In Other News, Gandhi Just Got Into a Barfight

I'm a week late to notice it, but Mark Hatfield endorsed both Bush and the Iraq war in a piece for The Oregonian last Friday.

Why is that interesting? Because Hatfield was the most pacifist senator of the last half century. He opposed U.S. intervention in Vietnam, Central America, Iraq, and the Balkans, and never voted for a single military appropriations bill. In the early '70s, he even flirted with philosophical anarchism, reading one of Murray Rothbard's articles into the Congressional Record and rapturously reviewing Rothbard's Power and Market for The Individualist. His penchant for putting radical documents into the Record didn't stop there: He did the same thing for the Winter Soldier Investigation, recently famous for its association with the young John Kerry.

Hatfield offers an explanation for his change of heart, but it's pretty thin on details. The key phrase is probably this one: "our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001." Clearly it did.

Comments

[Mo]

Any relation to the Hatfield being stalked by the DOJ?

[SR]

Of course Hatfield ignores the fact that the 9/11 attacks could have happened at any point in the previous 30 years the WTC was in operation. (Indeed, it would've been even easier to pull off the attack in 1971, since the FAA didn't mandate screening passengers for weapons until 1973: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/security/POL18.htm )

[Joe L.]

I would suspect that Hatfield means that the US was attacked. Until 9/11 Hatfield objected to OVERSEAS adventures, then one day the overseas adventures came home and that changed his outlook.

[Jesse Walker]

Until 9/11 Hatfield objected to OVERSEAS adventures, then one day the overseas adventures came home and that changed his outlook.

But why did it change his outlook on Iraq? The link between that war and the fight against Al Qaeda is, at the very least, debatable. And the arguments he gives for this Iraq war could also have been given for the first one, which he strenuously opposed. (He opposed the sanctions, too.)

I wish he'd described his change of heart in more detail. I'd especially like to know whether he now regrets his earlier stances. His use of the past tense in his first paragraph -- "the view I held" -- suggests that he does.

[Joe L.]

"The key phrase is probably this one: "our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001." Clearly it did."-I think that IS the critical phrase. For some people it did NOT change. I submit Peter Bagge (sp.) as someone who is uncomfortable with the change. The last comic I read by him was a long set of panels setting out his attempts to sell what he thought of as humour to editors in the post-9/11 world.

I don't mean that as an attack on Bagge some of his work was nice, not funny, wordy for a comic, but insightful. HOWEVER, in a choice between reading about malls and mall archtecture and attitudes towards malls and debating preemption preemption wins. And if your schtick is to talk about non-9/11 things you lose out.

As a counter-point look at Lileks. In a week I weill find paragraphs on the 1962 World's Fair, Unfortunate Food, architecture, AND politcs and the war. His world changed and so did his commentary.

I guess I'll bring this up, too. I think that Libertarians, many of them at least. Don't WANT to understand that the world changed on 9/11. they PREFER the time of 9/10, when we could debate things that Libertarians are good at, the war on drugs, privatization, etc. 9/11 changed the terms of debate to things that Libertarians don't do well, International Relations, Power Politics, and War. And I think they wish that the world would change back so they can have the competitive advantage they once had.

I also think Libertarians, many on this board and at the Cato Institute FEAR the outcome of the War on Terror. They fear we WILL win it and that they will be revealed as the equivalent of Charles Lindbergh and the America FIrsters. And like Lindbergh and Taft be consigned to the waste can of politics for many years. Also they fear the spillover effects, IF a Big Government COnservative like Dubya (note I prefer a shrinking government, but that's not the issue, the issue is the POLITICS of it) can succeed he will set the stage for domestic politcs, too. And I think Libertaians fear this as well. They realize that a victory will marginalize them, even more than they already are.

It makes me sad to read in the Cato Daily Dispatch some of th articles I do that urge cutting and running, or "accepting" that Iraq will not be democratic. Really I guess Free Markets, Free Minds, and the Individual are for WHITE People, not Brown People. And the only explanation I can find is that the Cato Institute has hung its hat on LOSING in Iraq and if the US succeeds, they and the Jihadis will have been proven the weaker force.

[The McCoy's]

"The key phrase is probably this one: 'our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001.'"

The earth may have moved for that bugger, but I'd reciprocally plug his mangy, decrepit ass if'n I had half a chance.

[The McCoy's]

Joe L.,
Even though we have posted semisimultaneously, we will never share any other intimacy. Your loss.
I've put a couple of moldy, blue "Peters" 12 gauge in Betsy, the double-barreled.

[Mark S.]

Yes, America did change on 9-11. It became a little more fascist.

[Les]

"Really I guess Free Markets, Free Minds, and the Individual are for WHITE People, not Brown People."

I think this is an apparent and rather flimsy straw-man. If you can refer me to where someone at Cato states it's because of the color of their skin and not their culture or history, I'll happily change my mind.

I think it's more likely that an appreciation of free markets, free minds, and the individual have to nurtured within a culture and not enforced from behind the barrel of a gun. That's just a theory, though.

[Joe L.]

Two Things Mr. Walker, I don't know you and despise the false intimacy of "Jesse",
1) Mayhap Hatfield CHANGED and realized that nations like Afghanistan Iraq, Syria, and Iran sponsor terrorism. That there is a symbiotic relationship between terrorists and these nations. That these nations provide passports, intelligence, diplomatic cover, arms, and money to terrorist groups. Mayhap he realized that if Syria would act Hamas and Hizbollah would lose their secure rear areas for training and fund-raising in Damascus, the money they may recieve the training areas, the arms, and that is simply two groups and one nation. Mayhap he reaizes(d) that to hunt down Terry Terrorist is impossible as long as Terry can run to Baghdad, Damascus, Teheran, Pyongyang, or Kabul and find refuge. And to eliminate Terry's group will require the elimination of Terry's sanctuaries around the world.

OR MAYHAP HATFIELD NEVER CHANGED and what has changed is our perception of him. I am a Conservative, I oppose abortion AND the Death Penalty. I believe that you HAVE a right to burn US Flags, but I support the President. I have a coherent philosophy that guides me to these findings, even if they do not appear to be "party-line" positions for a self-proclaimed Conservative. Well mayhap Hatfield is the same. Mayhap he's always believed in Liberty, Human Rights and the Dignity of the Individual and he simply didn't see the War in Vietnam as advancing those ideals. Mayhap he's always felt that the US should advance democracy and respect for life but never saw US policy advancing those goals thru it's Defense Budget and now he sees that the opportunity to advance his beliefs has come. In short, mayhap wepigeon-holed Hatfield incorrectly.

[Rick Barton]

They fear we WILL win it and that they will be revealed as the equivalent of Charles Lindbergh and the America FIrsters

Let's imagine that Iraq somehow becomes a place of individual liberty, quite unlike the other Mid-east regimes that the government supports with our tax money, such as Egypt, Jordan and the Israeli government's occupation of Palestinian land. Still, the cost in money and lives of the Iraq war, including of course the 1000 American lives will not have been justified because Iraq was never a threat to our security, and that is the only justification for war.

From this point on, what likely end for Iraq could possibly justify any further American deaths and injuries?

The reason that we got into this unnecessary war was that people in positions of power and influence, including the Pentagon, engaged in extreme duplicity to make it seem as if Iraq was a real threat because they believed that a US war on Iraq would be good for the Israeli government.

[Joe L.]

Les, "All power grows from the barrel of a gun" Jean-Luc Picard did not agree, but thankfully George Washington did

McCoy, I guess you're being funny. If not, stop by sometime, I'll introduce your arse to the 30-06 and the 9mm...

Mark S. next time be sure to use "Sheeple" too, that always works well when talking about Fascist Amerikkka. So tell me, mein herr, besides finding evidence of it on Democratic Underground can you produce any evdience of it in REALITY? Or do you define "Fascism" as any political ideology or group with which you disagree?
You do realize that by this time in German History, the Reichstag had been burned, The Presidency had been abolished and replaced with a Fuehrer with Emergency Powers, the politcal opposition broken up, the Nurnberg Laws passed, and Versailles repudiated... if you care to find their equivalents in Contemporary US history I eagerly await your findings. Because if we were more Fascist I don't think I'd have to put up with that Arrogant Schlub Kerry and I think that Muslims would be wearing disnctive marks.

[Joe L.]

Rick good of you to join us...I guess by your theory we only need to worry about Canada and Mexico ann North Korea,WHEN they develop ICBMs.
Well thankfully we don't listen to your philosophy.
I think that the people of Kuwayt, Iran, the Kurds, the Shi'i all agree that Saddam was a threat to them and are glad he's gone. And if the Iraqi experiment grows in Syria, and Iran the WORLD will be a better place.

[Dan]

But why did it change his outlook on Iraq? The link between that war and the fight against Al Qaeda is, at the very least, debatable. And the arguments he gives for this Iraq war could also have been given for the first one, which he strenuously opposed.

Speaking for me personally:

Prior to 9/11, I viewed Arab democracy as something which would be nice to have, but which had no impact on my life. I have since been convinced that it is not safe to allow that part of the world to be controlled by fundamentalists and thugs. Prior to 9/11, I did not believe that anyone would be crazy enough to stage a serious attack on us. I was wrong. 9/11 proved to me that I cannot rely on our enemies acting in a rational manner. So the arguments didn't change, no. But the light in which I evaluated them did.

It is similar to how a mugging can inspire a gun-control supporter to actually look at the data, and conclude that it's a smart move to own a gun for self-defense. I suspect Hatfield had a similar experience.

[Lowdog]

I wouldn't really say that America got all that more fascist on 9/11. Ok, the Patriot Act is pretty fascist, but the government's been trying to get all of that passed into law for a long time now.

What makes America fascist, for starters, is it's similarities to this statement: "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad..." attributed to Benito Mussolini.

Also, the closeness of the economy and politics makes America pretty damn close to a fascist country.

I agree, we have a ways to go to get all the way there, but I certainly don't like the direction it's been heading for a long, long time.

(Now back under my tinfoil hat before they find me!)

[Les]

Joe L.,

""All power grows from the barrel of a gun" Jean-Luc Picard did not agree, but thankfully George Washington did."

That's not a very good analogy. Washington was born in the place he fought for. Our revolution originated in the hearts and minds of the people who lived here, not in a far off land. It couldn't have succeeded if it had.

[Les]

Also, as I think on it, the phrase "All power grows from the barrel of a gun" has, historically speaking in this country, been exposed as the nonsense it is by our great constitution. For example, women didn't achieve the vote through violence, but rather through the freedoms outlined in the constitution. Likewise, black folks in the South (and elsewhere) have seen their opportunities improve so dramatically in the last fifty years despite the radicals in the sixties who claimed violence was the only means to those opportunities.

That said, I believe heartily in violence as a legitimate means of self-defense. But if it is weilded incompetently or in a dishonest way (which has been the case, I believe, in Iraq), it's likely to cause more problems than it solves.

[Les]

Oops. "I before E." Wielded.

[The McCoys]

"McCoy, I guess you're being funny. If not, stop by sometime, I'll introduce your arse to the 30-06 and the 9mm..."

Joe L., you sound like our barber.
We sometimes agitate him so, he threatens to give us a bad haircut, but he never does, because he is a professional.

Brothers Daryl and Daryl

[SM]

"Les, "All power grows from the barrel of a gun" Jean-Luc Picard did not agree, but thankfully George Washington did."

Its a well-known trope that neo-cons are trotskyites. But since when have they been channeling Chairman Mao !

[Dan]

Also, the closeness of the economy and politics makes America pretty damn close to a fascist country

And to every other country that has ever existed or will ever exist. You might as well claim that America is fascist because Americans eat food -- as we all know, *fascists* ate food too!

But since when have they been channeling Chairman Mao!

If quoting Mao is the same as "chanelling" him, that certainly gives me a new perspective on all the anti-war protesters I've seen throwing around that old Hermann Goering quote about it being easy for political leaders to lead people to war...

[Les]

Dan, I think the difference is that Goering was demonstrably right and Mao was demonstrably wrong. Also the demonstrators quoting Goering aren't advocating what he said (unlike Joe L., I'm afraid), but rather pointing it out as a sad truism. At least I think they are. Who can know the mind of a protester? Not I!

[Jason Bourne]

Joe L.,

Ever playing the sophist.

Simply because someone changed their opinion about the world doesn't mean that this change was appropriate or wise. You assume that which has not been proven.

I guess I'll bring this up, too. I think that Libertarians, many of them at least. Don't WANT to understand that the world changed on 9/11.

I think you'll lie through your teeth and foist crack-pot notions based your amatuer psychological analysis on people. Such as your insulting and lame attempt to tell me that I had no ability to discuss the Reformation because I'm an atheist. Here we see another example of your willingness to drop rational discourse for unsubstantiated pop psychology musings that are designed at best to take the form of an ad hominem attack.

[Jason Bourne]

Joe L.,

Your argument remains a strawman, despite your ineffectual protestations otherwise.

[T Bone]

I can't really understand someone taking the position that, because of 9/11, we should increase our military presence around the globe, and increase our aid to countries under the guise of having them fight terrorism. That's exactly what many people around the world hate about America. Yes, squash Al-qaeda, because they are the ones who actually attacked us. But you're not going to fight negative attitudes towards the US at the barrel of a gun. At least not for long.

[Dan]

Yes, squash Al-qaeda, because they are the ones who actually attacked us. But you're not going to fight negative attitudes towards the US at the barrel of a gun.

That's a fairly ridiculous way to phrase things, since "negative attitude about the US" describes everyone from an Italian peasant annoyed at what we've done to "pizza" to an Al Qaeda operative smuggling a suitcase nuke into New York City.

Obviously we won't convince people who dislike us, to like us more, by shooting at them. But we don't care if people dislike us -- we care if they want to kill us. Military action is the best way, and in fact the only practical way, to get people who want to kill us to stop doing so. The population of the world is perfectly welcome to think "Bah! Americans -- scum, all of them" so long as they follow up that thought with "... but they'll kill us all if we attack them".

At least not for long

Yeah, I hear Japan will be attacking Pearl Harbor again any day now. And the Confederacy will rise again, or so the other kids told me in grade school.

[Jason Bourne]

Dan,

Military action is the best way, and in fact the only practical way, to get people who want to kill us to stop doing so.

The Soviets wanted to kill us, yet we in large measure did not use military "action" (by this one would assume that you mean offensive military strikes, etc.) to hold them at bay. There are many ways to defeat an enemy, and the use of direct military force is often not the best way. You really need to get out of the Clauswitzian thinking pattern.

[Joe L.]

Well Jason, Clausewitz describes the world in which we currently reside, we need more not less Clausewitziasn thinking. The USSR is gone and so is MAD and Deterrence. Then the guru of MAD was Kahn and the Church of RAND. Now it is Clausewitz, because deterrence has failed.
Can Al-Quaeda be deterred? Or for that matter can Kim Jong-Il? It is now necessary to begin to fight and win, not simply threaten or to call into question the ability to achieve a meaningful victory. North Korea is on the verge of imploding, the result of a disastrous war or the implosion will be equal for the Kim Regime, therefore how does one deter the Norks? Al-Quaeda does not seem deterrable either, do you doubt that thye'd employ a nuclear weapon if it came to hand? What threat would we use to "deter" them?
I would also note that even in the example you use, the USSR and the Cold War, that both sides built and intended to use, if required, probably 70,000-80,000 MBT's, several hundred thousand artillery pieces and Other Armoured Fighting Vehicles, and several tensof thousands of tactical aircraft. We didn't fight, but we sure PREPARED to...

[James Anderson Merritt]

Joe L. and others, who imply that the world diverged from Libertarian philosophy and that Libertarians couldn't or wouldn't follow along with the times:

Of course Libertarians don't think the world changed on 9/11. Libertarians had been regarding the world for years, warning all along that, if the US didn't abandon its interventionist policies, some day the beneficiaries of our intervention would come over here to "thank" us. The events of 9/11 didn't change that situation, they only confirmed it. What is confusing and frustrating for Libertarians is to receive no credit for being right, and to see their prescriptions for future policy being ignored and even criticized by those who got us into this mess in the first place and their sheeplike supporters. Why should Libertarians be chided for holding to their views, when those views have been proven RIGHT? How insane is THAT?

The world only "changed" for those who couldn't see past our borders, to the smoldering tinderboxes elsewhere in the world, and to the growing anti-Americanism there that was fueled in large part by our own interventionist foreign policy. We seemed safe for a time (especially for those who put the 1993 WTC bombing out of their minds), but when the towers fell, obviously the world changed for those people who had to acknowledge the end of "safety" -- a safety that Libertarians knew was illusory in the first place.

If, someday, a huge meteor crashes down to earth and causes global devastation, some people (if any survive!) will say, "the world (or even the Universe) changed" on that day. In a technical sense, perhaps the world will have changed, by becoming inhospitable to life-as-we've-known-it, but the universe will still be the same dangerous place it always has been, and the "change" in the world will be merely a realization of that danger. Just so, the world has always been a dangerous place, in which walking softly, but carrying a big stick, has always been good advice for Americans (and anyone else, for that matter). What happened on 9/11 was merely one realization of that danger.

Those who still give Libertarians grief for their non-interventionist (NOT isolationist, NOT pacifist) stance, and who support a more bellicose foreign policy, are a big component of the danger in the world.

[Joe L.]

"Those who still give Libertarians grief for their non-interventionist (NOT isolationist, NOT pacifist) stance, and who support a more bellicose foreign policy, are a big component of the danger in the world."- To me this is word parsing. IF Al-Quaeda attacks us we'll respond, but until then nothing. I don't accuse you of being Pacifists, I accuse you of having a bad foreign policy.
Al-Quaeda would eventually get around to the US, even w/o an interventionist foreign policy. Our economy and culture dominate the globe.
To me what Libertarians preach is, "OK the Middle East is under the boot heel of Muslim theocracy and our economy imperilled. IF those Islamofascists cross the 12 mile limit they'll get what for." For me, at least, the 12 mile limit doesn't cut it. And along the way, the LP and its spokespersons haven't addressed the technical issue of WHAT we'd respond with if attacked. After all, I note that the LP and Cato and others are always for pruining the defense budget.
In fact, I will say I have found the Cato Institute disingenuous. Yes, they supported the operations in Afghanistan, they just don't mention that IF we' followed their budgetary advice we'd have had no forces capable of operating in Afghanistan.

[Jason Bourne]

Joe L.,

Well Jason, Clausewitz describes the world in which we currently reside, we need more not less Clausewitziasn thinking.

You need to read Clauswitz. You make these comments with no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Clauswitz does not describe this world; the world he describes is that of WWII (if anything), where nation-states fight each other militarily for superiority. Clauswitz despised and thought obsolete non-state entities and popular movements such as we are dealing with today (this is one of the reasons why trying to apply Clauswitzian thought to insurgencies has always been so unfruitful).

Oh, please try to avoid lying about my statements. I mean its one thing to blabber on and call your opponents racists (I always thought that was the purview of liberals, but apparently that's not the case), but its another thing to simply lie.

[Joe L.]

1) Jason I'm not aware of "lying about your statements." Now this can get spirited and to an extent personal, but it can remain intellectual, but your are starting to cross the line in your postings, taking things as PERSONAL attacks and responding in kind. I think you are WRONG, not a liar. This seems to have begun on the Reformation thing and I merely pointed out THERE that you seem to have ablind spot when it comes to religion, because of your atheism. Let this go, I don't know you as I know NONE OF THE FOLKS on this board. You're words a screen to me, a disembodied intellect. I could really care less about you, so don't take our disagreemnt(s) personally.
2) I have read Clausewitz. So I think that I might comment upon him freely and profitably. You didn't finish your paragraph BTW so I can't really tell what your point was... as we say in my 12 Step Group, that's a descrition not an indictment. Review your paragraph and I think you'll see what I mean. Finish your thought, please.

[Jason Bourne]

Joe L.,

1) Jason I'm not aware of "lying about your statements."

Return to our Reformation discussion; I point out your sophistry there. Really, you lost all credibility in that debate.

...taking things as PERSONAL attacks and responding in kind.

When you lie about my positions that is a personal attack; suck up and deal with it. Accept responsibility for your actions in other words.

This seems to have begun on the Reformation thing and I merely pointed out THERE that you seem to have ablind spot when it comes to religion, because of your atheism.

Bullshit. You stated that I argued that religion had no role in historical development. I wrote nothing like that. You're a sophist; pure and simple. Furthermore, stating that because I am an atheist I cannot rationally discuss the Reformation is crap; it is as foolish as someone who states the reverse; that a Christian cannot rationally discuss the Reformation. Furthermore, you never even demonstrated that such a blindspot exists; you threw out that insult in a wholly unsubstantiated manner.

Let this go...

I'll continue to point you out as the sophist and bullshit artist that you are.

...I don't know you as I know NONE OF THE FOLKS on this board.

For someone who doesn't know me, you sure as hell are willing to make a lot of judgments about my abilities for rational discourse. Sorry, but your earlier comments put the lie to this sort of statement. You were arrogant enough to presume the exact opposite in the past in other words.

I have read Clausewitz.

Your comments put the lie to this statement as well (as I demonstrated above). What you know about Clauswitz likely comes from the few comments made about him in the movie Crimson Tide.

[Joe L.]

That's about enough from Jason... you're a boor. You apparently are much smarter than anyone else here and when questioned or challenged you take a personal offense.
Now intellectual exchange IS a personal thing, but it needn't get nasty. With us it has, don't expect too much more from me.
About your favourite word(s) Sophist and Sophistry:
1) in the words of the noted savant Iniago Montoya, "I doan t'ink that word means what you t'ink it means."; or
2)Sophist/Sophistry is your equivalent of "fascist"... to be deployed when you find something yo don't agree with. One last point, you make an ASSERTION that I am a Sophist, yet there is no evidence. So I will content myself with the simply phrase, "Nu-HUH am not, you ARE!"

[Jason Bourne]

Joe L.,

That's about enough from Jason... you're a boor.

And you're a sophist.

You apparently are much smarter than anyone else here and when questioned or challenged you take a personal offense.

More sophistry. I don't mind being questioned or challenged at all (and I have never ever stated that it did bother me - here you are again making shit up); I simply don't like lies about my statements. Get it through your fat skull.

Now intellectual exchange IS a personal thing, but it needn't get nasty.

You're the one who made it nasty.

A sophist is an individual who practices the art of making specious and fallacious reasoning; the definition fits you perfectly.

One last point, you make an ASSERTION that I am a Sophist, yet there is no evidence.

The evidence is most readily seen in our argument concerning the Reformation; your specious and fallacious reasoning was in market display there.

[Jason Bourne]

Joe L.,

The mere claim that an atheist cannot rationally discuss the Reformation is an example of sophistry (and is bigoted to boot).

[Dan]

"Military action is the best way, and in fact the only practical way, to get people who want to kill us to stop doing so."

The Soviets wanted to kill us, yet we in large measure did not use military "action" (by this one would assume that you mean offensive military strikes, etc.) to hold them at bay.

Perhaps I should have said "the military" instead of "military action". However, the person I responded to had cited "increasing our aid to countries" and "increasing our military presence around the globe" as things that clearly would NOT lead to people no longer wanting to kill us, and those are the exact techniques we used against the Soviets.

[Dan]

Dan, I think the difference is that Goering was demonstrably right and Mao was demonstrably wrong.

Quite the opposite. Mao's observation was that political power is derived from military power. That has been proven, repeatedly, to be true. It's the reason that the founders gave ultimate authority over military matters to Congress, and thus to the People.

In contrast, Goering's claim that it is a simple matter to convince the public of the need for war is obviously ridiculous -- look, for example, at pre-WW2 Britain, or pre-Gulf-War-2 Britain for that matter.

[Jason Bourne]

Dan,

Goering was even wrong with regard to his own population; German anxiety was high regarding the attack on France (largely because of the experience of WWI), and they did not go into the effort without a lot of trepidation.

Perhaps I should have said "the military" instead of "military action".

There are also sorts of non-military options open as well. The U.S. committed signicant acts of sabotage - one might even call it terrorism - against the USSR merely via its trading relationship. It would send defective equipment to the USSR that in some instances caused a hell of a lot of damage; one of these includes an explosion at an oil facility in Baku that crippled their oil production capacity in the later 1970s.

[Lowdog]

Mr Merritt -

Right on! That's exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, our interventionist policies have brought a lot of hatred our way. And libertarians do have answers as to how they would respond to an attack against us. With our military might. Can anyone honestly say that if we pulled out of all these places that no longer need our 'protection' (say, S Korea, Germany, etc) that we could not cut back our defence spending and still be the most powerful military in history by a long shot?

Please.

[Joe L.]

Lowdog,
those places you mention S. Korea and Germany, are NOT the places Libertarians complain of our interventions. Rick and the rest complain of our actions in the Mid East, sure they'd be glad for us to come home from the Bundesrepublik and S. Korea, but doing so won't make us less hated in the world. Or the degree of hatred we foster in those nations is minimal. I don't believe any of the 9/11 attackers was named Lee or Schmidt.

[Dan]

anyone honestly say that if we pulled out of all these places that no longer need our 'protection' (say, S Korea, Germany, etc) that we could not cut back our defence spending and still be the most powerful military in history by a long shot?

Bush is pulling troops out of Germany and South Korea and the "Libertarians" still hate his guts.

[Joe L.]

Well Dan, to be fair I'd say that the libertarians here would say, "Too little too late" and look at how he has boosted domestic spending.
I don't say I believe it, I'm just pointing out what they're going to say.

[Jason Bourne]

Joe L. the Sophist,

Nice strawman. You are quite adept at creating those.

Bush has boosted domestic spending. Welcome to reality.

[Kevin Hayden]

Uh, wasn't this about Hatfield?

When I consider neocon ideology, the revelations of O'Neill, Clarke, et al, Joe Wilson & Valeria Plame & yellowcake documents (that likely were round-robinned through the foreign intel loop by the neoconnies), the war profiteering, Abu Ghraib & Gitmo, and so on, Hatfield's suggesting that Bush and Kerry are miles apart on defending Americans, so much so that he can accept all the corruptions that come via Bush's associates.

Sorry, I'm afraid the old man's gone daft or else he's sold his soul on the cheapest of cheap.

[Dan]

Sorry, I'm afraid the old man's gone daft or else he's sold his soul on the cheapest of cheap.

Or he doesn't unthinkingly accept every bit of left-wing propaganga as if it were obvious truth.

[Lowdog]

Joe L,

I understand that, I'm just saying that we could pull our troops out of a lot of places, cut our military spending, and still be quite powerful...powerful enough to deal with our enemies. And yes, leaving places like Saudi Arabia would be a good idea, too.