Reason.com

Print|Email

New at Reason

July 13, 2004

How much does the President deserve an electoral whoopin'? Jesse Walker counts the ways.

← New at Reason | Main | Getting Their Priorities Straight →

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|7.13.04 @ 3:18AM|

Just after reading Jesse's article, which is truly depressing on both Dem and GOP angles, a friend sent me this article, an unexpected support for Libs!

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39394

"Any last vestiges of hope in the Republican Party have been shattered by the current regime, wherein a Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican-nominated Supreme Court have demonstrated that they have zero interest in the timeless vision of America's founders. Supporting them in the hopes that they will revive American liberties is akin to hoping that shock paddles will suffice to revive a month-old corpse. American freedom is not only dead, it has been rotting for some time.

There are those who say that a vote for a third-party candidate, such as the Libertarian's Michael Badnarik or the Constitution Party's Michael Peroutka, is wasted. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, these are the only votes that are not wasted, for positive change will only come from those outside the corrupt bi-factional system. After all, it was neither the Tories nor the Whigs who fought for American independence.

...The revival of American liberty is still in its infancy, as only 482,451 people voted for the Libertarian and Constitution presidential candidates combined, 0.96 percent of those who voted for the victorious Republican, George W. Bush. But that is 482,395 more people than the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, and as for those who believe our present bipartisan system is eternal, well, tell it to the Whigs."

|7.13.04 @ 3:24AM|

nice work, Jesse.

|7.13.04 @ 3:26AM|

The war in Iraq. Over a thousand soldiers and counting have died to subdue a country that was never a threat to the United States.

I like to think that you can't possibly be stupid enough to actually believe that.

Jesse Walker|7.13.04 @ 3:28AM|

Why, was it less than a thousand?

|7.13.04 @ 3:29AM|

Dan:

Iraq did not attack us.
Iraq did not threaten to attack us.
Iraq did not conspire to attack us.

How can you say our actions did not constitute aggression?

|7.13.04 @ 3:40AM|

Brian,

I'm no neocon but Iraq did try to assasinate a former president, hold a US prisoner of war (Michael Speaker?), attempt to build a BFG aimed at Israel and deny access to WMD inspectors.

I dunno if we shoulda gone but Iraq damn well did provoke us.

Warren|7.13.04 @ 3:41AM|

Jesse,
After the unexpected horrors of confronting your taste in music yesterday, I was thrilled to read your Top Ten list today. Welcome back to the world of reason ;)

I would only amend it by adding the phrase "free speech zones" to item 6.

|7.13.04 @ 3:44AM|

I completely agree, Jesse. I agree on all ten of your points. And especially I agree on the last one (number 10). I don't think that I will be able to bring myself to actually vote for Kerry, but I sure do hope he wins, just because I so badly want Bush to lose. I am sure that Kerry will be make a bad president, but if we reelect W that will validate his notion of a preemptive strike as being a good policy for America.

|7.13.04 @ 3:46AM|

Unfortunately, Badnarik is an idiot. Stereotypical nutcase Libertarian candidate.

Brian, actually Iraq did attack us ... often ... over a 10 year period. You can look up how many missles were fired at our fighters over the no-fly zone.

Also, it's well documented (which is why Jesse is obviously out to lunch) that Saddam wanted WMD, would have gotten his hands on WMD, and would have used WMD could he have gotten more. And given is very real relationship with AQ, we couldn't risk him sharing his WMD with AQ.

I'm all for firing GWB. When I saw the headline a few minutes ago, I was immediately ready to copy the link and e-mail it a bunch of friends, but after the "a country that was never a threat to the United States" bit, I stopped reading. Why waste my time or my friends on such a fatally flawed article.

|7.13.04 @ 3:49AM|

No, Saddam's Iraq didn't 'attack' the United States in a direct way.

It was only a truly fascist, totalitarian state that had a megalomaniac for a leader. He was only responsible for putting a few hundred thousand people in mass graves.

It only had a plot to assassinate the president of the United States. But that's no big deal, right?

It only tried to put a stranglehold on the world's oil supply by taking over Kuwait. But I suppose global economic blackmail is no casus belli.

And who cares what America stands for, anyway? Who needs to try to live up to those silly ideas of freedom and liberty?

You can say the Iraq war was a bad idea in practical terms. OK. But anyone who claims Iraq was, point blank, never a threat to the United States is being completely disingenuous.

Jesse Walker|7.13.04 @ 3:52AM|

Howard, I don't think the Iraqi acquisition of WMDs is a threat to the United States, and I don't believe that there were substantial links to Al Qaeda. I don't want to review the war debates yet again, but if you're curious about my position you can read it here.

Jesse Walker|7.13.04 @ 3:57AM|

Here's the relevent section of the article:

A more answerable question is what exactly we are attempting to prove when we assert or deny that Hussein and bin Laden were allied. There are degrees of cooperation, after all, yet people sometimes talk as though there's no difference between low-level interaction and a joint plot to hijack the airplanes of September 11. Hardly anyone denies that there were "links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda, if by "links" one means periodic communication; then again, not many people are willing to endorse a war just because Osama was in somebody's rolodex. Quite a few people, on the other hand, deny that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy, for the rather good reason that there's little evidence that it was. (Feith's claim that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague is his most disputed assertion.) What we're arguing over is the middle territory: whether Saddam aided and abetted attacks on American civilians, and whether he was planning to aid future attacks. At this point, given the pool of sodium that surrounds Feith's testimony, there still isn't demonstrable evidence that he was.

The flipside is the constant refrain among war critics that Saddam and Osama "would never" work together because the first is a secular dictator and the second a fundamentalist foe of all insufficiently Islamic leaders. There's a valid point in there, but it isn't necessarily the point the speaker thinks he's making. In fact, Osama is quite willing to work with people he hates when it suits him; in the '80s in Afghanistan he even worked with the United States, and we all know what he thinks of us. The issue is at what point the benefits of the alliance outweigh the drawbacks�at what point Saddam would be willing to collaborate with someone so otherwise opposed to his interests.

This is where the crux of the anti-interventionist case lies. Bin Laden had ideological reasons to despise the U.S., above and beyond the American actions that served as the rationales for his war. Saddam was more interested in power than ideology, and his ambitions were regional; bin Laden was a threat to those ambitions and that power. The only thing that could make anti-American allies of such natural foes is U.S. policy towards Iraq, which turned a distant dictator into a national enemy. It was Washington's war on Baghdad�the first Gulf War, then the sanctions, then this year's invasion�that pushed matters to the point where Bin Ladenesque jihadists now descend on Mesopotamia to attack American soldiers. If investigators ever uncover a joint effort between bin Laden and Hussein to kill Americans, they will have found a compelling reason to have intervened against Iraq. They will also have found a compelling demonstration that our past intervention in the region was a failure.

|7.13.04 @ 4:00AM|

notJoe,

Speicher is considered to be KIA, and no one has ever come up with any conclusive evidence that he is a POW.

I can't say I blame Saddam for targeting Bush I. He certainly tried as hard as he could during the first Gulf War to specifically pinpoint and destroy Saddam.

As for the Supergun: even at this point in history with the massive decommisioning of our nukes, we have more WMDs "pointed" at various nations than Iraq could buy with its entire GDP.

Lastly, I'm guessing that Washington would balk if the U.N. wanted to send "neutral" inspectors from Iran/Iraq/N. Korea to scope out Los Alamos National Laboratory.

|7.13.04 @ 4:04AM|

Is the United States a hermetically sealed country? Can the U.S. live in this world pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist?

How is it possible that someone think that any country led by a dictatorial wackjob who started at least 2, if not 3, wars, and who is a sworn enemy of the United States, that this guy is not a threat when he tries to seek WMD? That's just plain outrageous.

But whether or not he was a threat directly or indirectly, doesn't a libertarian have a moral problem on his hands when:

a) his country had a hand in backing this infinitely cruel dictator up in the first place;

b) his country helped impose a sanctions regime that increased this dictator's power and increased misery of the people living under that dictator;

c)he and his country claims to care about freedom and liberty; and

after all that, he concludes that his country has no responsibility to right a situation they helped create?

|7.13.04 @ 4:05AM|

Howard,

The no-fly zones were not part of the cease-fire agreement which ended the first Gulf War. Iraq was simply exercising its rightful authority over its own airspace.

Jim Henley|7.13.04 @ 4:06AM|

Brian, actually Iraq did attack us ... often ... over a 10 year period. You can look up how many missles were fired at our fighters over the no-fly zone.

Howard, I checked and Iraqi airspace is not part of the United States. It's part of Iraq. Air defense is not aggression. Besides, you know and I know that those missiles had no chance of hitting our planes. They were pure theater.

|7.13.04 @ 4:15AM|

As for the last post, as Henry Kissinger once said, "whoever said that foreign policy needs to be consistent?" Seriously, you sound like a member of the lunatic left when you whine about it's not fair for the US to say other people can't have WMD when the US possesses WMD. The US SHOULD possess WMD. Our nuclear arsenal has made the world a safer place through deterrence. Unfortunately, though, deterrence doesn't always work; it can't work against Islamofascists who aren't afraid to die. That's why if there is even a tiny risk that Iraq could at some point develop WMD and then give them to terrorists, then Iraq poses a threat to the US. That's why for it was good for the US to prevent Iraq from ever again possessing WMD. Oh what's that, Saddam could've been deterred? Lemme repeat what a previous poster has said: HE TRIED TO ASSASINATE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Can you imagine what the consequences of such an action would have been had that attempt succeeded? Iraq would have become a parking lot. This shows AT LEAST that Saddam is somewhat irrational, and AT MOST that he puts sticking it to the US above his own and his country's safety (his cat-and-mouse games with the inspectors would also show that). What would be the ultimate Fuck You to the US? Giving some Islamofascist a chem/bio weapon or a dirty bomb and letting him have his way. There's even a chance that the US couldn't find out who gave the terrorist the WMD, so that's another instance where deterrence fails.
Call me a neocon all you want, but I think this is reality folks. Just b/c you neoisolationists don't agree with it doesn't mean it exists (oops, I should say existed, b/c luckily we removed this threat and prevented the above scenario from ever occurring).

|7.13.04 @ 4:18AM|

Iraq did not attack us.

How can you say our actions did not constitute aggression?

We had been fighting with Iraq since 1991. You thought the cease-fire meant something, so you stopped paying attention. Good for you. Dan never said it wasn't aggression...war itself is an act of aggression. This was a resumption of hostilities that you ignored because you had your own life to live and could not care less about minute no-fly zone incursions, nor the myriad other instances in which Hussein broke each and every term of the cease-fire offered in UNSCR 687. How can you say your position does not constitute abject ignorance? Pay attention...things happened in the world before 9/11.

Fortunately for your position, the U.N. will likely be successful in hiding the details of its oil-for-bribes scam. That way you can pretend that none of the hundreds of billions that changed hands could ever have went to the Taliban or al Qaeda (because the U.N. is just that trustworthy), and you can continue to hollar about Iraq not being a threat, the same way 15th century pontiffs could hollar about the world not being round.

drf|7.13.04 @ 4:25AM|

this is the second time RST has noted the problematic, potentially massively corrupt oil-for-handjobs--- errrr "food" programs.

what are these details? who got what jacked? he's right in wanting to highlight this. it's important, regardless of where one stands on the war (fixed position for or against, or feeling justifications have been shown to be sufficient or insufficient)

some of our western european friends might be involved in some iran-contra style dealings here, and it would be good to know if that is the case.

but, um, if we don't know these details, how can the "no threat = flat earth" be true? that's where you lost me. but the reductio ad rst usually does, grin.

off to the LP meeting at goose island,
drf

|7.13.04 @ 4:26AM|

Good list. Most posters so far are rising to the Shibboleth bait - the War on Iraq. OK, not the proper use of the term but we've all grown tied of 'knee-jerk'. For me the most important item was number 8. Cozying up to the Theocrats.

|7.13.04 @ 4:27AM|

Trying to kill a president is enough of a reason.

|7.13.04 @ 4:33AM|

Trying to kill a president is enough of a reason.

What if that President Clinton? Just wondering...

I don't know if this forum is representative of society at large (I doubt it) but it makes sense that of all the items in the article, the war in Iraq has gotten the most controversy. Whether you support(ed) or oppose(d) it, it was without a doubt the most significant decision made by Bush in this term in office, and the one for which he should be judged first and foremost. Going to war is the gravest decision a President can ever make. It was either a bold and necessary move or a big mistake. Either way, it deserves to be the main criterion by which he is judged in November.

And with that I'll leave this dead horse to its customary flogging.

Jesse Walker|7.13.04 @ 4:34AM|

drf: The oil for food story is a legitimate scandal, and it illuminates just how heinous the sanctions regime was. It has nothing to do, though, with whether Saddam's Iraq was a threat.

As for the attempted assassination of the former president -- it's a dubious claim, but even if it's true, I don't see why it suddenly justifies a war 10 years later, or how it makes Iraq a threat to the U.S.

|7.13.04 @ 4:36AM|

Nice piece Jesse.

GWB and the Republican majorities currently in office have forever disposed of that quaint notion that Republicans are small government fiscally responsible individuals.

That said, I have to agree with Virginia Postrel when she says "Vote for Kerry if you must, folks. But don't pretend you're doing it because Bush's economic policies are insufficiently free market or fiscally responsible. Kerry wouldn't be any better on economics. He'd be worse."

Given that I'd sooner find a hot bath and a pack of double edge blue blades than vote for JFK, I may just write-in Jesse Walker for president. Or maybe I'll vote for that other guy, the "stereotypical nutcase" Libertarian.

Idiot or not, casting my lot with the half percenters makes more sense to me than voting for any of the rest of that pack of jackals. Dude, these people come no closer to sharing my basic philosphy of life than a bent-tail alley cat.

|7.13.04 @ 4:38AM|

Wait wait wait, Another Joe!

So you're saying that in February of 2001 Bush could have invaided Iraq and "He tried to kill my dad" is all Bush II would need to state as justification?

Yikes!

drf|7.13.04 @ 4:42AM|

thanks jesse!

btw: excellent list. i really like yer #10. good work as usual.

i agree with you on all points. i just would wish that many on the fixed-position anti war side realize that there are varying degrees of scumbags all over the place and that poor handling of the end of gulf war I, the interim period, and now this is a sure-fire recipe for disaster. or recipe for hate, if you like your bad religion.

the oil for food should also make the pro war people take many of rick barton's posts a little more seriously! (un being silly and a prune faced wiper of other people's bottoms)

cheers!
drf

Iguana|7.13.04 @ 4:42AM|

Don't vote, it only encourages them.

|7.13.04 @ 4:55AM|

thoreau,

I think that the Iraq war gets the most coverage in this forum because we all pretty much agree on all the other points.

Anyone dissagree?

|7.13.04 @ 5:02AM|

Over a thousand soldiers and counting have died to subdue a country that was never a threat to the United States.
I'll give you "was never a threat". Heck, even GWB said they weren't a threat.

At least so far.

One can argue how meaningful the contacts between Saddam and al Queda were, but the fact that contact was successfully made multiple times suggests that they weren't the to-the-death enemies others assert they were. It's likely that the only way we would have found out that there was significant cooperation, that there was a threat, would have been another attack, perhaps orders of magnitude worse than 9/11.

Now we're trapped in an open-ended conflict against a hydra-headed enemy...

You've confused cause and effect. We've been in that open-ended conflict for years. GWB has been the only president so far to acknowledge that, and to actually do something about it. For me, at least, that completely overrides reasons 2 through 10, and all the other reasons I wouldn't otherwise vote for him.

|7.13.04 @ 5:06AM|

Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the rationale for invading Iraq, it is indisputable that people working directly under the President deliberately mislead (lied, that is) the American public regarding the certainty of Iraq's WMD's. We know what the CIA told them ("some of us think he's got 'em, some of us don't") and what they, in turn, told the world ("there is no doubt that he's got 'em). In the face of such blatent dishonesty (to support a war, no less), I think the President should lose his job for not firing the people we know lied to us.

I know it's not realistic to hope for such moral clarity in our political leaders, but I can dream.

|7.13.04 @ 5:06AM|

If we're supposed to fire Bush because of his decision to attack someone who was not a threat to our country, then why do you suggest we replace him with a guy who's an even bigger statist (therefore a bigger threat to our country, albeit in a different way) than he is?

|7.13.04 @ 5:18AM|

Also, I'd appreciate it if the Bush supporters here could provide some evidence that the man is intellectually qualified for the job. What has he ever said (off script, that is) that demonstrates a deep understanding of any relevant topic? Seriously, if someone can show me some evidence, I'm really happy to change my suspicions.

But you'll also have to explain his apparent pride in not reading the news (or anything else that I'm aware of) and his astonishingly brain-dead answer to Bob Woodward's question of how history will judge his actions. "Nobody knows. We'll all be dead."

Jesse Walker|7.13.04 @ 5:24AM|

Actually, I kind of liked that answer.

|7.13.04 @ 5:26AM|

I'm a little disappointed that the federal deficit wasn't mentioned. We went from a surplus to a half trillion deficit in 3 years and it's like, ho-hum. You're household's portion of that 3 year debt run-up is over $3,500. You might have got a $600 rebate in return.

Balancing the checkbook is the most fundamental of all government functions and it is being ignored.

|7.13.04 @ 5:27AM|

great article. i'm not going to vote for kerry, but i do hope bush loses. i have given up hope with the republican party, but i think that a bush loss would at least wake the republicans up, and can run a much better candidate in 4 years. any republican would be better than bush or kerry. here's hoping for ron paul for president in 2008.

|7.13.04 @ 5:29AM|

Balancing the checkbook is the most fundamental of all government functions

Care to elaborate?

Jesse Walker|7.13.04 @ 5:29AM|

Gadfly: The deficit falls under the spending item. I thought about throwing in an explicit reference to it, but I figured that too many numbers in a single paragraph would make the reader's eyes glaze over.

|7.13.04 @ 5:30AM|

"I think that the Iraq war gets the most coverage in this forum because we all pretty much agree on all the other points."

Truer words were never spoken.

|7.13.04 @ 5:40AM|

"no threat = flat earth"

The pontiff was making his case from a point on a sphere.

We were already consistently engaged with the enemy, but it simply was not headline making news. It did not generate the kind of buzz that would have clued some apparently clueless people into the fact that at no point was there a cease-fire. It was there on paper, but that's about the only place it existed.

Walker (as others do) is making his point as though the fear was of an Iraqi incursion into the political boundaries of the United States. That allows you to argue the semantics between Florida and a temporary base in Kuwait or in the no-fly zone. We've never had any reason to fear such an invasion from any nation, at least not until China teaches their army to swim. So it's a little unreasonable to expect that the administration feared that form of warfare all of the sudden.

It is however reasonable to fear the form of warfare that we ourselves waged against the U.S.S.R. in the 1980's. That we are ideological opposites did not stop the mujahideen from accepting money and guns to fight the Russians.

Hussein funded terrorists, al Qaeda or not, 9/11 or not, and stated publicly that the United States is his enemy. I'd like to know where he stops short of being a threat, because all you fine folks seem to be hanging it on is the notion that he was contained. Dubious position, given that his army freely invaded Kurdistan with no repercussions.

And I would like to know what the oil-for-votes slush fund had to do with all of it. We'll likely never find out; the U.N. will issue it's own White House-style self-exoneration and we'll get on with the good and decent international "community". But I do wonder the long-term effects of just 0.01% of that slush fund being redirected to al Qaeda. You do the math.

|7.13.04 @ 5:59AM|

Folks, ahem, the nuances of economic policy won't mean s*** if we have another 9/11 event. To me, our defeat of militant islam is the top issue.

As far as Iraq goes, if all the things that are hoped for come about, it'll be worth it. Imagine if a true democracy emerges...maybe it will spread. That's whats hoped for. If it does, the potential to gradually "drain the swamp" of potential terrorists looks realistic. What W has done is taken a huge political gamble to solve the root problem. If in ten years this is successful, of course everyone will be backslapping about what a brilliant strategy it was.

If it fails, and it certainly could, of course W will be forever labelled as an incompetent moron.

My point is that whether its a good idea or not pretty much depends on how the next 10 years play out. At this point, I have to at least give W credit for a bold, indeed daring, move to set the stage for democracy to flourish. If it succeeds, the benefits in lives saved etc. will make future generations wonder how we ever could have opposed it.

On the other 9 points, yeah, but we aren't better off with Kerry. Bush DID lower taxes, though, and Kerry will likely raise them.

|7.13.04 @ 6:03AM|

Bush lowered taxes FOR NOW. Sooner or later somebody's gonna have to pay off that huge debt he gave us.

|7.13.04 @ 6:16AM|

Libertarians don't want, or need, any Neocon slime on them (or working with them). Neocons are the equally stomach turning modern day Communists in just about every way. They get hard on for big government, regulation, perhaps even nationalization, disrespecting foreign soverignty, etc. Their behavior brings about many memories of the good ol' USSR (more specifically, the folks who ran it).

We don't really need those fucking pinko Democrats, either. Although Kerry's stance on medical marijuana is actually appealing enough to possibly get a vote for me.

GWB is destroying this country and can rot in hell for all I care. Him, his whole administration, and his supporters.

It would seem the people of the party of principle are getting said principle back (by rejecting authoritarians on the left [i]and[/i] -- now much more openly -- on the right. That's always comforting to see.

Good work, Jesse.

|7.13.04 @ 6:18AM|

(One of these days I'm going to post a comment sans the vodka.)

|7.13.04 @ 6:32AM|

Toucan Spam says "Care to elaborate?"

I'll give it a shot, although I think the concept is one of those "values" everyone is taught when they're young.

Any person, family, business or government that consistently overspends will never be able to achieve its goals and becomes beholden to its lender. Consistent large debt threatens an entity's sovereignty, or ability to fully control its future. Balancing the checkbook means being realistic about your goals whether it be in foreign or domestic matters and is a natural brake on our tendency to overreach.

For instance in our latest Iraq adventure, an optional one, every nickel we spent was borrowed money. If a tax were proposed to pay for it at it's outset I doubt that we would be there today.

Simply put, "Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free."

|7.13.04 @ 6:40AM|

To those that say that Kerry is a big statist, I counter that at least he's honest about it. I'll take a competent, big government guy that says he's big government that the elephants in Congress will actually try to restrain over an incompetent, big goverment guy that says he's about small government that the donkeys in Congress will just bitch that his handouts are too small.

I ain't voting for Kerry because it doesn't matter. I'll probably vote for the "stereotypical" Libertarian candidate instead. I never want to look back on this election and say to my kids, "I voted for Bush/Kerry." I'd much rather say, "I was a crank and threw my vote away."

|7.13.04 @ 6:51AM|

Hear hear!

|7.13.04 @ 6:52AM|

"Sooner or later somebody's gonna have to pay off that huge debt he gave us."

True. I think you should do it.

Iguana|7.13.04 @ 6:58AM|

The short memory crowd seems to think that the Sodom WhoSane = WMD idea originated with George Bush. However, it actually dates back at least a dozen years and almost everybody, including the UN and the Clinton Admin bought into it. Everybody that is except those guys that had better connections than the rest us back then and are now pointing fingers and screaming that "we told ya that old George Bush was a lyin' sack 'o shit', by god we told ya".

OTOH, nobody ever went broke underestimating the value of CIA intelligence. You got to remember that these bright stars overestimated the Soviet Economy by at least a factor of six for six decades.

We need to learn, as a nation, that intellignece is highly over-rated and maybe not nearly as necessary as we think it is.

|7.13.04 @ 7:06AM|

Suppose that 2 scam artists come up to you. Let's call them George and John.

George offers you this big package of domestic discretionary spending on programs that won't work and says "Pay less now!"

John offers you a similar (not identical, but strikingly similar) package of domestic discretionary spending on programs that won't work and says "Pay more now and less later!"

Sadly, you are required by law to buy from one of these crooks.

If you pick George's plan you pay less now. At some point you'll have to pay up for it. Maybe you'll get lucky and George or one of his successors will reduce the price tag on future packages. More likely the package will grow at least as fast as inflation. Worse, the bills for TODAY'S purchases will grow at a rate equal to interest on gov't bonds.

George's plan is better if you invest the "savings" (money he didn't take from you) in something that will grow faster than gov't bonds. But if you were planning to spend your "savings" on enjoying yourself (hey, it's your money, after all), at some point you'll feel some pain.

John's plan won't cost you as much interest, but it will take a heftier bite right now. Sadly, that means less money left over right now to invest in either high-yield investments or in just having fun.

And no matter which one you pick, in four years you'll be confronted by 2 crooks offering their own expensive bundles of "services" that you're forced to pay for, so down the road you'll have to make a similar decision about pay now vs. pay later.

Now, reasonable libertarians might disagree on which is worse, but it's only by a matter of degree. Please don't even try to pretend that there's any principled difference between them. Both are forcing huge spending obligations on you, it's just that one is imposing the bill now and the other is imposing it later with interest. Depending on your circumstances one may be less painful than the other, but neither is anything to cheer about.

|7.13.04 @ 7:47AM|

The difference, Mr. Thoreau, is if you choose George's plan your child, not you, will pay for it. I'm sure he'll thank you.

|7.13.04 @ 7:57AM|

Good point, Gadfly.

But arguments "for the children" are verboten here. Now that I've concurred with one I must do penance and recite 50 Hail Murrays :)

|7.13.04 @ 8:34AM|

I have never voted Dem for prez in my life. I am actually thinking about doing so now and putting faith in the diverse group of conservatives in Congress who will raise the middle finger to Kerry when the federal tax and spending is attempted.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing the Bush Dynasty with all its cronies take a big ass whuppin' at the ballots. I sure would like to see that bunch get out of politics and turn it over to a new crop that so far hasn't supported and later removed (at large tax payer expense) a mad dictator.

|7.13.04 @ 8:54AM|

The entire article seemed to be a non-sequitur. Most of the reasons to hate Bush are acknowledged to be as bad or worse for Kerry. Yet, the conclusion is to vote for Kerry?

"I sure do hate getting beat up with this twenty ounce bat. I'd vote for getting beat up with a thirty ounce bat instead. At least it would be a change."

Jesse Walker|7.13.04 @ 9:29AM|

Yet, the conclusion is to vote for Kerry?

From the article: "I haven't voted for a major party's presidential candidate since 1988, and I have no plans to revert to the habit this year."

|7.13.04 @ 10:28AM|

From the article:

"Yet I find myself hoping the guy [Kerry] wins."

Phil|7.13.04 @ 10:28AM|

Jesse, you expect people to develop snarky comments and RTFA? You ask too much!

The Lonewacko Blog|7.13.04 @ 10:47AM|

No, Saddam's Iraq didn't 'attack' the United States in a direct way.


A Los Angeles group called the "Neighbors for Peace and Justice" had an anti-war resolution that said we could only attack Iraq if they directly and militarily attacked us first. Which is either stupid or disingenuous.

The NPJ resolution eventually became the the resolution that the City of Los Angeles passed. They, however, took out the "directly and militarily attacked us first" part.

Jesse Walker would have left that in.

Now, I'm not saying Jesse is even more naive or wacky than the L.A. City Council, but...

|7.13.04 @ 11:13AM|

Assuming Hussein actually did try to assassinate a *former* President of the United States (Bush the Elder was no longer in office at the time), Clinton already retaliated for that back in 1993:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/strike_930626.htm

Also, if a state-backed attempt to assassinate the former leader of a country justifies attacking the backer, wouldn't Fidel Castro have excellent justification for supporting terrorist attacks against the US?

|7.13.04 @ 11:50AM|

Strong list Jesse.

To #7 "The drunken sailor factor" it might be added that this totally pretend conservative has advocated even more government spending than has passed!

We all expect a Republican president to molest our civil liberties.

But, when folks of both parties advocated giving up civil liberties in order to fight communism, Reagan warned that this would be self-defeating. See: Reagan's War by Peter Schweitzer

To #8."Cozying up to the theocrats" we must add the ruthless Ariel Sharon, an overtly racist theocrat who has received a hideous carte blanche from the Bush administration

#10 "He's making me root for John Kerry." he's not much of an improvement.

As evidenced by his voting record in the Senate, Kerry would in fact be worse in many ways but, if Bush gets what he deserves, hopefully the GOP congress will hold Kerry in check. This assumes, of course, that the GOP congress survives.

planethoth at 2004 03:49 PM:
"And who cares what America stands for, anyway? Who needs to try to live up to those silly ideas of freedom and liberty?"


Forcing the American people to support an attack on a nation that was not a threat to their security is a clear violation of the liberty of the American people.

After the WMD pretext started to look ridiculous, the administration and the neocon propaganda machine lowered the bar to "WMD PROGRAM". But, the evidence that Saddam had anything going on that could be characterized as an actual WMD PROGRAM was so completely lacking that Bush lowered the bar, once again, to the claim of, "WMD ACTIVETIES", which could be anything as innocuous as checking out a book from the library about WMD.

Could you imagine the American people going for a war, which has now claimed thousands of lives including those of 800+ Americans on these flimsy pretexts? Its been a tragic waste.

This, of course, is why those pushing the war had to engage in such wild duplicity. Lies of such magnitude would have landed them in prison had they been corporate CEO's instead of government officials.

Howard Owens:
Unfortunately, Badnarik is an idiot. Stereotypical nutcase Libertarian candidate.

Name calling in place of reasoned argument. Howard sounds like the neocons and Democrats.

|7.13.04 @ 11:57AM|

The difference, Mr. Thoreau, is if you choose George's plan your child, not you, will pay for it. I'm sure he'll thank you.

Actually, the difference is that George's plan just costs my child, while John's costs me and my child. At least if I pick George's, I can give him a college education with that "sorry about the deficit."

Someone here want to remind me which of the two candidates has made nationalized health care a plank of his election platform?

|7.14.04 @ 1:24AM|

Jason,

Thank you. That does make more sense.

|7.14.04 @ 1:29AM|

I hate to burst the Libertarian bubble but quite a few of them left the party post 9/11 based on the Party's anti-war position. Some of the party's staunchest supporters I'm told.

And a party promoting a constitutional theocracy is hardly a promoter of liberty. No mater how many times they use the word.

Now the fact that you had to add apples to oranges shows how weak the anti-Bush sentiment on the right really is. I'm surprised you didn't add in the Greens. They are anti-Bush and their numbers if small are not on the verge of insignificance (except in very close elections). I know, I know, they aren't on the right. But really, how hard a stretch would it have been to include them?

Let me explain it again in very simple terms. Why does Pepsi taste a lot like Coke? Why aren't there any Dr. Pepper wars?

|7.14.04 @ 1:46AM|

I don't know if any of you have read "Mein Kampf" or what ever else passes for political literature in the Middle East but these nutters have promised to attack us with anything they can get theur hands on as offten as possible.

Under the circumstances occupying Iraq in 2003 might be what occupying Prussia in 1937 would have done for the world. The problem today is as it was in 1937. The losses would be highly visible. The losses speculative. I mean. Ovens for Jew? Germany is a civilized country.

And yet we have a whole new culture promising ovens for Jews and the other Jews (Americans) and yet so many here are just counting the known costs. Tradgedies prevented - even if unknown - have value. How much? Depends I guess on whether or not you think you are Jewish.

|7.14.04 @ 1:51AM|

The immediate losses would be highly visible. The future losses speculative. I mean. Ovens for Jews? Germany is a civilized country.

|7.14.04 @ 1:54AM|

I just do NOT get it. Saddam tried to kill our former head of state and was an avowed enemy of our country. He husbanded terrorists from the '93 attack on the WTC, and the Leon Klinghoffer murder, and was open to acquiring any weapons he could to destroy this nation and by all accounts was pursuing those options w/ N. Korea.

We should just pass another UN resolution? I adhere to the libertarian NIoF principle, but do y'all need the missiles in the silos and set to launch before that principle kicks in?

And yeah, that all aside, I feel there is a point where a totalitarian's genocide of non-Americans justifies our military force, as long as there is no conscription. Call me immoral.

This is why Stalinism gained currency in the West in the 30s. Right-wing isolationists did not give a shit what fascists were doing. As if the world even then was that small.

|7.14.04 @ 2:05AM|

M. Simon,

I think you make a good case for a war against violent Islamic fundamentalists. There are many folks who were and are in the military and feel strongly that our ability to fight and defeat violent Islamic fundamentalists has been greatly diminished by our actions in Iraq.

I don't know how Kerry would wage such a war because he's never been in that position (though I strongly suspect he would do it poorly). But I do know how the Bush administration has waged this war. They've been sloppy, overconfident, dishonest, and unable to accept respsonsibility for blatent mistakes. Those are qualities that would get most any private sector employee fired.

|7.14.04 @ 2:06AM|

BTW in common law a threat can be counted as an attack if the situation is justified (like have other threats been carried out).

So actually so far we have not committed preemption. We have responded to attacks and credible threats of attacks. A very Libertarian position.

|7.14.04 @ 2:11AM|

Mona,

I agree with you that we shouldn't ignore atrocities whether it occurs in the Middle East or in Rawanda or Serbia. I think we should fight them when they occur.

But why do you believe that people who, in the past, vigorously supported terrorists and terrorism, who aided financially and militarily the regimes of mass-murdering fascist dictators, that these people can now lead us in a successful fight against terrorism and fascist dictators?

|7.14.04 @ 2:14AM|

"BTW in common law a threat can be counted as an attack if the situation is justified (like have other threats been carried out)."

Yeah, but if a guy at the end of the block is waving a butter knife and threatening to blow your head off with it, you could always just call the cops.

|7.14.04 @ 2:26AM|

M. Simon:

"So actually so far we have not committed preemption. We have responded to attacks and credible threats of attacks.

If the threat from Iraq were actually "credible", the government and the neos wouldn't have had to indulge in deceits of such magnitude.

|7.14.04 @ 2:33AM|

Johnathan, In Britain I'd vote LibDem and read The Independent. [The group] Liberty doesn't seem to get called upon half as much as the ACLU, does it?

|7.14.04 @ 2:40AM|

Les,

There are others who think our being in Iraq is an asset. For instance it may be useful in the near future to be close to Iran with manuever room.

I happen to be one.

Has the war degraded some of our capabilities? Sure. If it didn't then we had way too many troops in peace time. War is going to require adjustments. Such adjustments take 2 to 3 years to move through the system. Individual responses may be faster but systemic stuff takes a while.

So far we have beat off the enemy's best counter attack with a very modest effort that fully engaged us for only a few days. I'd say we had sufficient force.

Next ought to be either Iran or Syria. My prefrence is Iran.

|7.14.04 @ 2:42AM|

Les,

You have got the essense of it.

What you have failed to accept is that we are the cops. Who else ya gonna call? The French?

|7.14.04 @ 3:02AM|

I guess I just don't trust the cops, then. That's why I'm-a votin' fer a new sheriff. Not that high-falutin' character, but shorely not the boob in charge now, I tell you what.

drf|7.14.04 @ 3:57AM|

more trolling from euroweenie land.

|7.14.04 @ 4:07AM|

#11
killing the Kyoto agreement

#12
effectively killing the International war crimes tribunal.


Both sucked. I'm glad he did what he did. When you come up with a pair of treaties on the subject that don't suck, we'll probably sign on. Until then, keep practicing.

|7.14.04 @ 4:16AM|

Anders

We were looking for reasons not to vote for Bush.

|7.14.04 @ 5:07AM|

The killing of the Kyoto agreement and the throttling of the International war crimes tribunal are among the few things that clearly have turned out better with Bush than they would have with a Pres. Gore.

Not that a Pres. Gore, left to his own devices, wouldn't have contracted economic liberty even worse than Bush has. But that's the key; he would have had to face a Republican congress.

Jesse Walker|7.14.04 @ 5:35AM|

I think Kyoto was pretty much doomed either way.

|7.14.04 @ 5:36AM|

Under the circumstances occupying Iraq in 2003 might be what occupying Prussia in 1937 would have done for the world. The problem today is as it was in 1937.

Give me a fuckin' break. Comparing Iraq to Germany is a big, big mistake. In 1937 Germany had a strong economy and good technical know-how. Germany was, as you say, a modern nation. Iraq, on the other hand, was a third-world nation, and still is. The threat posed by Iraq was miniscule, since it had no capability to seriously threaten the US, nor would it ever. It might have had the ability to get a few WMD's into the hands of terrorists, but that's very speculative, and even so that's a minor threat compared to what Germany could have done. With the resources of Europe behind him, and time to consolidate his gains, Hitler would have been a serious threat to the US. In fact, I think that had he not invaded Russia, we would have lost the Second World War, or at least the cost of winning would have been orders of magnitude larger. We were damn lucky that Hitler was pathetically bad at strategy, and refused to listen to his advisers who knew more. I'm not entirely sure that Germany would have been able to invade and hold the US, but I'm almost positive that Operation Overlord and the ensuing drive across Europe would have failed miserably. Comparing that to a pissant madman in a third-world country is entirely disingenuous, and demonstrably false.

Next ought to be either Iran or Syria. My prefrence is Iran.

Are you out of your head? If we let Iran alone, it will be a democracy in thirty years, fifty years tops. The forces of liberalism in that country haven't been killed by twenty-some years of theocratic government, and the conservatives' actions seem to me to be increasingly desparate attempts to hold on to power that they're rapidly losing. If we invade Iran . . . well, let's say that I don't see it as being as much of a cakewalk as Iraq was � the geography is much less conducive � and for far less effect. The ensuing chaos is as likely to set Iran back as to help it, if not more likely. Invading Iran is clear insanity, and inimical to the true cause of democracy in the Middle East. I want some of what you're smoking, to think that invading Iran is a good idea, 'cause it must be some good shit.

Phil|7.14.04 @ 5:55AM|

Someone here want to remind me which of the two candidates has made nationalized health care a plank of his election platform?

Well, George Bush didn't bother to make it part of his platform. He just whipped a multi-trillion dollar socialized-medicine prescription drug program on you and sent the bill to you, your children, and their children. Then lied about how much it would cost. Then fired the guy who told the truth about how much it would cost.

Seriously, I'm not voting for Kerry or Bush, but if you're gonna fuck me, at least kiss me, you know?

|7.14.04 @ 7:35AM|

The people on this thread are lucky that there is even the option of voting for an avowed libertarian candidate. Here in Britain, there is not even that comfort.

If I were an American, I'd vote LP, unless the candidate was a total fruitcake.

|7.14.04 @ 7:50AM|

Gadfly, thoreau, et al.,
Isn't it true that all current government spending comes at the cost of a reduction of current private consumption and/or investment? We can't consume future production in the present, but government spending almost certainly does decrease investment in future production. A reduction in investment will occur and lower the potential standard of living for future generations regardless of whether the spending is financed by government bonds or current tax receipts.

|7.14.04 @ 9:03AM|

For more on the reasons not to vote for W, check out the interesting "The Conservative Case Against George Bush" in the July Liberty
It's available in many of the same fine stores where you find Reason, such as B&N and Borders.

Hey; I just did a commercial!

Jesse, Yeah I don't think Kyoto could have made it thru the ratification process either.


Anders, Read this and email me in the morning if you don't feel a lot more libertarian:
http://bureaucrash.com/modules/news/index.php

|7.14.04 @ 9:27AM|

Folks,

For one minute, fuck Iraq.

Here is what counts:http://www.mpp.org/candidates/guide/kerry.html

That is your reason to vote for John Kerry. It's the only thing he'll be able to do since everything else will be gridlocked.

Please?

|7.14.04 @ 9:28AM|

The hawks on this thread, demonstrating their familiar black-and-white simplicity, are arguing from the position that any degree of threat from Saddam = good reason to go to war. Well, gentlemen (and Mona), there are various degrees of threats, that have varying levels of probability and harm associated with them, and we have to choose based on weighing competing options. Invading Iraq has cost us 1000. That's a 100% probability of losing 1000 lives (and at this point, probably a 90% probability of losing a couple hundred more). Balanced against this, demonstrating that there could have been some threat in the future, maybe, isn't the "Gotcha!" you seem to think it is.

Jesse Walker|7.14.04 @ 10:41AM|

Joe B.: There's a difference between voting and rooting. On Election Night 2000, I found myself rooting for Bush. But I didn't vote for him.

|7.14.04 @ 10:50AM|

"Well, gentlemen (and Mona), there are various degrees of threats, that have varying levels of probability and harm associated with them, and we have to choose based on weighing competing options."

This is exactly right, even though I disagree with joe's analysis of the costs and benefits. If discussions about the war had focused on this point rather than some childish need to back up or disprove The One Reason (the 'gotcha' sought be both sides), I'd feel better about how the political process is functioning.

It is perfectly clear to me, for reasons Mona mentioned and a few others, that an invasion was morally permissible. Non initiation of force was a complete non issue in the decision, as the criteria for response had long ago been met.

With that hurdle out of the way, the only focus is pragmatic. What are the costs and benefits? I wish we'd been having that discussion for a long time.

|7.14.04 @ 11:11AM|

It's rather hard to have such a discussion when you are being threatened with mushroom clouds, and when one side is being purposely dishonest about the degree of threat.

I was never comfortable with the "No Blood for Oil" crowd, but the actions of the administration and its backers worked, deliberately so in my opinion, to drive moderate opinions into one of two extreme camps.

|7.14.04 @ 11:12AM|

thus the Onion headline:
"No Blood For Oil vs. How Much Oil Are We Talking About Here?"

|7.14.04 @ 11:17AM|

M. Simon:

"quite a few of them left the (Libertarian) party post 9/11 based on the Party's anti-war position. Some of the party's staunchest supporters I'm told."

Care to offer some names to back that up, M. Simon? Judging by what else you've posted on this thread; I suspect that you're just spouting.

I can tell you that I'm one Republican who won't be voting for Bush and will be voting for the Libertarian, Badnarik for Pres. The needless Iraq war is a sufficient, but not the only reason for my decision.

"And a party promoting a constitutional theocracy is hardly a promoter of liberty. No mater how many times they use the word."

"Constitutional theocracy"? What in the Hell nonsense is this?

|7.14.04 @ 11:18AM|

If I were an American, I'd vote LP, unless the candidate was a total fruitcake.

Umm, I got some bad news for you . . .

Sara|7.14.04 @ 11:22AM|

read a comment by Howard says "Iraq shot missles at our aircraft over a no fly zone"
well...it IS a no fly zone. Wouldn't we shoot too?
Maybe the countries leaders should just stay home and shoot their loads with our phone sex service;-)

|7.14.04 @ 11:45AM|

Rick,

I believe the constitutional theocracy comment referred to the Constitution Party, not the LP. They were globbed together in the original post.

|7.14.04 @ 12:28PM|

Lonewhacko,

I agree that it's not wise to wait for an actual attack before we defend ourselves. But, when you consider the inevitable tragedies of war, shouldn't we at least KNOW that our enemy is capable of imminently attacking us, instead of merely suspecting it?

And if it is okay to merely suspect an attack is imminent before waging war, don't you think it's only right to admit that we suspect, instead of lying that we know for sure?

|7.14.04 @ 12:54PM|

#11
killing the Kyoto agreement

#12
effectively killing the International war crimes tribunal.

But then again, I'm a European....

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012, Reason.com