellow-bellied cowardly freeloaders among us.

    Kind of like that Louisiana law that states, that Burning the American Flag is completely legal in the State; However, Veterans and Active duty Military Personnel cannot be charged with assault for punching the living shit out of the Flag burners.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 19, 2007 @ 9:41 am
  71. Eric,

    I want to pay for my defense, I don’t want to pay for your offense.

    You want to live off of my earnings and you call yourself a libertarian and me a free-loader? Ha!

    Comment by tarran — March 19, 2007 @ 10:14 am
  72. Eric,

    Would you be more than happy to march every one of us off to the gulags for your precious “national security”? Is there any freedom that you won’t trample for its sake?

    - Josh

    Comment by Wild Pegasus — March 19, 2007 @ 10:46 am
  73. Kind of like that Louisiana law that states, that Burning the American Flag is completely legal in the State; However, Veterans and Active duty Military Personnel cannot be charged with assault for punching the living shit out of the Flag burners.

    Eric, there is no law in Louisiana that says that.

    Comment by Kevin — March 19, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
  74. Kevin,

    I’m more intrigued by the fact that Eric apparently endorses the idea of assualting people exercising their Constitutional rights.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 19, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
  75. Hey Tarran, what did you call 9/11 then? Was that not an attack on our country? Would you have just ignored it, and moved on? No Military response?

    Doug: I’m a Veteran, and damn Proud of it! I’ll do whatever it takes to defend my beloved United States of America. I would GLADLY give my life for my country. And if that means bashing a few heads of Leftist scumbag Flag burners, HELL YEAH! I’m willing to spend 30 days in the County Jail for that.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 20, 2007 @ 8:44 am
  76. Eric, sweetie,

    If the federal government hadn’t been giving aid to the King of Saudi Arabia or the president for life of Egypt, then Al Queda would not have brought down the World Trade Center.

    If the United States government hadn’t forbidden U.S. citizens from carrying weapons an aircraft, then the hijackings would not have been attempted.

    But that’s all water pissed under the bridge. A gang sent some of its members on a suicide mission and knocked down a couple of skyscrapers causing billions of dollars’ damage and murdering 3,000 people.

    Now, of course, it is hard to do anything about the murderers themselves: they all died with their victims. However, they had accessories. So you go after them. The U.S. government had a thread of SIGINT to begin pulling on. Personally, if I were president, I would have given the Taliban the evidence we had of Al Queda’s guilt. Remember how they publicly demanded that evidence, and they promised to try him if it was sufficient? Put them in the hot seat. Watch who travels where, who talks to whom in response. Do the standard things when trying to tease apoart a conspiracy. Let them get complacent, sloppy. Let them think that they got away with it; it makes them complacent and lackadaisical about security.

    And, perhaps, if it was not possible to figure out who was responsible for the crime, yes, you move on. If we had “moved on” the criminal mastermind might still be at large, and been widely viewed with contempt. Our hamhanded actions have failed to capture the mastermind, and have strengthened support for him, his organization, and his tactics, his strategies and goals, and we have murdered tens of thousands of people to boot! So, in the end, we’re currently much worse off than if we ahd merely “moved on”!

    Think about it! The U.S. has now, in the war on terror, via “collateral damage,” killed far more innocent souls than were killed by Al Queada.

    So somewhere in Afghanistan, somewhere in Iraq, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the Philipines, you’ve got some angry guy screaming that they can not let the murders of the Americans go unpunished. Some of them will act on their hatred and kill Americans, and then we kill a bunch of people in revenge, the cycle repeating indefinitely. Meantime, every war leads to a country that is less free, a larger military-industrial complex, more taxes and a tougher live to those who are not politically connected.

    I have trouble believing you did anything much in the U.S. military: your claim that if Bush had been brave he would have immediately attacked Afghanistan exposes a complete lack of understanding of logistics and strategic planning. Hell, even as a lowly Lieutenant working in the reactor rooms of an aircraft carrier I had abetter idea how much planning an invasion requires.

    I’m still not sure how beating up people who burn a flag somehow protects anyone. What, if they hate you more, they’ll be less likely to commit an act of treason? Hell, if you want to support the war on “IslamoFascism”, the U.S. government is suffering from a massive shortage of labor in its security apparatus. I’m sure you could fight your enemies more productively by re-enlisting than by noodling around on blogs.

    Your diatribes in support of Giuliani and against Ron Paul have convinced me, though, that I should not support Ron Paul; anyone who would hire a flaming idiot like you and place you in a position of responsibility has to suffer from poor judgment. The kind of poor judgment that leads to putting incompetent morons like Bernie Kerik in positions of responsibility. Hmm… I wonder who lofted Bernie into the big-time?

    Comment by tarran — March 20, 2007 @ 9:53 am
  77. And we need to kill 10 times more.

    You fucka with my country, we fucka with your country

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 20, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
  78. And thus Tarran proves precisely why the Radical Libertarians never win. They just keep spitting on our flag, spitting on America, banging away on their computer keyboards with their long-ass boring-ass diatribes that nobody has any time to read.

    Tarran. Evidence One as to why Radical Libertarians never succeed.

    You are a walking argument for Libertarians to stay, far, far away from you and your ideas.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — March 20, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
  79. What bugs me is our government was sitting on its’ butt after several terrorist attacks doing nothing in the 90′s. The attack on the USS Cole happened 11 months before 9/11 yet Bush and Clinton ignored it. Osama bin Laden declared war on the US in the late 90′s and the government ignored it. We have plenty of reason to huntdown Salafis, cutting off their funds. Now the real irritating part is the government is supporting terrorist against the new bogey man, Iran. The Empire has a myopic vision when it comes to threats. We are battling Salafis in Iraq and the US government is allowing Saudis to fund these nuts against Iran.

    If the MS-13 can get inside the US through our open border so can Al Qaedia. It goes to show all the liberty squashing protections are to enslave the American people not to protect us. Counter Terrori$m is here to stay regardless of the threat because there is money in it.

    Comment by uhm — March 20, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
  80. Damn, Eric, I feel the same way about your short, largely incoherent, childish tantrums. ;)

    Have fun licking politicians’ boots, I understand access to the levers of power is quite the aphrodisiac.

    Comment by tarran — March 20, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
  81. Eric,

    You fucka with my country, we fucka with your country

    While this may be rhetorically interesting, it isn’t the basis for a rational discussion of U.S. foreign policy.

    I’m beginning to think this particular conversation is over.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 20, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
  82. tarran

    Hell, if you want to support the war on “IslamoFascism”, the U.S. government is suffering from a massive shortage of labor in its security apparatus. I’m sure you could fight your enemies more productively by re-enlisting than by noodling around on blogs.

    So only teachers should have a say over education policy or only police should have a say over crime? The “chickenhawk” meme is simply absurd.

    Seriously, would you want Eric having anything to do with the military :).

    Comment by Kevin — March 20, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
  83. Doug,

    While this may be rhetorically interesting, it isn’t the basis for a rational discussion of U.S. foreign policy.

    I’m beginning to think this particular conversation is over.

    But Eric is good entertainment value.

    Comment by Kevin — March 20, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
  84. The “chickenhawk” meme is simply absurd.

    Kevin, I actually agree; for the most part, accusations of chickenhawkry are ridiculous.

    On the other hand, when someone keeps calling me a coward, and begins to aggressively demand my enthusiastic suport for his colonial wars, the temptation to resort to such accusations can become quite overwhelming.

    I’ll try to do better.

    Comment by tarran — March 21, 2007 @ 9:35 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML