| | I'm not familiar at all with the history of the Libertarian Party, but after reading this article and then reading Badnarik's actual policy statement on Iraq (http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IraqWar.php), I fail to see any justification for Linz to call the Libertarians "Islamo-fascists", nor for Mr. Taranto to insinuate that they "Blame America First".
If I had written his policy statement, I would certainly have included language sufficient to preclude confusing his policy on Iraq with his policy on terrorism, and he should have an explicit policy on terrorism--one that does not excuse it (i.e., the terrorizing, threatening, and murdering of Americans), even in light of the foreign policy freakshow of the late twentieth century (and Bush's potential repeat performance in Iraq). Just as Bush and his administration did deliberately during the past three years, it seems that Linz and Mr. Taranto are, for whatever reason, intermingling what should be nearly mutually exclusive issues: the war on Al Qaeda and related terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Despite the Bush administration's assertions, even to this day, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war against terrorists. It was a sham. It was a lie. It was a deliberate campaign of competing lies--who can tell the biggest one?--that got us into this war. That Saddam Hussein was a tyrant that deserves to die was not one of those lies, certainly. That he and his regime were an imminent threat to the United States that justified toppling his government was. The issue is not whether we were justified in going to war; I think any freer state is justified in overthrowing more oppressive states in order to institute a more free state; the issue is, however, whether it was in the best interest of individual Americans, at that time, to instigate such a conflict with Iraq, and I've seen nothing to justify that--especially in light of the simultaneous, ultimately important, exceedingly just military campaign against Al Qaeda, which no sane person has any doubt is in the best interest of every individual American. This latter conflict is the one waged against in self-defense, against the known and verified enemy, against murderers who, quite simply, must die in battle or face justice and die at the hands of a war crimes tribunal.
Sadly, although I agree with Badnarik (fundamentally) that were the US's foreign policy not so lacking in foresight, honesty, and justice in the twentieth century, 9/11 might never have happened, he has not turned the coin (that I can see) and stated his hatred for and intent to defend Americans against Al Qaeda and all other terrorists who might seek, by their own will, to harm or murder Americans--that in the end, no amount of heinous foreign policy can justify murder.
I think this is where the Badnarik platform truly fails. He rightly condemns the Bush administration for (potentially) repeating the mistakes that led to an environment that encouraged hatred for the US in the Middle East, and yet he fails to condemn that hatred's leading to murder (mass-murder or otherwise). In the end, though, it seems Badnarik blames America (specifically, Bush and his administration) for the current ill-advised war in Iraq, and he remains regretfully silent on the blame for 9/11.
|
|
